Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Access Denied]

Of course they do, it's exactly how come the 'Evidence' thread got so long.
As soon as the page is turned in the thread, Rramjet thinks he has a blank canvass to reassert his faulty evidence as if we hadn't just exposed it for the shallow cesspool it was.

^ This too.

UFOlogists on the whole when locking horns with sceptics will infinitely throw stuff at the wall in order to see if anything sticks. As one slippery story falls off, in they come with the next one, and the next one and the next one. Reapplying the same faulty logic each time, representing the same anecdotal inaccurate, badly researched, cherry picked guff.

^ This three.

Guys, it's not really down to us to disprove your folk tales, it's down to you to prove them. Either that or stop asserting over reaching conclusions like 'it's aliens'

In other words, put up or shut up…

[taps]

 

[John Albert]

accidental post...

 

[John Albert]

As for lies and deception, let's smoke them out and expose them for what they are. We don't need them in ufology any more than anyone else does.

I agree wholeheartedly! Let's get down to business here:

When it comes to the scientific method and UFOs, it's just not well suited to exploring the mystery because of the lack of empirical evidence and repeatability. We're stuck with having to do the best we can what other tools we have at our disposal.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7363973&postcount=16

If, as ufology claims, his namesake is a field of study that deals with the material universe, then it is by definition a science and therefore subject to the rules applicable to all sciences. Claiming its subject matter is special and therefore demands a loosening of conventional standards, is the epitome of a special pleading.


Ufology's argument in this next quote is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the question of whether the study of UFOs ought to bend the rules of science to allow anecdotal evidence as proof of the existence of ET.

It is absolutely reasonable to dismiss anecdotal evidence. It's unthinkable not to. You have to.

It's only unthinkable in situations where absolute precision is critical for health and safety reasons, like how much pressure a tire will take before it explodes in someone's face, or how much medication it takes to overdose, or how strong a bolt needs to be to keep an airplane engine from falling off. But even in those situations, there is a margin of error. Human advancement has always involved taking chances and risks. If we had always refused to explore things unless we were absolutely certain we were doing it perfectly every time, we'd still be living in the stone age.

In the case of human experience and UFOs, it's not a life or death situation. If somebody says they saw a UFO it won't place anyone's life in danger to report it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7364240&postcount=35

I appreciate his commitment to safety on one hand and the bold spirit of human endeavor on the other. But in the context of the discussion at hand, this argument is akin to the famed "Chewbacca Defense" from South Park. It's a form of non sequitur, or "red herring" type argument called an "irrelevant conclusion."

From the same post:

It's not "unthinkable" to listen to people's experiences and consider what they have been through. It's more "unthinkable" that anyone would use science as a reason for ignoring the common experiences so many fellow human beings.

Sharing our experiences as human beings is a perfectly natural part of human existence and communication. It is valuable ... it is essential.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7364240&postcount=35

"What a shame, that science and skeptics are so cold and inhuman they don't even trust the words of their fellow human beings!" This is obvious pandering to emotion (pity). That's just too damn bad, isn't it? Boo ******* hoo.


Still in a discussion of accepted practices in the study of the physical world (a.k.a. "science"), Rramjet in his zeal to find support for anecdotal evidence, runs off the rails into a discussion of "evidence vs. 'proof'," apparently not realizing that "proof" is a term of art not of science, but of mathematics:

I think you may be confusing evidence with proof. Evidence can constitute proof, but it need not necessarily be proof.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7364258&postcount=36

This is clearly a case of "apples and oranges."

Science does not talk about "proof," because "proof" implies absolutism. Pure logic and mathematics demand proofs; science (again, "science" meaning "the study of the material Universe") deals in evidence. Any time you see somebody talking about "scientific proof," you can bet your ass that person is a pseudoscientist.

Then, in the same post:

For example, there is the concept of “weight of evidence” we must deal with:

“Weight of Evidence (WOE) … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“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)​

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7364258&postcount=36

Rramjet must have been Googling like a fiend for any old thing that might conceivably justify the use of tall tales as scientific evidence. He cited a forensic science blog that describes how various incomplete pieces of physical evidence can be logically assembled, using computers, into a consistent whole. Then he tried to use thst article to construe the idea that multiple anecdotes absent of physical evidence can somehow constitute valid evidence.

