Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Akhenaten]

Is this better?

Scallywag.

 

[GeeMack]

Well that last flame at least had more than two syllables. You're getting better overall, but you should really take a few hints from GeeMack over there who is more succinct.

Why thank you. I find that indulging the various kooks who come to these forums only tends to validate their fantasies. Taking a drawn out approach to pointing out their lies, logical fallacies, and ignorance seems to make them believe there's some substance to their nonsensical arguments. Part of what the JREF is about is teaching critical thinking. There is none of it in the arguments of the "ufologists".

Although playing what-if with people arguing to cling to their delusions is usually folly, some people have fun with it. You do realize these other skeptics recognize your arguments are pretty much based on nothing but logical fallacies, ignorance, and lies too, don't you? They're not chatting with you as if you're making a compelling argument in favor of the aliens you believe in. You're not. I happen to prefer cutting to the chase.

Occasionally the "psychics", aliens believers, psi-ball tossers, and various crackpots and deluded souls do recognize their failure to even understand what critical thinking is. On rare occasion, if they can get past the fact that it requires ignorance and dishonesty to build what they mistakenly believe is a sound argument and if they can understand what objective really means, they may begin to apply critical thinking to their nutty notions. And on those rare occasions, the purpose of the JREF is well served.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I would like to add some comments to one of ufology’s posts:

I hope they involve critical thinking.

I would add that when no plausible mundane explanations are apparent, and despite a concerted research effort, if a UFO report remains to defy plausible mundane explanation (meaning its characteristics are that of no known mundane object) then the only way to move forward is to hypothesise (or even speculate) about other plausible explanations – and of course ET just happens to be one of those alternatives.

No, that didn't involve critical thinking at all. This is such a hopelessly failed meme that I'm surprised that even a pseudoscientist would continue to repeat it.

We have the anecdotal multiple eyewitness accounts of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, the intelligent control and the associated beings. We have the fact that science does not rule out potential ET visitation. We have the radar, film and photograph and physical trace evidence. It is this type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal phenomena.

No again, not a drop of critical thinking in that. And you've forgotten FLIR again. LOL! This is another of your failed pseudoscientific memes. The process of elimination has ruled out plausible non-mundane explanations leaving only "mundane".

Indeed, there is plenty of evidence, but as the quality of that evidence is contentious, it cannot constitute “proof”. UFOs simply have not been fully explained. No single explanation has been able to explain the full range of the evidence. I believe UFOs to be caused by a range of phenomena, rather than a single phenomenon.

I'll give you half credit for that. UFOs are caused by a range of phenomena, it's just that your pet one hasn't been shown to have been included.

It is a matter of evidence. We simply don’t have the same amount or level of evidence for the (mythological) things you mention than we have for UFOs. If we did have that level of evidence, then reports of the (mythological) things you mention would be just as persistent and prevalent as UFO reports – yet they are demonstrably not.

Nope, back to failing at critical thinking. We have exactly or better evidence. I notice that you failed to address the evidence for Santa Claus I posted HERE. It was a response to another of your uncritically thought out posts. I can only assume that you had no good answer for it.

Ah yes, Occam's Razor. The following is drawn from “What is Occam's Razor?” (http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/General/occam.html):

"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. "

Forms stronger than Occam intended include:

"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along" or "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations" or "If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest" or "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. "

Excellent. Full credit. Don't foul it up by bastardizing it later.

So what are we supposed to be applying Occam’s razor to?

” This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle, who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible." Aristotle went too far in believing that experiment and observation were unnecessary. The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule of thumb, but some people quote it as if it were an axiom of physics, which it is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/General/occam.html)​

Very good. Now, when you start using critical thinking rather than wishing, you see why ET is not a plausible hypothesis.

Indeed, cultural influence inevitable colours our perceptions of the world. Our perceptions of the world around us is largely a learned skill. Culture drives consensus realities – hence also scientific consensus. The influence of culture cannot be neglected.


First, the evidence shows that:





Second, what is the likelihood of ET visiting earth? It is an complete unknown. Therefore you cannot say ET visitation is more or less likely than anything - except perhaps something that has been definitively proved – and in the case under discussion, hoaxes, etc have been shown to play a relatively insignificant role (1-2%), so if we are talking likelihoods, they are not likely at all.

