Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

Now you're cooking!

Kenneth Arnold == pelicans

Rosswell == Mogul Balloon

Phoenix Lights == aircraft flare

Betty and Barney (Hill, not Rubble) == warning light on tower

Randlesham == lights from a lighthouse

Just to do away with some of the "BEST" ufo sightings.

I wouldn't do away with those quite so quickly. There isn't enough information to conclude with that much certainty, that any of the above explanations are the actual causal factors for the UFOs reported in those sightings. Certainly they are factors to consider, but there is also other information that negates them. These cases will probably never be solved.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I wouldn't do away with those quite so quickly. There isn't enough information to conclude with that much certainty, that any of the above explanations are the actual causal factors for the UFOs reported in those sightings. Certainly they are factors to consider, but there is also other information that negates them. These cases will probably never be solved.

j.r.

It would be critical thinking to define what you think the null hypothesis is in each case. What do you think the null hypothesis is for each one? Then we can examine evidence in a critical thinking way.

 

[ufology]

My take is that the guy works in a CGI studio. He shot 2 different videos from different angles and uploaded them to WooTube where they were lapped up by people who don't have any critical thinking skills.

I even mentioned this 'event' in my last post.

It doesn't take tracking down witnesses to show it's a fake... Track down the uploader: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDIF-ZwJbF0

Then see on his channel he has only uploaded two videos, both of the London UFOs
Then look at his favourites and he's favourited a video that is so full of BS about analysing his video that is beggars belief. Packed full of really good examples of uncritical thinking. We'll set up a few strawmen to knock down so it looks like we've done some 'ruling out the mundane', introduce some irrelevant and frankly already debunked UFO myths, enforce some wild speculation as if it's fact and all the time the actual video analysis is showing nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKJz5TL6Kgs

But see he doesn't link any of the videos that show the flaws in his hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy9XLtF7lGY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T6L-QSjFjY

What else do you need to know?

Stray ... I tend to agree with your assessment. When this video came out I went back through the uploaders stuff and searched out the video using the word "hoax". I also found a video he did of a wedding and cross checked to see if the people in the street might have been friends posing for the video. One person on a blog someplace said that the guy who took the video works for a CGFX studio nearby. The video itself is actually pretty good in the way it depicts the small spheres ... but it hardly represents any "proof". Without any on scene investigation and witness corroboration, it doesn't even constiture reliable information ... it's just a Youtube video.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

I wouldn't do away with those quite so quickly. There isn't enough information to conclude with that much certainty, that any of the above explanations are the actual causal factors for the UFOs reported in those sightings. Certainly they are factors to consider, but there is also other information that negates them. These cases will probably never be solved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSY--POpAjQ

 

[Stray Cat]

The video itself is actually pretty good in the way it depicts the small spheres ... but it hardly represents any "proof".

Yes it does, it represents proof it's a fake... did you watch the image stabilised versions? The UFOs haven't been correctly motion tracked with the footage.

Without any on scene investigation and witness corroboration, it doesn't even constiture reliable information ... it's just a Youtube video.

No, it's just a provable hoaxed CGI video, there is no need to jump four steps ahead of where Occam's Razor should cut and go on a waste of time wild goose chase trying to track down witnesses.

 

[Access Denied]

Care to demonstrate your alleged commitment to embrace critical thinking and acknowledge that fact?

I’ll take the following as a no…

Why am I not surprised?

Perhaps Roger Ramjet will save the day ...

400+ pages of Wall ‘O Waffle™ suggest otherwise.

...in a direct visual sighting there is no "apparatus" so to speak between the object and the observer that can malfunction and introduce bad data into the observation.

You have no brain?

Again, why am I not surprised?

I would suggest you both find another hobby…

 

[RoboTimbo]

The video itself is actually pretty good in the way it depicts the small spheres ... but it hardly represents any "proof". Without any on scene investigation and witness corroboration, it doesn't even constiture reliable information ... it's just a Youtube video.

j.r.

You don't really read Stray Cat's posts either, do you.