This is not only another case of apples and oranges, but also a misleading false attribution because that blogger he cited is certainly not making the argument that unsupported anecdotes aggregate into valid data.

I've heard that same argument made that multiple bits of weak data cannot add up to better data. It seems to me that we can quite literally demonstrate that it does. All you have to do is go back to using your 14.4. modem to download a picture. You can literally watch how bits of data are gathered and put together to form a meaningful image. Same with the data that comes from our space probes, cell phones, CDs ... vitually anything digital. In these cases there is also a margin for error that can be corrected ( extrapolated ) from data surrounding the "noise". Then there is HDR photography, the use of three sets of different photos combined with special software to produce a picture that is better than any single picture alone. Then ( and this is one of the best ), there is fingerprint ID software than can be used to assemble a single fingerprint from numerous partials ... a glass here, a doorknob there ... the knife stuck squarely in the carrot cake that wasn't supposed to have been eaten until Sunday.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7364317&postcount=41


Ufology jumps right on Rramjet's bandwagon with another case of apples and oranges, because all those various kinds of data he cited are physical, easily falsifiable, and valid forms of evidence, unlike anecdotes.

I'm talking more about first hand accounts from reputable and reliable witnesses, and other accounts similar in nature to case reports. By case reports I mean those used in medicine based on anecdotal evidence ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_report

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7364352&postcount=45

As I pointed out in the thread, medical case studies and UFO sighting reports are also apples and oranges.

Damn, you guys have more apples and oranges than a green grocer!

If the critics are correct and that UFOs are merely misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (speed, shape, etc) between reports that have been identified as mundane objects and those reports that have not.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7365135&postcount=84

Here Rramjet has artificially limited the number of possibilities in a multiple-choice question to present a false scenario that is amenable to his position. He presents "reports that have been identified as mundane objects" and "reports that have not (been identified as mundane objects)" as the only two possibilities, when in reality a large number of other explanations are not only possible, but some of them are quite probable. He deliberately leaves out the possibilities of hoaxes, optical illusions, mental illness or other psychological effects, common lies, etc. that have nothing to do with actual objects, mundane or otherwise.

This is an example of an error in formal logic called a false dichotomy, or "either-or error."

Rramjet dishonestly presented this false dichotomy to forward the implication that aliens or other paranormal causes must account for all UFO sightings which don't fit the descriptions of sightings already documented as mistaken mundane objects.

As I pointed out, perception can be biased in many ways, both due to the physical biology receiving and transmitting the information and the psychological heuristics and biases used to process that information. Fortunately the factors involved in all of that have been well researched and documented and we can therefore analyse UFO reports in light of those factors. The inability to accurately determine size on a flat background (sans depth cues such as found with a clear blue sky or a black night sky) is one of those well documented factors.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7365135&postcount=84

Just because cognitive psychology, physics, etc. may have some objective understanding of those perceptual phenomena, that doesn't mean ufologists have a comprehensive understanding of all those factors as a whole within the context of UFO sightings, or that they can reliably make such determinations with no better evidence than anecdotes to go on. Suggesting they do is an example of a compositional fallacy. All those factors taken individually do not necessarily constitute a unified whole.


Rramjet engaged Pixel42 about critical thinking:

When I say 'wilful' I'm referring to the sort of people who come to this site to share their anecdotal experiences (not just about UFOs) and, despite patient explanations about cognitive biases, the unreliability of their perceptions and the application of critical thinking, simply refuse to consider any other interpretation except the one they arrived with.

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?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7365135&postcount=84

...and completely forgot all about burden of proof. The person making the claim is obligated to prove his claim, not the other way round. Pixel42 has every right to challenge the extraordinary claims of another, and owes no justification if he doesn't find them believable. Critical thinking is quite different from credulous acceptance.

...we have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings (not to mention the supporting radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence).

...we have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings (not to mention the supporting radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7365135&postcount=84

Rramjet has littered this false bit of copypasta all over the JREF forums without a single shred of verifiable evidence. Nobody has ever produced a single physical "nut" or "bolt" from an alien craft for analysis, and no "physical trace evidence" has ever been produced that indicated anything extraterrestrial in origin. Yet he repeats this bald-faced lie ad nauseum in every thread he enters. Failing to support your argument with anything more than mindless repetition is a dishonest bullying tactic that makes you look like a brainwashed kook.