And back to setting aside any semblance of critical thinking. No, ET has not been shown to have visited the earth. When it has, then we can add that to our list of explanations. Until then, it's the realm of pseudoscience, but you should be well positioned to know that!

“Tall tales”? They are anecdotes.

The difference between UFO anecdotes and anecdotes relating to the (mythological) things you mention is the level of evidence we have in support of UFO anecdotes that we simply don’t have for those other (mythological) things. Specifically the multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

You're giving critical thinking quite the black eye today. No, we have equal or better evidence for those other things which you have close-mindedly called mythology. When you can answer (without hypocrisy and with the same level of critical thinking you apply to UFOs as pseudoaliens) my post about Santa Claus, I think you'll realize how little critical thinking you do apply.

Moreover:

“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)​

Not a skerrick of critical thinking there. You simply want all of your pseudoscientific anecdotes to add up to evidence for pseudoaliens and they don't. It's pseudoscience and it isn't critical thinking.

Historical reports do exist. For example:

” On July 3, 1893 several fishermen were awakened in the middle of the night by the presence of a strange craft that they described as an "electric monster." Their watches stopped and the craft/monster emitted electricity and light. The craft also made a loud sound. Two men were knocked unconscious in the encounter. The rest of the party fled in terror. They returned and found their two unconscious friends who were revived. Apparently the two men suffered no permanent injuries. This is the first known documented encounter with a UFO in the Pacific Northwest. You may download a copy of the actual article as it appeared in the Tacoma Daily Ledger Newspaper by clicking here (http://www.ufosnw.com/documents/electricmonst/electricmonstnew.pdf) (PDF 930K). (http://www.ufosnw.com/history.htm)​

Possibly ball lightning. Possibly not. There is no way to falsify an anecdote. You would agree that a pseudoscientist would hang his hat on anecdotes because he lacks critical thinking skills.

Critically, it must also be noted that the “mass media” did not really get going until the 1950s – and that I believe played a big role in the ability of UFO sightings to not only become documented, but also to reach public consciousness.

Only half credit again. You said the word "critically" but left out the word "minded".

Also:

Very uncritically minded. There was no link to the documentation that was claimed.

You post gets a failing grade at critical thinking.

 

[RoboTimbo]

... and that you most cerytainly did. Good additional point on the growing prevalence of mass media with respect to the UFO phenomenon. Another point that I think deserves further attention is this constant touting of Occam's Razor as the most probable answer.

You displayed no critical thinking here. Occam's Razor is not an answer.

It seems to me that what we're seeing when the skeptics put it forth is their own bias about what is "simplest". In normal science Occam's Razor is reasonable because there is a controlled set of circumstances with known limits of complexity. For example there is no need to assume a supernatural explanation for why one plant might grow faster than another. They're just plants in soil with measurable properties and conditions.

Pseudoscientific fail. Invoking Occam's Razor when you don't understand it has not ended well for you any other time and this is no different. Rramjet at least seems to understand it. He stands it in the corner and hangs a cloth over it because he understands it.

On the other hand, with UFOs, we don't know for sure what we are dealing with. There is no way to guage what the simplest thing is for them. Therefore Occam's razor shouldn't even be used as a guage in the first place, but if we are to use it, we must admit that because we don't know all the limiting factors, it is entirely possible that it is really easy for them to travel interstellar distances.

You are following that pseudoscientific bit of fail down the rabbit hole at jackrabbit speed. Particular fail 1: we shouldn't use Occam's Razor (which you don't understand), Particular fail 2: entirely possible that [entities which we don't know exist] coule really easily travel interstellar distances [using technology we don't know exists]. Those are both pseudoscientific drivel. Who has been teaching you this garbage?

For example if an Aborigine who's never seen a jetliner and knows nothing of modern civilzation were to apply Occam's Razor to his jetliner sighting, he'd have to conclude that it must be a giant bird. After all, it would take magic or enginuity beyond all reason to create such a thing ... and for what possible purpose? Yet we do it every day thousands of times a day and think nothing of it. To us the simplest answer is "it's an airplane" So ...

The failed mark of the pseudoscientist, invoking Aborigines. You have displayed no critical thinking with that paragraph. Go learn about Occam's Razor. "We have airplanes which Aborigines wouldn't understand, therefore aliens." is no way to go through life, son.

