Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[RoboTimbo]

Whatever happened to the pilot was firsthand experience ( agreed ). Which means his report is also firsthand experience.
After that it is a story repeated, probably with good consistency regarding the essential facts. You can read the story yourself in the USAF officer's own words.

In the end I readily accept that the information provided on this forum is anecdotal. But I'm not saying that I'm presenting "proof" in this discussion. I am saying that the essential information, ( In 1952 a USAF F-86 jet intercepted a flying saucer during the daytime and the pilot clearly saw it ) is believable, regardles of it being anecdotal. Did I forget to mention the pilot also fired on it with his guns?

Here's a picture of an F-86:


[qimg]http://ufopages.com/Reference/Graphics/F86-01a.png[/qimg]


Cool little jet for them days ...

j.r.

It could be that he had a floater in his eye or a bug in the cockpit.

 

[John Albert]

Whatever happened to the pilot was firsthand experience ( agreed ). Which means his report is also firsthand experience.
After that it is a story repeated, probably with good consistency regarding the essential facts. You can read the story yourself in the USAF officer's own words.

A report is not synonymous with experience. A report is an anecdote based on firsthand experience.

We're supposed to be practicing critical thinking, remember? Critical thinking involves specificity and clarity of language, and the use of logic and reason to establish strict standards of proof before accepting any particular belief as true.

Conflating firsthand experience with a verbal or written report describing that experience is sloppy, illogical thinking.

In the end I readily accept that the information provided on this forum is anecdotal. But I'm not saying that I'm presenting "proof" in this discussion.

Then you should go change the title of this thread right now, because you're not engaging in the practice of critical thinking.

I am saying that the essential information, ( In 1952 a USAF F-86 jet intercepted a flying saucer during the daytime and the pilot clearly saw it ) is believable, regardles of it being anecdotal. Did I forget to mention the pilot also fired on it with his guns?

Yes, it's anecdotal. There are also plenty of reasons why a human being with fallible perceptions and reasoning (especially when flying at altitude in a very fast, maneuverable fighter jet while wearing a pressurized suit) might tell such a story, even if it didn't really happen. Again, believing a story of something so extraordinary as gospel truth without any material proof to corroborate it, is not critical thinking.

Here's a picture of an F-86:

Cool little jet for them days ...

Agreed. I love the look of those old fighter jets.

 

[John Albert]

It could be that he had a floater in his eye or a bug in the cockpit.

Or he might have even suffered a momentary shortage of blood to his brain.

 

[John Albert]

Note that I'm not saying it's certain that any of these things is true, only that they are well-established phenomena that have been scientifically proven to happen, whereas paranormal aircraft have not.

Sorry for the multiple post. I tried to edit my previous post and ended up quoting another post instead.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Ruppelt himself saw the entire report firsthand and made notes directly from it. Ruppelt as you know was head of the USAF investigative team at the time, not some quack. Here are his own thoughts and what what happened to the firsthand report.

This is not accurate. First of all, Ruppelt was part of the AF when he saw this report. He did not take any notes (and probably was not authorized to do so if the report was classified in any way) as if he were writing a book and makes no statement that he took notes. His notes were given to UFOlogists back in the 1990s and no such notes were present. He wrote the book years after this incident so what he wrote was based on his memory of what the report said. He also read the report as written by the intelligence officer who debriefed the pilot. As I stated, we have the pilot telling his story to the intelligence officer, who wrote the report that Ruppelt read. Ruppelt, several years later, wrote about the report he read (which is probably why he did not give an exact date or location), which introduces some doubt into the accuracy of his memory. I have no doubt the incident happened but the incident may not have been exactly as described.

Edit: The question about the accuracy is why I consider it a 'so what' report. There are details missing that prevent any critical evaluation of the event.

PS. I prefer the F2 Banshees over the sabre jet. They were the real workhorses of the US carrier fleet during the Korean war (that and the F-9 Panthers). Not as sleek but capable of carrying quite a payload and offensive punch. My dad worked on them while he was stationed on the USS Lake Champlain.