I've hit a motherload of fallacies already, and I'm not even halfway through the third page of this thread.

You guys definitely have some explaining to do.

 

[Akhenaten]

What point would that serve? Heaven forbid a ufologist might make blatant use of actual science!

Reality forbids it. Heaven doesn't exist.

And what exactly do you mean by "contain the implication of"? That statement could mean different things depending on context. Stray Cat ... you've strayed too far.

j.r.

It means pretending. As in "ufologists are only pretending to do real science."

By golly, you seem to be having trouble with your words today.

 

[Pixel42]

Ufology is an undisciplined area of study that imitates some procedures of science, operates on unsupported, extraordinary assumptions about the nature of the material Universe based around folklore, and makes authoritative, scientific-sounding claims without adhering to the disciplines of critical thinking or scientific methodology.

That's pseudoscience.

Time to quote Richard Feynman's talk on cargo cult science yet again?

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

 

[Akhenaten]

All that I believe does not add up to critical thinking about UFOs – it adds up to something else entirely…

Damn straight.

 

[Aepervius]

I agree wholeheartedly! Let's get down to business here:
(SNIP)

I would say "Game, Set and match !", but I doubt that you will get those willing to participate in your game. I am pretty sure they are very well aware that they would lose and very badly, which is why they always try to go away from science, reason and logic.
In other word they are practicing faith and recognize the danger of going away from faith.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ufology as a whole and a UFO sighting report are two entirely separate contexts with respect to the question of the thread. The question of the thread is, "Is ufology a pseudoscience?" not "Is this particular UFO report here or that one there pseudoscientific?"

Ufology as a whole is not much more than a heap of UFO sighting reports glued together like a papier-mâché model of real science.

Like it or not, ufology and "OMG . . . aliens!!!" reports will always be seen in the same context.

As mentioned in previous posts, to brand all of ufology as pseudoscience based on instances where sighting reports are used in a story would be like branding all medicine as pseudoscience because somebody makes references to some anecdotal case studies or because there are a few quacks here and there.

If medicine was made up of 99% quacks in the same way that ufology is made up of 99% space cadets then your analogy might be valid, but since it's not, it's not.

Also, to keep demanding answers to questions that aren't relevant as if they would prove some point is pseudoskeptical. You may be able to make a convincing case that some sighting reports and case studies are pseudoscientific, but it is simply false logic that such studies, even if they were to match the definition of pseuodoscience, would mean that all of ufology is therefore a pseudo science.

Despite your own complaint that UFO sightings and their 'analysis' by ufologists are being unfairly conflated by the sceptics you appear to have considerable difficulty keeping them separate yourself.

All I needed to do to show that ufology is not pseudoscience is demonstrate that some elements of ufology fall outside either definition. Not only is that plainly self-evident, the logical proof has been stated over and over again.

Drivel.

What you need to do is demonstrate that flying saucery isn't an attempt to create a veneer of scientific validity for itself by, amongst other things, adopting a sciency-sounding name.

What's self-evident is that you've mostly succeeded at doing exactly the opposite, to the extent that fewer people would have considered ufology to be pseudoscience before you resurrected this thread than do now.

Here's another example of the kind of logic you are using:

Logic: "Women wear dresses. Therefore anything wearing a dress is a woman."

Skeptic: "Answer the question? Are you wearing a dress or not?"


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

Accept it. Ufology is not a pseudoscience any more than anything wearing a dress is a woman. It's so obvious that this discussion should have been closed when this point was made the first time.

Wanna buy some straw?

Additionally, it would do those skeptics who are considering this debate well to remember that ufology does not dismiss science or skepticism. For example my ufology library includes copies of The Skeptical Inquirer ( SCICOP - now just CSI ), UFOs A Scientific Debate ( Carl Sagan & Thornton Page ), The Cosmic Connection ( Carl Sagan ), UFOs Explained ( Phillip J. Klass ), The Scientific Study Of Unidentified Flying Objects ( Edward U. Condon ). Indeed, I would not guarantee that you would not find any pseudoscientific examples cherry picked by the skeptics in those works. But like it or not, they are a part of ufology.