 

[GeeMack]

You don't really read Stray Cat's posts either, do you.

No surprise there. Given the body of evidence provided by both ufology and Rramjet, ignorance is as much at the foundation of their arguments as dishonesty is. Another demonstration that "ufologists'" notion of critical thinking is actually quite the opposite.

 

[ufology]

UFO In Google Earth Location

I Find these Google Earth Videos Fun. Here is a UFO on camera from South Africa. Most of the time when I check my Google Earth, these UFOs aren't actually there ... this time it is. Interesting excercise. It helps to have a dual monitor setup. Or just enter the coodinates:

34°21'12.33"S 18°29'24.02"E




j.r.

 

[Muldur]

A "null hypothesis" means "the hypothesis we default to, if no confirmatory evidence is found."

Which works in some abstract realms of science perhaps, but not in all realms of science.

As a researcher, the "null hypothesis" is not your ideal situation, of course. Ideally, you'd want to find some conclusive evidence to work with, so you can make a new discovery and advance the frontiers of knowledge. But as researchers, we have to be honest, so we start with a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis must be as simple as possible and make zero assumptions that cannot be explained by the most absolutely mundane, well-proven facts.

Which, in ufology (if one MUST have a "null hypothesis" at all, see below), would be "unknown", NOT "error" or "fraud". To conclude error or fraud, one must have active evidence to support that hypothesis, it cannot be inferred via the "we can't prove it's anything else, so it MUST be mistake or deception" line of reasoning.

THAT is psuedo-science. THAT is intellectually dishonest.

If you don't start with a null hypothesis, then you cannot make an unbiased study.

In the case of experiental or observational science, if you start with ANY hypothesis, you are undertaking a biased study. When dealing with experiental/observational data, the correct, the truly scientific approach, is to examine all the data in an objective manner and develop the conclusion that best fits the facts.

If your null hypothesis includes any assumptions unsupported by conventional science, then you're working within the realm of "woo," (a.k.a. "hocus pocus," "flim-flam," "pseudoscience," "intellectual dishonesty," "bullcrap," etc.).

"Argument to the normal" fallacy mixed with "Either or" fallacy.

This is standard operating procedure for scientific research, unless of course you have some vested interest in not thinking critically or being 100% honest in your pursuit of the truth (say, religious-type faith, or a dishonest benefactor who pays you to cook up a biased study).

Throwing in a little "ad hom" to poison the well?

How about, "human error or deception"?

Has to be proven just like any other conclusion

That's the simplest hypothesis that doesn't take into account any additional unverifiable suppositions.

Wrong, as I laid out above.

So you start from there, your investigation assuming human error or deception as the baseline, "null" hypothesis unless some material evidence is found to prove otherwise.

This is how critical thinking, and science, is properly done.

No, they are properly done [i[objectively[/i], without any bias.

 

[Muldur]

Here are a few of the most basic examples of the assumptions I'm talking about:

The assumption that mysterious, physical objects appear in the skies that defy explanation, and these objects only appear before single individuals or small groups of people

Incorrect. There are multiple examples of so-called "mass sightings" on the record,

who for some reason are never able to produce any material evidence of their existence.

Photographs have been taken, as has video. Radar tracks have been recorded. All three are material evidence that SOMETHING was seen there.

Never has anyone conclusively proven that such objects exist. Therefore, it is a pseudoscientific claim.

Incorrect. At worst it is an unverified claim. And utilizes the "either/or" fallacy as the heart of it's reasoning as well as the "if not a then b" fallacy.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, as it's more of the same faulty logic and unsupported assumptions that there is no evidence to back any of those claims.

 

[Muldur]

No, in fact it seems rather that you are attempting to distance yourself from all of those other ufologists that are talking codswallop.

It ain't working.





Why? The first response would be "All of them." and that would be the end of it.





The bits of ufology that aren't pseudoscience are already covered well enough by existing fields of endeavour, ranging from harmless if pointless star-gazing type activities to properly-conducted scientific pursuits.