 

[mike3]

Whatever happened to the pilot was firsthand experience ( agreed ).

Good. One point agreed...

Which means his report is also firsthand experience.

WRONG! The REPORT is a REPORT of firsthand experience. It itself is NOT firsthand experience. What you have said is equivalent to saying that if I read someone's account of their experiences, it is essentially the same as if I experienced them myself! ABSURD!

After that it is a story repeated, probably with good consistency regarding the essential facts. You can read the story yourself in the USAF officer's own words.

"Probably"... evidence?

In the end I readily accept that the information provided on this forum is anecdotal. But I'm not saying that I'm presenting "proof" in this discussion.

Anecdotes aren't even evidence.

I am saying that the essential information, ( In 1952 a USAF F-86 jet intercepted a flying saucer during the daytime and the pilot clearly saw it ) is believable, regardles of it being anecdotal. Did I forget to mention the pilot also fired on it with his guns?

Irrelevant, unless he actually shot it down so we can examine it.

 

[Stray Cat]

Since you don't see them as nitpicky ... you have changed the parameters of your initial objection. Which was "there is no sich thing as unmistakeable conditions", by adding further conditions in an attempt to reinforce your position. To Quote:

Chopping up what I said and then misrepresenting it is dishonest. You asked for clarification here:

I am using the phrase synonymously with "beyond any reasonable doubt". I will permit you to retract your conclusive statement that there is "no such thing", if you can be more precise in your context. Otherwise, you are aware from our previous exchanges that I always deal in terms of what is reasonable, unlike the skeptics here who constantly nitpick at the details.

So I gave it.

I maintain that there is no such thing as unmistakable conditions.

If you fail to understand why I said it, just ask, but I think you already know, because I've already explained it.
You can not say with any sort of guarantee that 'conditions are unmistakeable'. Without first knowing exactly what those conditions are. Something which you can not tell from a story that someone told.

So we know that mistakes are made in every area of life under every circumstance in all conditions (unless you can suggest somewhere that is so perfect mistakes never happen). I ask (hoping for a reasoned answer this time) how does your subjective judgement of 'conditions' rule out the possibility that the pilot was mistaken? Especially when all you have to go on is a story with nothing to verify it against.

But even if we let that issue go a little and focus briefly on the other points. Pilots do have their ability to function under stress tested, and while under stress, and regularly, and there was a follow up investigation. The pilot was not relieved of duty for any misconduct or physical or mental or emotional problems.

Or so the story says.
Without seeing his service record, we can not verify that can we?
And as we don't even know his name, that's hardly likely to happen.
Again critical thinking goes out the window in favour of assumption based on a story about someone who is credible because they wear a uniform.

And still you haven't demonstrated that he (or anyone in a uniform) is immune from misperception/human fallibility yet...

Returning to the point about anedotes in medical case studies being "a whole other kettle of fish". This assertion is nothing more than a dodge. My response was to a post that contended that all anecdotal evidence is useless. Clearly it's not, so now you seek to change the parameters. GeeMack had a term for it ... The No True Scotsman tactic.

Oh dear...

What I was responding to was this:

I've also pointed out the value of quality anecdotal evidence in the pursuit of science ( medical case studies ),

Which is you moving the goalposts, because you are wanting to shoehorn UFO stories into the same box as carefully controlled, double blinded tests done by scientists. Which as has been pointed out to you, are still (on their own) completely useless to medicine. Their value is attained through the rigorous process that any clinical trial has to go through... Even then, mistakes are sometimes made because even in such a closely controlled environment where things are double and triple checked, human fallibility is still present.

But getting back to it, I responded:

Which as has been pointed out is a completely different kettle of fish.

Which it is for the reasons already explained.

 

[Stray Cat]

So in the 'Critical Thinking in Ufology' thread, we have:

Redefined the word: anecdote
Learned that people who wear uniforms are reliable and credible
And heard two unverifiable stories, one about a real estate salesman who had a UFO experience that sounds remarkably like that of Lonnie Zamora and another about a pilot who saw something and shot at it.