And my library includes the Bible, the Quran and the Mahabharata. Does this mean I'm a theist?

So if you really want to brand all of ufology as pseudoscience, then every time you immerse yourself in a discussion about it, you're branding yourself with it as well.

j.r.

No.

 

[Akhenaten]

We don't need to "define" things to be able to descibe their characteristics and compare those characteristics to things we do know about.

Of course we don't. Otherwise we wouldn't know that all the invisible unicorns are pink, now would we?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hey There Ramjet ...

In this debate the opposing cases have been presented and the pro-pseudoscience position has been swept off the map by overiding logical principles backed by example. This debate was over a long time ago. They just refuse to accept it.

j.r.

You really need to read the posts you haven't read. You know, all the ones that aren't Rramjet's.

 

[Aepervius]

Hey There Ramjet ...

In this debate the opposing cases have been presented and the pro-pseudoscience position has been swept off the map by overiding logical principles backed by example. This debate was over a long time ago. They just refuse to accept it.

j.r.

Indeed the debate is over. Ufology is neither a science nor a pseudoscience.


It is a faith, a religion.


Debate over, /thread, rejoice , as aepervius gave you the good word.

 

[Akhenaten]

The ET hypothesis is then a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

Hey There Ramjet ...

In this debate the opposing cases have been presented and the pro-pseudoscience position has been swept off the map by overiding logical principles backed by example. This debate was over a long time ago. They just refuse to accept it.

j.r.

There simply aren't enough laughing dogs to adequately respond to this twin-pack of twaddle.

 

[Rramjet]

Certainly there can. But what you and ufology engage in is wishful thinking in order to bolster your preexisting belief in aliens.

Then Carl Sagan is a pseudoscientist:

“In the vastness of the cosmos, there must be other civilisations, far older and more advanced that ours.” (Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (1980) Episode 12: Encyclopaedia Galactica - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl4ifQc78UU)​

..and SETI is also conducting pseudoscience.

The question is not really whether one “believes” in ET (or not), it is whether UFOs can be explained as being caused by ET. My contention is that (given the evidence and the fact that there is nothing in science that would preclude it) the ETH is a plausible explanatory hypothesis. That does not make it a “proven” hypothesis, just a plausible, potential explanatory hypothesis.

If you can demonstrate that such a position is pseudoscientific, then please, go right ahead. To date no such demonstration has been forthcoming.

The difference isn't in opinion. It's in how your arguments amount to grasping at straws, and as expected, because of a total lack of critical thinking, the straws you grasp are bound to occasionally be contradictory.

Once again that is merely a set of completely unfounded assertions. Do you really believe that the mere stating of unfounded assertions will somehow magically confer veracity on them?

It's got nothing to do with science. It's pseudoscience.

If that is so, then you will be able to demonstrate by evidence or logical argument that to be true. Can you do that?

The evidence suggests you're both willing to say whatever you think will support your belief at any given moment, then dishonestly change your stated position and/or dishonestly claim you didn't mean what you said when you get busted in a lie or when you realize your argument is so stupid it can't stand up. It's pseudoscience.

What “evidence”? Once again that is merely a set of completely unfounded assertions (in the guise of an ad hominem attack). Do you really believe that the mere stating of unfounded ad hominem assertions will somehow magically confer veracity on them?

I don't have a belief system on this issue. I'm a skeptic.

Yes you do. You believe that ufology and I are both crackpots and that ET is a myth and that UFO reports principally originate from misidentifications of mundane objects. Those are you beliefs GeeMack.

The question is whether those beliefs are skeptically held or are merely faith based. As you have so far shown no evidence that they are sceptically held, then we can only therefore assume them to be faith-based.

The fact that you dishonestly attribute that position to those who haven't bought into your fantasy only lends more support to the notion that "ufology" is pseudoscience.

Once again that is merely a set of completely unfounded assertions (in the guise of an ad hominem attack). Do you really believe that the mere stating of unfounded ad hominem assertions will somehow magically confer veracity on them?

If you truly believe what you say, then of course you will be able to present the logical or evidential foundation for those beliefs. Can you?

The basis of UFOlogy is that unidentified flying objects are alien in origin.