Attempting to put all of these things, and especially the genuine science, under the umbrella of the fabricated 'discipline' of ufology is nothing more than a somewhat dishonest attempt to achieve legitimacy for what would better be described as crackpottery. Or flying saucery.





If one chooses to identify oneself as belonging to a group that's widely regarded as being made up of an overwhelming majority of space cadets and fruitcakes then one is going to need to get used to being painted with the same brush as the rest of that group.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

 

[Aepervius]

Which, in ufology (if one MUST have a "null hypothesis" at all, see below), would be "unknown", NOT "error" or "fraud". To conclude error or fraud, one must have active evidence to support that hypothesis, it cannot be inferred via the "we can't prove it's anything else, so it MUST be mistake or deception" line of reasoning.

No, the null hypothesis would definitively be : "the phenomenon are native to earth" as opposed to "the phenomenon are extraterrestrial / extra solar of origin" which would then be a claim against the null and would require evidence which show the null not to be valid, like extraterrestrial material with varying isotopic value from earth materials. Neither "Unknown" nor "error" nor "fraud" qiualify as they are a human qualitative.

 

[ufology]

Yes it does, it represents proof it's a fake... did you watch the image stabilised versions? The UFOs haven't been correctly motion tracked with the footage.


No, it's just a provable hoaxed CGI video, there is no need to jump four steps ahead of where Occam's Razor should cut and go on a waste of time wild goose chase trying to track down witnesses.

That isn't relevant to the original point I was making. But thanks for the info anyway. I looked at the Image stabilized version, but I'm no FX expert, so maybe it's more obvious to them exactly why it's fake. It's just not as obvious to me, and the reasons they give aren't detailed enough. It "shakes differently" ... so what? I don't really see much difference. Maybe the "different shake" is due to some glitch in the algorithm of the stabilization software. Plus it's yet another layer of processing removed from the direct observation ( if there was one ). Neither video in my opinion has any value without being put into context by a proper on scene investigation.

The pheonix lights video for example, usually dismissed as flares, shows what are most probably flares. But there is a lot more to the case than that clip. The same thing goes for the Washington sightings and the lens flare photo.


j.r.


P.S. It's good to know I can come here and get a good skeptical opinion on these videos. Have you seen this alledged crash video. It looks like a missile maybe but it's really bright and survives the initial impact. Do you think this is a real object or that maybe the real object was somehow taken out frame by frame?

 

[ufology]

No, the null hypothesis would definitively be : "the phenomenon are native to earth" as opposed to "the phenomenon are extraterrestrial / extra solar of origin" which would then be a claim against the null and would require evidence which show the null not to be valid, like extraterrestrial material with varying isotopic value from earth materials. Neither "Unknown" nor "error" nor "fraud" qiualify as they are a human qualitative.

The "null hypothesis" as a scientific principle doesn't apply to ufology because of the the lack of controlled and measurable conditions. Skeptics just use it to befuddle and convolute the discussion.

Ufology on the whole is neither science nor pseudoscience. Ufology includes as a major component the study of UFO history and the composition of articles through investigative journalism. Neither of these things are "sceince". Neither are they pseudoscience. The pseudoscience debate is just more bait tauntingly dangled by the skeptics to draw you into an argument.

They'll also hit you up with Occam's Razor, which doesn't even pretend to offer scientific proof. If you have a genuine interest in UFOs and decide to hang around here, you gotta have a thick skin and a good sense of humor.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Which works in some abstract realms of science perhaps, but not in all realms of science.

Special pleading fallacy

Which, in ufology (if one MUST have a "null hypothesis" at all, see below), would be "unknown", NOT "error" or "fraud". To conclude error or fraud, one must have active evidence to support that hypothesis, it cannot be inferred via the "we can't prove it's anything else, so it MUST be mistake or deception" line of reasoning.

Incorrect.
Your null hypothesis can not be 'unknown' as what you are studying is already 'unknown'.