We've done the Ufology part... When do we get to the critical thinking part?, we're seven pages in already.

 

[ufology]

"You can't prove it wasn't, therefore it was," is an argument from ignorance. Look it up.

This entire incident can be reasonably explained by a simple case of misidentification, a.k.a. human error on the part of one or more individuals. There's no compelling reason to jump to the conclusion of paranormal aircraft.

Nobody is jumping to conclusions ( at least I'm not ). I am stating that it is more reasonable to believe that the pilot saw exactly what he described than it is not to.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

I have an idea. Before we can begin discussing the application of critical thinking to the study of UFOs, wouldn't it make sense to first establish exactly what we mean by the term "critical thinking?"

Instead of just bickering over this anecdote or that report, or whether anecdotal evidence even ought to be allowed as proof of the paranormal, why don't we first address head-on the concept of critical thinking as it relates to the study of physical (real-world) phenomena?

Reading this thread might be a good place to start. Though a few years old, it's relatively short at this point in time (only 3 pages) and there's some good discussion in there regarding what constitutes the "critical" part of critical thinking.

As I see it, there are at least 3 criteria that must be established before this discussion can proceed:

• The role of informal logic as agreeable rules for regulating discussion

• The role of scientifically-verified information as an established baseline for judging the relative plausibility of hypotheses

• The relative merits, shortcomings, and effectiveness of various kinds of evidence

What do you all think?

Should we try this logical, reasonable approach, or just keep on quarreling back and forth?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Rramjet]

The USAF, Hendry and Hynek? If you can’t trust any of them to produce accurate stats, then you will trust no-one at all. The USAF is purportedly neutral, Hendry is a confirmed debunker of some standing, and Hynek a noted scientist. Its good to be critically minded, but as cynical as you are..?

Not cynical, sceptical. I don't take contentions at face value, and I generally ignore misleading appeals to authority.

I'm sorry, but calling somebody a "noted scientist" just doesn't cut it. He may be a revered scientist in UFO enthusiast circles for lending an air of legitimacy to their beliefs, but that means nothing to me personally.

The point was that three independent lines of research have concluded that the incidence of hoax and psychological causes for UFO reports are between 1-2%. That is the evidence I am presenting for my claim that the hoax/psychological aspect of UFO reports are generally insignificant.

You may, in support of your contention that such does not represent the true figure, provide alternate evidence to support your own contention in that regard, but the mere assertion that you don’t believe the statistic (while obfuscating the issue with false appeals to logic) is unfounded - and of course may be dismissed as such.

I suspect the real percentage of hoaxes and lies is probably much higher

You suspect? You either have the evidence to support that assertion (as I clearly have for my own) or you do not. Time to put up or shut up JA.

Your first problem is your total, blind acceptance of all UFO testimonials as gospel truth. This problem is endemic to all promoters of pseudoscience: lots of tall tales with nothing material to back them up. No matter how many anecdotes you have, that doesn't change the fact that mere stories are inadequate to prove something for which no material evidence exists.

Obviously then you missed this:

Luckily we have the science of psychology to guide us. The study of perception and the factors that lead us into misperception of why people deceive and in what contexts is well documented. We can use that knowledge to assess anecdotal evidence.

(...)

The art of critical thinking and critical analysis is in being able to draw on the reserves of established knowledge in order to make critical assessments

..and this:

”The expression anecdotal evidence refers to the use of particular instances or concrete examples to support a general claim. Such information (sometimes referred to pejoratively as "hearsay") may be compelling but does not, in itself, provide proof.” (http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/anecdoteterm.htm)​

” Despite its limitations, anecdotal evidence is important in some areas of research, such as case study research, where the emphasis might be on learning as much as you can about a specific situation and you have to depend on a person's own experience for information/data. Even in areas where anecdotal evidence is not considered valid or reliable for the type of study that you want to conduct, it can strongly suggest lines of research.” (http://www.uow.edu.au/student/attributes/statlit/modules/module1/anecdotal.html)​

…and this:

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

Regarding my falsifiable null hypothesis:

The statistics on hoaxing (delusion, etc) are insignificant (<1%). So that will not really be a factor in any analysis.