A. Just because it's hard for us doesn't mean it's hard for them. Therefore it is entirely possible that the simplest answer is alien visitation.

You get a zero for critical thinking here. You've posited your conclusion and then imagine the tremendous powers they could possibly have. Just imagine if pigs had wings.

The second way Occam's Razor is missapplied to ufology is that it is preumed to mean the simplest answer is the best answer. This is actually a false interpretation. Rather, it is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

You would have gotten half credit for that one except for the remark that Occam's Razor is misapplied. You get a zero for critical thinking on this.

In ufology, Occam's Razor has been constantly applied through the process of eliminating possible explanations because their explanatory power is insufficient to account for the phenomenon. So ...

I'm going to have to subtract points from you for this. Which is unfortunate because you were riding a zero the whole way so now you're in the negatives. Pseudoscientific UFOlogists don't apply Occam's Razor at all, as you've illustrated. They start with their conclusion and by "eliminating all plausible mundane explanations" the only answer left is (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) their pre-determined conclusion.

B. Occam's Razor has been and is consistently applied by conscientious ufologists and investigators to rule out known natural and manmade explanations. Once those are ruled out, alien technology does offer increased explanatory power, and since A. ( above ) also allows it to be the simplest answer, it is entirely reasonable to suggest it as a hypothesis for UFOs.

j.r.

I'm subtracting points again for your wilful use of pseudoscience. Go look up Occam's Razor. Practice with it a few times on The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, elves, fairies, and any other things that you haven't already concluded exist.


I'm really glad you started this thread.

 

[ufology]

All this time and you still don't recognise a description of a squid fishing boat?

Ezekiel 1 is going to give you untold trouble.

Love the avatar spoof ... that's really unambiguous for sure ... pretty cool in a retro-comic kind of way ... good laugh here for sure ... a subtle slam and with class ... I didn't think you had it in you ... best you've done yet!

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

All this time and you still don't recognise a description of a squid fishing boat?

Ezekiel 1 is going to give you untold trouble.

Love the avatar spoof ... that's really unambiguous for sure ... pretty cool in a retro-comic kind of way ... good laugh here for sure ... a subtle slam and with class ... I didn't think you had it in you ... best you've done yet!

j.r.

What does this have to do with the post of mine that you've quoted?

And you should read the thread before you start punching out snappy responses lest you embarrass yourself by crediting the wrong people for things.

Proper critical thinking requires that one endeavors to be in possession of as much information as possible before attempting to reach a conclusion.

 

[R.A.F.]

...the USI logo you posted is copyrighted. Don't use it again without permission.

What hubris to think anyone would be interested in it...and lets say he does use it without permission, what are you going to do, sue???

Your posts are getting funnier and funnier...but still no evidence of alien visitors...

 

[ufology]

Go look up Occam's Razor. Practice with it a few times on The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, elves, fairies, and any other things that you haven't already concluded exist.


I'm really glad you started this thread.

I've know about Occam's Razor for a long time, your purposeful dismissal of illustrative examples leads you to misunderstand, therefore the rest of your presumptions are unwarranted. And since you need some quotes, we'll back it up here and add a few more tidbits from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:

Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.

========= end quote ========

So if you are advocating Occam's Razor, as you can see from the above, it is not a scientific result ...only a guide. Therefore your use of it to draw conclusions isn't scientific and fits your definition of pseudoscience. However me being the reasonable one here, I accept that it has pragmatic value under certain conditions. What might those conditions be?

Wikipedia:

Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data.

Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available. Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles.

========= end quote ========

As we can see from above it is intended to be used as a guide in science that deals with empirical evidence and controlled conditions, but it has problems outside that. The Aboriginal sighting of a jetliner analogy I used is an illustrative example of the above logic that is perfectly in keeping with the scientific spirit of Occam's Razor. For modern society, alien visitation is the next logical assumption based on the available data, not something preposterous as skeptics so flippantly assert by making ridiculous comparisons to "flying spaghetti monsters" and other sunch nonsense. But is there more to consider? Certainly ...

Wikipedia:

The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice.”

========= end quote ========

This "mirior of prejudice" can be as detrimental to the skeptic as it is to the so-called "believer, however because its basic premise is toward the simplistic ( which as shown above is often false in reality ), it is naturally weighted to favor skeptical prejudice for simplistic answers. But wait there is still more ...