The basis of UFOlogy is that there are object in our skies that cannot be plausibly explained as mundane.

The ETH is merely one such explanatory hypothesis for those “unknown” cases.

Regardless of which department of UFOlogy you are looking at (history, social, reseach). To come to such a conclusion could only be done using the scientific method.

No-one has come to “such a conclusion”. What people are saying is that the ETH is a plausible explanatory hypothesis. They are not contending that hypothesis to be proved – merely that the evidence suggests it may have veracity. It could turn out to be erroneous – it could turn out to be right on the money. At this point we just don’t have any direct evidence that would prove it.

However, as the conclusion far outreaches the evidence, science must have been misapplied along the way, therefore the whole of UFOlogy is based upon pseudo science.

You might be correct if the ETH were a conclusion, but of course it is not – it is an hypothesis – a beginning of investigations, not the end.

Anytime science is utilised in order to further the notion of "aliens", it is guilty of pseudo-science.

No-one is furthering the notion of ET by the mere proposal of an hypothesis, many hypotheses are proposed by science that you personally might not “believe in” – does that mean in your eyes science itself is therefore pseudoscientific?

The only way that one could possibly arrive at the 'its aliens' conclusion without utilising pseudo-science would be in a completely religious, blind belief manner...

Or they could do so if the evidence warranted. I personally do not believe the current evidence warrants it – but that is perhaps a personal opinion.

Which would then negate the need for a thread called "Critical Thinking in Ufology".

Clearly there is a need for that thread, as – based on the evidence above - there seems to be very little critical thinking coming form your side of the debate.

Depends if the literal words are implied. Unidentified Flying Object-ology could be someone who is well versed in meteorology and aeronautics to be able to try to identify flying objects.

…and if no plausible mundane explanation could be found despite the demonstrable expertise of the researcher (or researchers)?

If someone is an alien spaceship-ologist, then yeah it's a pseudoscience.

One can scientifically examine theoretical constructs. After all, much of quantum physics is merely theoretically based (string theory, Dark matter and energy, the graviton…the list could go on).

Of course I doubt I need to point out that in order to negate the accusation of pseudo-science, all the UFOlogists need to do is simply provide some evidence to support the assertion that their conclusion of 'its aliens' is correct...

... well I say simply.

This persistent straw man argument will not wash. No-one is “asserting” a “conclusion” of ET here, merely proposing the ETH as a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

Hey There Ramjet ...

In this debate the opposing cases have been presented and the pro-pseudoscience position has been swept off the map by overiding logical principles backed by example. This debate was over a long time ago. They just refuse to accept it.

Precisely.

if the UFO debunkers are correct in their belief that UFO reports can be principally explained as the result of misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characterisitics (speed, shape, etc) between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't. That is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) scientific hypothesis.

This bit: "if the UFO debunkers are correct in their belief that UFO reports can be principally explained as the result of misidentified mundane objects", contradicts this bit: "there should be no difference ... between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't". Because the UFO debunkers say that all UFO reports have plausible mundane explanations. How many mundane explanations do we have to reject before we decide that we have exhausted all mundane possibilities?

If it is true that all UFO reports are misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics between the “known” and the “unknown” categories of reports. That is quite a simple enough concept to grasp surely?

What are we supposed to do Rramjet? Take some UFO anecdote and try our hardest to avoid mundane explanations so we can then speculate about Aliens instead?

It does not matter what we take. We just throw all the reports into an analysis and given that “anecdotal evidence” (misidentifications, hoaxes, delusions, etc) should be evenly distributed throughout all reports, then they will not affect the statistical outcomes on the variable of interest (the characteristic of the object sightings in terms of speed, shape, etc) between the two groups (known and unknown) – that is unless you are proposing the alternative hypothesis that there is a difference… but the ramifications (implications) of that should be obvious.

(Rramjet’s null hypothesis is) Demonstrably false…

1. Plausible is an entirely subjective term; not everyone, typically a highly vocal and vested minority, accepts a given explanation for a given report or class of reports.

Surely you are not contending that the category of UFO reports that have been identified as having plausible mundane explanations have not actually been plausibly explained because “plausible” is a subjective term?