The contention is that, as the debunkers believe that UFO reports are simply the result of misidentifications of mundane objects, then there will be no difference between those reports that have been determined to have a mundane explanation and those that have not (if they are all mundane objects anyway then their characteristics across all reports will not vary significantly between the categories).

It is a simple, falsifiable null hypothesis designed to test a principal (core) belief of the debunkers.

Frankly, if the debunkers are so sure of their beliefs, then I cannot see what the objection to testing their beliefs in a controlled, scientific manner could possibly be.

You stated:

It does matter because for one thing, your hypothesis operates on a general assumption that is probably very wrong. You have no firm basis to make any assumptions about the proportion of sightings that could be hoaxes, lies, hallucinations, and other kinds of confabulations.

Once again, I have provided direct evidence for the assumption that such plays an insignificant role. Unless you have evidence that would suggest otherwise, you simply haven’t a leg to stand on. Your assertions here can then be dismissed for what they are - unfounded.

I can't believe you're incapable of seeing the humongous flaws in this approach of yours. The whole premise is very poorly reasoned and wouldn't prove anything either way.

You may persist in putting forward those unfounded assertions if you like – but the mere statement of them will not somehow magically confer veracity on them.

Somebody help me out here. How do I explain to this guy that his proposed meta-analysis of UFO data is totally irrelevant to the question of whether UFOs are real?

Well, here’s a tip for you …You can support that unfounded assertion with ether logic or evidence. Nothing else will suffice.


Just as you have done in not accepting an alternate interpretation such as a lack of knowledge in the application of critical thinking – as opposed to your “wilful refusal” to consider alternates …perchance?

As I said, I was specifically talking about people who are given every possible opportunity to fill the gaps in their knowledge and understanding about these things and deliberately choose not to.

Just as I have given you every opportunity to do the same in relation to the above statement of mine – but you seem to have deliberately chosen not to?

So then any investigation would set out to determine if your hypothesis was true. An investigator would interview friends and colleagues, they would look at past behaviours and any biographical information that may shed light on the type of character.

Yes that is precisely the sort of further information I mean, which would lead me to reconsider whether to take this particular anecdote seriously. Obviously I'm not in a position to gather that further information myself and, as the person who relayed this second-hand anecdote doesn't have it either, I continue to maintain that the most likely explanation is that the guy was pulling his leg.

That is unfortunately not critical thinking. There is no way, based on a mere anecdote, that you can determine the likelihood of the claimant or the relater of the tale being involved in a hoax. All you can say is that the possibility of a hoax does exist, but you cannot conclude anything about the likelihood of it being a hoax. I place one caveat on that statement: Given that the evidence indicates the incidence of “hoax” in general UFO reporting (despite the debunkers determined efforts) is actually quite insignificant (1-2%), then, if you were going to conclude anything at all based on likelihoods, it should be that it is not a hoax.

You CANNOT from their interpretation say whether it was a real visual stimulus (drug, hallucinations, day dreams, fertile imagination, or just plain short misinterpretation of the brain, optical illusion), you cannot say from the story that it was a real object or improperly non-recognized (fata morgana, misinterpretation of a known satellite, planetoid, comet, weather phenomena, real KNOWN flying object not just to the witness etc...), and sadly, even if you somehow jump to the conclusion that there was really an UFO in the sense that nobody on earth would be able to say it is a known object, you CANNOT jump to the conclusion that this was an alien space craft (it could be a natural phenomenon, it could be Planewalker from the Prime plane on its way to Sigil, it could be a ghost, a god, an angel, a faery, and i pass many others).