WIkipedia:

However, on many occasions Occam's razor has stifled or delayed scientific progress. For example, appeals to simplicity were used to deny the phenomena of meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, and reverse transcriptase ...

========= end quote ========

By now it should have become clear that I have a perfectly clear understanding of Occam's Razor compared to the simplistic view offered by so many skeptics. There is even more to be had ... further examples of false reliance on Occam's Razor ... but I've done enough of your ( skeptics ) homework for you now ...


j.r.

 

[ufology]

Why thank you. I find that indulging the various kooks who come to these forums only tends to validate their fantasies ...

... On rare occasion, if they can get past the fact that it requires ignorance and dishonesty to build what they mistakenly believe is a sound argument and if they can understand what objective really means, they may begin to apply critical thinking to their nutty notions. And on those rare occasions, the purpose of the JREF is well served.

You know ... that almost sounds reasonable ... except the kooks part and lumping in all ufologists in with it ... sure dishonesty is a bad thing, and I'm fine with seeing that exposed ... I want it rooted out as much as you do.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

By now it should have become clear that I have a perfectly clear understanding of Occam's Razor compared to the simplistic view offered by so many skeptics.

About all that's clear is that you sorta know how to copypaste great slabs of text out of Wikipedia that you think support your position and make you look conversant with the material, but between the quotes not actually supporting your flying saucery and the dog's breakfast style of presentation you've failed to achieve much of anything.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've know about Occam's Razor for a long time, your purposeful dismissal of illustrative examples leads you to misunderstand, therefore the rest of your presumptions are unwarranted. And since you need some quotes, we'll back it up here and add a few more tidbits from Wikipedia:

I've no doubt you've known about it for as long as you've been misusing it. I'll simplify for you because I don't think you'd ever get it on your own. Which is the assumption that you're positing which makes your hypothesis not likely to be the correct one?

Wikipedia:

Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.

========= end quote ========

So if you are advocating Occam's Razor, as you can see from the above, it is not a scientific result ...only a guide. Therefore your use of it to draw conclusions isn't scientific and fits your definition of pseudoscience. However me being the reasonable one here, I accept that it has pragmatic value under certain conditions. What might those conditions be?

Your assertion that I'm drawing a conclusion is mistaken. Why would you NOT advocate using Occam's Razor when studying UFOs? Well, never mind, I already know the answer even if you won't admit it.

Wikipedia:

Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data.

Therefore aliens. Nope, that's pseudoscience, not critical thinking.

Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available. Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles.

Therefore pseudoaliens. Nope, still pseudoscience and not critical thinking.

========= end quote ========

As we can see from above it is intended to be used as a guide in science that deals with empirical evidence and controlled conditions, but it has problems outside that. The Aboriginal sighting of a jetliner analogy I used is an illustrative example of the above logic that is perfectly in keeping with the scientific spirit of Occam's Razor. For modern society, alien visitation is the next logical assumption based on the available data, not something preposterous as skeptics so flippantly assert by making ridiculous comparisons to "flying spaghetti monsters" and other sunch nonsense. But is there more to consider? Certainly ...

Exactly! Now that you dismiss out of hand the things which you haven't already concluded that they exist, try applying Occam's Razor to your pseudoaliens.

Wikipedia:

The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice.”

========= end quote ========

Exactly again! Your world view includes aliens visiting the earth without any evicence for it. That is the extra unnecessary entity that you are adding with no good reason.

This "mirior of prejudice" can be as detrimental to the skeptic as it is to the so-called "believer, however because its basic premise is toward the simplistic ( which as shown above is often false in reality ), it is naturally weighted to favor skeptical prejudice for simplistic answers. But wait there is still more ...

You're straying pretty far from critical thinking again. You're reaching for excuses to wedge in your pseudoaliens. Start simpler and think critically. This thread was your idea, after all.

WIkipedia:

However, on many occasions Occam's razor has stifled or delayed scientific progress. For example, appeals to simplicity were used to deny the phenomena of meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, and reverse transcriptase ...

========= end quote ========

On one occasion, the lack of applying Occam's Razor has caused an entirely new pseudoscience, UFOlogy.

By now it should have become clear that I have a perfectly clear understanding of Occam's Razor compared to the simplistic view offered by so many skeptics. There is even more to be had ... further examples of false reliance on Occam's Razor ... but I've done enough of your ( skeptics ) homework for you now ...

j.r.