Scientist 1: We got this unknown thing we're trying to find out what it is
Scientists 2: Have you got a null hypothesis?
Scientist 1: Yes; It's unknown we have to find out if we know what it is.
Scientist 2: How you going to do that?
Scientist 1: We don't know, because we don't know what it is.
Scientist 2: Why not compare it to everything and then when you've run out of stuff, what ever is left is what it is?
(A billion years later)
Scientist: 1: Well we compared it to everything
Scientist 2: And?
Scientist 1: It didn't match anything we know
Scientist 2: So what's left?
Scientist 1: Just the unknown stuff.

THAT is psuedo-science. THAT is intellectually dishonest.

And what about misuse of logic and misrepresenting science?
What would you call that?

In the case of experiental or observational science, if you start with ANY hypothesis, you are undertaking a biased study.

lol!
You have a null hypothesis and then you try to disprove it, that's not bias.

When dealing with experiental/observational data, the correct, the truly scientific approach, is to examine all the data in an objective manner and develop the conclusion that best fits the facts.

Which we see precious little of from UFOlogists.
In reality, what we see is them reaching a conclusion and then shoe horning the evidence into it... not truely scientific at all, yet masquerading as science... what's it called again when someone does that?

"Argument to the normal" fallacy mixed with "Either or" fallacy.

Not at all, one of the most basic concepts of the null hypothesis is that it must be formulated so that you can not tell the difference between the world as we know it, if it is true. You then proceed to try and disprove it, in doing so, you either can not in which case the world view remains (until better evidence turns up). Or you can disprove it and show clearly that what you have are changes in the world that have not yet been noticed or accounted for.

Throwing in a little "ad hom" to poison the well?

Common misuse of Ad-Hom.

Has to be proven just like any other conclusion

We already know human error and deception exists, they do not need proving. In the case of an UNIDENTIFIED flying object, the most we can say is that it is most likely human error or deception. These are much more likely than aliens in flying saucers because they have not been proven to exist. If you want aliens in flying saucers to be on an equal or greater footing, then provide an equal amount of evidence to show they exist (I won't hold my breath).

Wrong, as I laid out above.

No, he was right.

No, they are properly done [i[objectively[/i], without any bias.

As pointed out above, a null hypothesis doesn't introduce bias.
And italics are properly done by using the tags correctly.

 

[Stray Cat]

The "null hypothesis" as a scientific principle doesn't apply to ufology because of the the lack of controlled and measurable conditions. Skeptics just use it to befuddle and convolute the discussion.

No, UFOlogists refuse to use it because they know they can not disprove it as science demands.
It's odd how the lack of "controlled and measurable conditions" doesn't effect the rash over reaching conclusions often arrived at by UFOlogists.

Ufology on the whole is neither science nor pseudoscience.

No, UFOlogy uses scientific sounding jargon where ever it can, in most cases without one iota of scientific protocol being applied.

Ufology includes as a major component the study of UFO history

And oddly enough, that history inevitably repeats the same old faulty pseudo scientific nonsense as the unsuccessful methodology of UFOlogists hasn't changed in over 60 years.

and the composition of articles through investigative journalism.

Sadly, after a UFOlogist does a piece of "investigative journalism" someone else (usually referred to as a debunker, but more realistically a thorough researcher) finds stuff that directly contradicts the "investigative journalism" of the UFOlogist along with chunks of information conveniently left out by the UFOlogist because it didn't fit the Aliens in flying saucers theme of his work.

Neither of these things are "sceince". Neither are they pseudoscience. The pseudoscience debate is just more bait tauntingly dangled by the skeptics to draw you into an argument.

I'm sure I've asked you this already, but as you never answered my request, I'll try again; Please could you provide just one example of a UFO sighting investigated by a UFOlogist that doesn't contain the implication of or the blatant use of science?

They'll also hit you up with Occam's Razor, which doesn't even pretend to offer scientific proof. If you have a genuine interest in UFOs and decide to hang around here, you gotta have a thick skin and a good sense of humor.