There is pretty much nothing you can conclude from it.

Please think about what you have stated there for a minute. If your contentions were true, then we could not conclude anything from UFO reports – not even that they are misidentified mundane objects – yet I am sure you would agree that a large percentage of UFO reports do end up being explained in mundane terms. The information content must be considered sufficiently reliable for such conclusions to be reached - so you cannot have it both ways – you cannot say the information content is reliable enough to conclude mundane explanations, but not reliable enough to conclude there is no mundane explanation (we are not in this thread contending ET IS the explanation – just that, given the evidence, it does seem to be a plausible alternative – but of course looks can be deceiving).

 

[Stray Cat]

What do you all think?

Count me in.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What do you all think?

Good by me.

 

[John Albert]

User athon made a valid and relevant starting point for understanding the critical thinking process in this post on the first page of that thread:

Thinking is a process. It relies on taking information in, basically relating it to what you already know and either (a) incorporating the information into an existing framework, (b) rejecting the information, or (c) adjusting the framework (I've simplified it down somewhat - I've got a fantastic paper on how people deal with anomalous information which deals with this much better than I could in a short post).

People accomplish this process in different ways. However, all people evaluate information against a schema they have. Being human, we tend to consider new information in association with social cues - for example, if a number of people in our social group accept it, it's easier for the individual to embrace it as well. Or if an individual who is socially close to us provides the information, again we'll embrace it far more readily.

That is still thinking.

Critical thinking evolves evaluating information using other cues, such as not whether the source is a member of our social group but rather what value the source has in the information being correct. It also involves starting with more of a null hypothesis - there is an innate tendency for people to more readily accept what they have to contemplate over rejecting it.

Some things demand efficient critical thinking. Other things matter less. However, critical thinking is not just 'thinking'. I could think about what my friend tells me regarding a UFO stealing his pet pig, evaluate the information based on the fact he's my friend and I trust he wouldn't lie to me. I've therefore used evidence to weigh my decision to accept this belief. The fact that the evidence used is weak is a matter of not applying critical thinking, which embodies the ability to weigh evidence.

...

I'll see if I can restate it - critical thinking involves how somebody evaluates information for its worthiness. If I'm given information by a source, I can trust it simply because I reason that I like the way the source phrased it using jargon (not critical) or I can consider the fact I know little about the material and, until I learn more, the information has low potential value to me (critical).

 

[Stray Cat]

if you were going to conclude anything at all based on likelihoods, it should be that it is not a hoax.

Maybe the assumed conclusion isn't formed from the actual information within the story (that sound remarkably similar to that of Lonnie Zamora), but more based upon the 'Urban Myth' type telling of the story.

Besides just because one thinks it is highly likely to be nothing more than a made up story, doesn't rule out the possibility of some actual evidence turning up at some point (don't hold your breath), allowing one to change ones mind.

you cannot say the information content is reliable enough to conclude mundane explanations, but not reliable enough to conclude there is no mundane explanation.

Nonsense... You need much less information to conclude that it may have been something mundane, than you would need to conclude it couldn't possibly be mundane. How do you rule out everything... even things you may not have thought of? (remembering that you have already failed the 'process of elimination' test.

 

[ufology]

This is not accurate. First of all, Ruppelt was part of the AF when he saw this report. He did not take any notes (and probably was not authorized to do so if the report was classified in any way) as if he were writing a book and makes no statement that he took notes. His notes were given to UFOlogists back in the 1990s and no such notes were present. He wrote the book years after this incident so what he wrote was based on his memory of what the report said. He also read the report as written by the intelligence officer who debriefed the pilot. As I stated, we have the pilot telling his story to the intelligence officer, who wrote the report that Ruppelt read. Ruppelt, several years later, wrote about the report he read (which is probably why he did not give an exact date or location), which introduces some doubt into the accuracy of his memory. I have no doubt the incident happened but the incident may not have been exactly as described.

Edit: The question about the accuracy is why I consider it a 'so what' report. There are details missing that prevent any critical evaluation of the event.