2. Not if the observer’s interpretations or claims of what they saw given in the reports that haven’t been conclusively identified to the majority, or satisfactorily to the minority, are:

Then there will be no difference between the two categories of reports (known and unknown) if they are essentially the same thing (misidentified mundane objects). It is easy to test this scientifically of course, just work from my null hypothesis that there should be no difference (and that is after all what you have just proposed).

a. more in error in some fundamental, but practically indeterminable, way(s) than those that have; and/or

The error rates should be evenly distributed if the debunkers contention is correct. If they are not, then that is evidence against the debunker’s contention.

b. representative of a distinct subset of all observers whose interpretations or claims are more influenced by pre-established concepts and/or other common factors.

Why should that “distinct subset” exist at all if all reports are merely misidentified mundane objects? Surely they should all have the same general characteristics – after all, according to the debunkers they are all misidentified mundane objects and all eyewitnesses are equally prone to error (delusion, hoax, etc). But of course your hypothesis here would also be easy to test, just look at any differences in who is doing the reporting between the goups and assess each's reliability respectively.

Time to quote Richard Feynman's talk on cargo cult science yet again?

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

Exactly correct. As Arthur C. Clarke also noted: “ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”. So it probably will be if the ETH turns out to be correct.

 

[Akhenaten]

Then Carl Sagan is a pseudoscientist:

“In the vastness of the cosmos, there must be other civilisations, far older and more advanced that ours.” (Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (1980) Episode 12: Encyclopaedia Galactica - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl4ifQc78UU)​

..and SETI is also conducting pseudoscience.

Apparently the difference between somewhere "in the vastness of the cosmos" and floating gently through the air above the Rogue River is compltely lost on you.

Sad.

 

[Stray Cat]

The basis of UFOlogy is that there are object in our skies that cannot be plausibly explained as mundane.

O Rly?

"USI was created in 1989 by J. Randall Murphy in Calgary Canada for the purpose of providing easy access to UFO related information, and over the long term, to help establish the truth regarding alien visitation to planet Earth. USI is "pro-UFO" to the extent that it recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition. USI also concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin."
Source

No-one has come to “such a conclusion”. What people are saying is that the ETH is a plausible explanatory hypothesis. They are not contending that hypothesis to be proved – merely that the evidence suggests it may have veracity. It could turn out to be erroneous – it could turn out to be right on the money. At this point we just don’t have any direct evidence that would prove it.

O Rly?

"USI was created in 1989 by J. Randall Murphy in Calgary Canada for the purpose of providing easy access to UFO related information, and over the long term, to help establish the truth regarding alien visitation to planet Earth. USI is "pro-UFO" to the extent that it recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition. USI also concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin."
Source

You might be correct if the ETH were a conclusion, but of course it is not – it is an hypothesis – a beginning of investigations, not the end.

O Rly?

"USI was created in 1989 by J. Randall Murphy in Calgary Canada for the purpose of providing easy access to UFO related information, and over the long term, to help establish the truth regarding alien visitation to planet Earth. USI is "pro-UFO" to the extent that it recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition. USI also concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin."
Source

No-one is furthering the notion of ET by the mere proposal of an hypothesis, many hypotheses are proposed by science that you personally might not “believe in” – does that mean in your eyes science itself is therefore pseudoscientific?

O Rly?

"USI was created in 1989 by J. Randall Murphy in Calgary Canada for the purpose of providing easy access to UFO related information, and over the long term, to help establish the truth regarding alien visitation to planet Earth. USI is "pro-UFO" to the extent that it recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition. USI also concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin."
Source

 

[Rramjet]

If, as ufology claims, his namesake is a field of study that deals with the material universe, then it is by definition a science and therefore subject to the rules applicable to all sciences. Claiming its subject matter is special and therefore demands a loosening of conventional standards, is the epitome of a special pleading.

Consider history as a discipline of research. That is not a science – nor does it claim to be a science, yet it applies scientific methodology in its research.

Ufology's argument in this next quote is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the question of whether the study of UFOs ought to bend the rules of science to allow anecdotal evidence as proof of the existence of ET.