I appreciate your attempt at explaining but it really just reinforced that you aren't using critical thinking. Maybe if you actually read what I type and take it to heart?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I was wondering if UFOlogy has ever read Carl Sagan's "demon haunted world" before? I think Sagan made it clear how the razor should be used. Be careful UFOlogy, you may accidently cut yourself deeply by using the razor improperly.

 

[ufology]

Is this better?

Nice ... looks cool ! I'll consider posting up a higher 2D graphics version of the USI emblem sometime. The one on my avatar is actually a photo of our lapel pin. BTW, I know the UFP is Star Trek, but what are the others? Are they actual organizations or just colorful spoofs?

j.r.

 

[Agatha]

Nice ... looks cool ! I'll consider posting up a higher 2D graphics version of the USI emblem sometime. The one on my avatar is actually a photo of our lapel pin. BTW, I know the UFP is Star Trek, but what are the others? Are they actual organizations or just colorful spoofs?
j.r.

I understand it's hard to tell a person's 'tone' in a textual medium, but are you asking an honest question?

 

[ufology]

I was wondering if UFOlogy has ever read Carl Sagan's "demon haunted world" before? I think Sagan made it clear how the razor should be used. Be careful UFOlogy, you may accidently cut yourself deeply by using the razor improperly.

I've loved the Cosmos series and I've also read Sagan's views on UFOs, and about his direct involvement in ufology from the time he was in school through to his participation in SCICOP ( now just CSI ).

Sagan was a more complex person than is deemed on the surface. His ultimate position on UFOs, is that studying them is an "unprofitable investment of terrestrial intelligence - if we are truly interested in the quest for extraterrestrial intelligence" ( Sagan - Cosmic Connection ).

I tend to agree with the above, but only to the extent that it is unprofitable for scientists, particularly those like him, who were criticized by the scientific establishment and warned against becoming too involved; and in the context that given the training they have gone through, if scientists concentrate their efforts, as Sagan did, on the real scientific advancement of humanity, eventually we will probably learn the truth for ourselves, regardless of what the aliens do, and be better off for it.

All the surface level opinions Sagan gives for his position on UFOs are to prop up the position above. But they have no other real foundation. They are based on proclaimations and assumptions that lead to biased conclusions ( see the mirror of prejudice in Occam's Razor ). The real value in what Sagan had to say about UFOs is what can be read between the lines in the context of scientific politics and his historical involvement.

I believe Sagan understood about the mirrior of prejudice and how thinly veiled his actual beliefs were for those who would take the time to dig below the surface. Most people don't know that he outright defended the ETH in his early years at school, and that's where he was first slapped down by the scientific establishment. I've always had tremendous respect for Sagan and always will.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

I understand it's hard to tell a person's 'tone' in a textual medium, but are you asking an honest question?

Actually yes I am ... Start Trek is sci-fi, the other two I'm not familiar with and haven't tried to look them up. I suppose I could do that, but that takes time away from attending to more serious responses, so I just haven't bothered and am still curious.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

Actually yes I am ... Start Trek is sci-fi, the other two I'm not familiar with and haven't tried to look them up. I suppose I could do that, but that takes time away from attending to more serious responses, so I just haven't bothered and am still curious.

So we can add lazy to other characteristics like dishonesty which are common to the pseudoscience of "ufology". On second thought, maybe it's just the same abject willful ignorance we've seen so many times already.

 

[ufology]

So we can add lazy to other characteristics like dishonesty which are common to the pseudoscience of "ufology". On second thought, maybe it's just the same abject willful ignorance we've seen so many times already.

Good ole GeeMack ... we can always count on you to remind us of our faults and add a few more in we never even knew about !

j.r.

 

[Agatha]

And yet reading the words on the middle one, and googling the third one (if it is really unfamiliar to you) would take less time than asking the question. If this is a sample of your research skills, I fear there is no thinking of any kind in ufology, never mind critical thinking.

 

[ufology]

And yet reading the words on the middle one, and googling the third one (if it is really unfamiliar to you) would take less time than asking the question. If this is a sample of your research skills, I fear there is no thinking of any kind in ufology, never mind critical thinking.

You seem fairly new to this thread ... please forgive me for not welcoming you sooner!

j.r.