PS. I prefer the F2 Banshees over the sabre jet. They were the real workhorses of the US carrier fleet during the Korean war (that and the F-9 Panthers). Not as sleek but capable of carrying quite a payload and offensive punch. My dad worked on them while he was stationed on the USS Lake Champlain.

This is a good response Astro. It hones in on some possible assumptions on my part ( like Ruppelt's note taking ). My assumptions are based on the following:

Ruppelt would have had to prepare something with respect to his visit to the base. After all, he was picked up in a military jet and flown there on official investigative business. Therefore it is very doubtful that he would not have included the incident in his logs, which typically include notes. Such logs are just part of the job, and because this was the most "fascinating sighting he'd ever seen", it's even more doubtful he would not have taken notes. He would also have been entitled to make notes because he himself had no orders that he could not. He had a Top Secret clearance and was supposed to have the cooperation of all command levels. He could have made a stink about it not being forwarded to him. Why he didn't I don't know. I also doubt the missing names and places were lapses in memory because he says he visited the base frequently and was restricted as to what he could say

To quote:

"This policy of not identifying the "source," to borrow a term from military intelligence, is insisted on by the Air Force so that the people who have co-operated with them will not get any unwanted publicity. Names are considered to be "classified information."
But the greatest care has been taken to make sure that the omission of names and changes in locale has in no way altered the basic facts because this report is based on the facts -- all of the facts -- nothing of significance has been left out." ( underscores mine )

================

There is a fighter base in the United States which I used to visit frequently because, during 1951, 1952, and 1953, it got more than its share of good UFO reports.
The commanding officer of the fighter group, a full colonel and command pilot, believed that UFO's were real. The colonel believed in UFO's because he had a lot of faith in his pilots -- and they had chased UFO's in their F-86's. He had seen UFO's on the scopes of his radar sets, and he knew radar.

================

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is a good response Astro. It hones in on some possible assumptions on my part ( like Ruppelt's note taking ). My assumptions are based on the following:

Ruppelt would have had to prepare something with respect to his visit to the base. After all, he was picked up in a military jet and flown there on official investigative business. Therefore it is very doubtful that he would not have included the incident in his logs and made notes. He would also have been entitled to make notes because he himself had no orders that he could not. He had a Top Secret clearance and was supposed to have the cooperation of all command levels. He could have made a stink about it not being forwarded to him. Why he didn't I don't know. I also doubt the missing names and places were lapses in memory because he says he visited the base frequently and was restricted as to what he could say

To quote:

"This policy of not identifying the "source," to borrow a term from military intelligence, is insisted on by the Air Force so that the people who have co-operated with them will not get any unwanted publicity. Names are considered to be "classified information."
But the greatest care has been taken to make sure that the omission of names and changes in locale has in no way altered the basic facts because this report is based on the facts -- all of the facts -- nothing of significance has been left out." ( underscores mine )

================

There is a fighter base in the United States which I used to visit frequently because, during 1951, 1952, and 1953, it got more than its share of good UFO reports.
The commanding officer of the fighter group, a full colonel and command pilot, believed that UFO's were real. The colonel believed in UFO's because he had a lot of faith in his pilots -- and they had chased UFO's in their F-86's. He had seen UFO's on the scopes of his radar sets, and he knew radar.

================

j.r.

He could have had a floater in his eye or it could have been a bug or other debris in the cockpit.

 

[Stray Cat]

For me, critical thinking embodies taking in and processing information with no emotional investment. Not being sentimental about old ideas that have been shown to be false and accepting ideas that I don't necessarily like based upon their factual accuracy.

 

[Stray Cat]

The commanding officer of the fighter group, a full colonel and command pilot, believed that UFO's were real. The colonel believed in UFO's because he had a lot of faith in his pilots -- and they had chased UFO's in their F-86's. He had seen UFO's on the scopes of his radar sets, and he knew radar.

No one is disputing the existence of UFOs.