Ah, the old Occam's Razor strawman. No one here has said or even implied it should or can be used as proof. As has been demonstrated it can be effectively used to stop wasting time and effort chasing wild geese.
And there are many here who have a "genuine interest in UFOs"... just not sharing your belief in aliens in flying saucers.

 

[Akhenaten]

The "null hypothesis" as a scientific principle doesn't apply to ufology because of the the lack of controlled and measurable conditions. Skeptics just use it to befuddle and convolute the discussion.

The null hypothesis doesn't apply to ufology because it's pseudoscience, picking and choosing which parts of real science it will embrace and which it will reject solely on the basis of what will help to create the appearance of legitimacy.

Ufology on the whole is neither science nor pseudoscience. Ufology includes as a major component the study of UFO history and the composition of articles through investigative journalism. Neither of these things are "sceince". Neither are they pseudoscience. The pseudoscience debate is just more bait tauntingly dangled by the skeptics to draw you into an argument.

Given that this thread was abandoned three years ago after after only seven replies were posted, it seems a bit of a stretch to call it "bait tauntingly dangled".

And you can hardly complain about having been drawn into an argument when you were the one who trawled through all the old threads looking for your pet subject just so you could revive this zombie.

They'll also hit you up with Occam's Razor, which doesn't even pretend to offer scientific proof.

Congratulations. You seem to have crafted a response that would be non sequitur in all possible contexts.

If you have a genuine interest in UFOs and decide to hang around here, you gotta have a thick skin and a good sense of humor.

j.r.

What strange advice for a flying saucer proponent to give to a sceptic who's been here for eight years longer than he has.

 

[Stray Cat]

Incorrect. There are multiple examples of so-called "mass sightings" on the record,

Stories of lots of people seeing something they couldn't identify... wow.

Photographs have been taken, as has video. Radar tracks have been recorded. All three are material evidence that SOMETHING was seen there.

Yes, something unidentified.

Incorrect. At worst it is an unverified claim. And utilizes the "either/or" fallacy as the heart of it's reasoning as well as the "if not a then b" fallacy.

Aren't both of those the same fallacy? Are you sure you even know what logic is?
And it's not the either/or fallacy at all. Anyone who claims 'aliens' with the present set of evidence by using the examples you have pointed out (Photographs have been taken, as has video. Radar tracks have been recorded) is being pseudo-scientific. because the evidence points to unidentified, not aliens.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, as it's more of the same faulty logic and unsupported assumptions that there is no evidence to back any of those claims.

There is a mammoth thread with 8,911 posts in it which clearly shows there is no evidence to back up the claim of 'aliens'. Please feel free to join in there if you wish to provide some evidence of your own.

 

[ufology]

No, UFOlogists refuse to use it because they know they can not disprove it as science demands.
It's odd how the lack of "controlled and measurable conditions" doesn't effect the rash over reaching conclusions often arrived at by UFOlogists.


No, UFOlogy uses scientific sounding jargon where ever it can, in most cases without one iota of scientific protocol being applied.


And oddly enough, that history inevitably repeats the same old faulty pseudo scientific nonsense as the unsuccessful methodology of UFOlogists hasn't changed in over 60 years.


Sadly, after a UFOlogist does a piece of "investigative journalism" someone else (usually referred to as a debunker, but more realistically a thorough researcher) finds stuff that directly contradicts the "investigative journalism" of the UFOlogist along with chunks of information conveniently left out by the UFOlogist because it didn't fit the Aliens in flying saucers theme of his work.


I'm sure I've asked you this already, but as you never answered my request, I'll try again; Please could you provide just one example of a UFO sighting investigated by a UFOlogist that doesn't contain the implication of or the blatant use of science?


Ah, the old Occam's Razor strawman. No one here has said or even implied it should or can be used as proof. As has been demonstrated it can be effectively used to stop wasting time and effort chasing wild geese.
And there are many here who have a "genuine interest in UFOs"... just not sharing your belief in aliens in flying saucers.

Stray ... It's really too bad we lost you to the pseudoskeptics. You really would have made a great ufologist.

j.r.