No-one is talking about “proof” here, merely that we have a body of evidence (some anecdotal) but also radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence, that would suggest a real phenomenon (or phenomena). One cannot talk about that evidence “bending the rules of science” unless you propose we know all the rules of science there is to know. Perhaps UFOs operate within the laws of science but it is as Arther C. Clarke stated “ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”.

I appreciate his commitment to safety on one hand and the bold spirit of human endeavor on the other. But in the context of the discussion at hand, this argument is akin to the famed "Chewbacca Defense" from South Park. It's a form of non sequitur, or "red herring" type argument called an "irrelevant conclusion."

You say these type of things – these unfounded assertions - but you never get around to supporting them with logical argument or evidence. Do you believe that the mere statement of unfounded assertions will somehow magically confer veracity on them?

So what is it about ufology’s arguments that are valid yet do not address the issue?

Rramjet must have been Googling like a fiend for any old thing that might conceivably justify the use of tall tales as scientific evidence. He cited a forensic science blog that describes how various incomplete pieces of physical evidence can be logically assembled, using computers, into a consistent whole. Then he tried to use thst article to construe the idea that multiple anecdotes absent of physical evidence can somehow constitute valid evidence.

”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/...fevidence.html)​

This is not only another case of apples and oranges, but also a misleading false attribution because that blogger he cited is certainly not making the argument that unsupported anecdotes aggregate into valid data.

Once again, you say those things, but provide no logical or evidentiary support. . Do you believe that the mere statement of unfounded assertions will somehow magically confer veracity on them?

Ufology jumps right on Rramjet's bandwagon with another case of apples and oranges, because all those various kinds of data he cited are physical, easily falsifiable, and valid forms of evidence, unlike anecdotes.

The quote I cited was talking about ALL kinds of evidence – it is not limited merely to the physical. Perhaps you should read it over…?

As I pointed out in the thread, medical case studies and UFO sighting reports are also apples and oranges.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, no matter what it is being used to support. One just has to be aware of the pitfalls of relying on that type of evidence - in that it is particularly prone to error when compared to other types of evidence. However that does not mean we cannot assess such evidence for reliability and veracity.

“ If the critics are correct and that UFOs are merely misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (speed, shape, etc) between reports that have been identified as mundane objects and those reports that have not.”

Here Rramjet has artificially limited the number of possibilities in a multiple-choice question to present a false scenario that is amenable to his position. He presents "reports that have been identified as mundane objects" and "reports that have not (been identified as mundane objects)" as the only two possibilities, when in reality a large number of other explanations are not only possible, but some of them are quite probable. He deliberately leaves out the possibilities of hoaxes, optical illusions, mental illness or other psychological effects, common lies, etc. that have nothing to do with actual objects, mundane or otherwise.

This is an example of an error in formal logic called a false dichotomy, or "either-or error."

If you say so, but the contention is that all reports are principally cause by misidentified mundane objects. If that is the case, then there should be no difference between the groups on the defined characteristics. It’s not a hard concept to grasp surely?

Moreover, independent studies have shown that the hoaxes, delusions, psychological effects, etc are an insignificant factor (between 1-2% of reports). (Optical illusions merely being one of the factors that cause misidentification).

Rramjet dishonestly presented this false dichotomy to forward the implication that aliens or other paranormal causes must account for all UFO sightings which don't fit the descriptions of sightings already documented as mistaken mundane objects.

I have proposed no explanation for UFOs, merely that they have no plausible mundane explanation (and are thus unknown). The ETH is however a plausible explanatory hypothesis because we have the circumstantial evidence suggesting this (ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent manoeuvres and associated beings) and there is nothing in science that would preclude it. That does not mean it is the correct hypothesis, just another in a range of explanatory hypotheses.

Just because cognitive psychology, physics, etc. may have some objective understanding of those perceptual phenomena, that doesn't mean ufologists have a comprehensive understanding of all those factors as a whole within the context of UFO sightings, or that they can reliably make such determinations with no better evidence than anecdotes to go on. Suggesting they do is an example of a compositional fallacy. All those factors taken individually do not necessarily constitute a unified whole.

Anecdotes are open to analysis by all the methods you mention above. It would be silly of us not to consider all those factors (and more) when assessing anecdotes.

The person making the claim is obligated to prove his claim, not the other way round. Pixel42 has every right to challenge the extraordinary claims of another, and owes no justification if he doesn't find them believable. Critical thinking is quite different from credulous acceptance.

You claim that ufology and I are not thinking critically. According to your own logic you then need to support that claim with evidence or logical argument. In doing that you might like to address yourself to the replies in rebuttal that I have provided for your arguments above (but of course you won’t will you…).

...we have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings (not to mention the supporting radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence).

Rramjet has littered this false bit of copypasta all over the JREF forums without a single shred of verifiable evidence. Nobody has ever produced a single physical "nut" or "bolt" from an alien craft for analysis, and no "physical trace evidence" has ever been produced that indicated anything extraterrestrial in origin.

My statement is not an argument John Albert, it merely lists the types of evidence we have (multiple eyewitness is missing).

Yet he repeats this bald-faced lie ad nauseum in every thread he enters. Failing to support your argument with anything more than mindless repetition is a dishonest bullying tactic that makes you look like a brainwashed kook.

I was wondering when you would get around to the bullying ad hominem attacks…LOL. You have not disappointed (when in doubt, act like a lout. LOL).

I've hit a motherload of fallacies already, and I'm not even halfway through the third page of this thread.

If they are fallacies as you claim, then you will address your next post to the replies in rebuttal I have made against your primarily unfounded assertions above. Will you do that? I don’t think so…).

 

[Correa Neto]

Now of course all that simply shows that ufology's original contention that film and photographs cannot consitute proof of anything - which I believe you rubbished with “ No one with a sane mind would question the veracity of an image acquired by the Hubble telescope or by one of the Mars rovers, for example. ” and “ If you have images with the proper quality and provenance, they will be accepted and will be considered good evidence”

I was merely pointing out that even with the evidence you propose from NASA and the Mars rovers, we still cannot be certain (supporting ufology’s contention) and are then merely reduced to proposing plausible explanatory hypotheses – the very thing you say is illegitimate when it comes to UFOlogy!

You cannot have it both ways Correa Neto…

You can not have it both ways Rramjet, its either science or its not. If it pretends to be or is presented as science but does not adheres to scientific principles, then its pseudoscience.

Do you consider the imagery presented by NASA as reliable? Do you rank yourself among those who say it has been tampered to hide the polar entrances to the Inner Earth, alien bases on the Moon, Mars and other clestial bodies, signs of a Moon landing hoax, alien craft, etc? That would put you far from where you claim to be, that would put you on to the pseudoscience field.

If an image (and its analysis) are good enough, then it will be evidence (yes, reliable evidence) for the existence of whatever it shows. Now when it comes down to UFOs, no such things have been presented to date. "Not enough information", as far as I know, would be the best possible veredict for a piece of UFO imagery presented to date, and its not because the image shows something from "beyond the borders of what we call nature". It's because the material does not contain enough information and/or because its sources are not reliable. To say otherwise would be mere pseudoscience, regardless on how many words one uses.

Lets keep using critical thinking while considering the following questions:

A. Images are or not used on a routine basis as scientific evidence?
B. Why images acquired by Mars rovers an landers stand as scientific evidence, (example-water on Mars) while the images presented to date as support to UFOs as alien craft failed to stand?
C. Why meteor and old orbiters are plausible explanations, while alien craft is not?
D. What are the implications of the answers to the above questions to UFOlogy's methods?

 

[Pixel42]

Do you really believe that the mere stating of unfounded assertions will somehow magically confer veracity on them?

The only contributors to these threads who appear to be labouring under that misapprehension are you and ufology.

 

[Akhenaten]

No-one is talking about “proof” here, merely that we have a body of evidence (some anecdotal) but also radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence, that would suggest a real phenomenon (or phenomena).

O rly?

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, the UFO phenomena is real, and yes, lots of types of evidence, including physical evidence, are available.

Now, the key question is if these evidence bits are pointing towards "aliens" (aliens from this or other solar systems, aliens from other universes, space Nazis, time travellers, intraterrestrials, etc.) or towards a psico-social (or psico-cultural, if you preffer) origin.

You know, if the evidence points towards or indicate blimps, oil well fires, flares, meteors, hoaxes, hallucinations, as plausible explanations, why argue for ETs or time-travelling Nazis? Its critical thinking at a very basic level...