Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[tsig]

What's 'God'?

And you spelled 'an' wrong.

The definition of Truth in the quote above is too limited and does not apply to many situations. Mine does. Why? Because I've thought it through and don't have such a simplistic view.

The definition of proof above is similarly limited and innacurate. For starters, almost anything is refutable ( in a generic sense ) except for example that UFOs exist. It is irrefutable that UFOs exist because "irrefutable" means "impossible to disprove". Even if you add in the concept of "objective evidence", you have to put that into come context. Objective means several things, as does evidence, which is very nebulous.

Scientific proof is about as close as we can get to "proof", but even it isn't always ultimate "proof". Even scientists recognize this fact.

j.r.

Apparently ufology.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'd like to second that John. I too am enjoying your valuable contribution.
Not least because your efforts with the words frees me and Akhenaten up to do more picture gags.

Thirded! And I'd bet there are fourths and fifths somewhere. The two who could be benefitting the most probably won't join in the accolades.

 

[23_Tauri]

The definition of Truth in the quote above is too limited and does not apply to many situations. Mine does. Why? Because I've thought it through and don't have such a simplistic view.

WOW! That statement makes not only this thread but the whole forum redundant.

To me, ufologist is sounding like countless crystal-hugging New Agers who have said to me over the years "my truth is not necessarily your truth" and variations upon that theme, i.e. total meaninglessness.

If I wrong, ufologist, then prove me wrong now. Without drowning in a bowl of word salad over what would constitute proof in this context.

 

[John Albert]

To provide another example, if you have any imagination, you could close your eyes and see a small pink elephant inside a brown room with hardwood floors. And when you see that small pink elephant in that brown room with hardwood floors, that small pink elephant is truly there in the imaginary room. After all, if it weren't there in the imaginary room we would have to say that it isn't true that it is there in the imaginary room.

There are both objective and subjective truths.

You're on the verge of a huge breakthrough here, perhaps the very first breakthrough ever made in the entire history of ufology!

Do you see it? It's as plain as day, right there in that anecdote you just told. I'll give you a hint: your example above is absolutely the most reasonable, credible explanation of all, that can account for 100% of unexplained UFO sightings.

Imagination!

You can call it "subjective truth," but those of us familiar with real truth (a.k.a. "reality") know it by other names: "lies," "confabulations," "unreliable accounts," etc.

There are both objective and subjective truths.

No, there's only ONE truth. The things we have in our heads may be imaginary, but they're no less true regardless.

If I were to witness some unexpected event (say, a car crash), and then exclaim, "Oh my God! I saw this happen in my dream last night!" I might be the only person who knows for sure that I never saw any car crash in my dreams. It may be a lie unknowable to anyone but me, but that still doesn't make the statement any less of a lie. I may have one or many of a million different motivations for making such a claim, but that doesn't make it any more true.

And there you have an excellent illustration of the pratfalls involved with accepting anecdotes as evidence. People can and do lie, and as a researcher you really have no reliable way of knowing they're not telling you a "pink elephant in a brown room with hardwood floors."

Accepting their lies or confabulations as an alternate, "subjective truth" is leading you astray from the actual truth, the one that corresponds to what is real. Just like every other pseudoscientist, you're chasing ghosts and taking copious notes on your imaginary "findings."

Face it: you're a pretend scientist playing make-believe research about a lot of wild-eyed, imaginary flying saucer stories.

 

[GeeMack]

Face it: you're a pretend scientist playing make-believe research about a lot of wild-eyed, imaginary flying saucer stories.

Absolutely. And all the nonsense manufactured to support the fantasy is, from inside the head where it gets made up, imagination, delusion, faith, belief, or maybe an obsessive game of let's-pretend. But from the outside, when "ufologists" try to pass off their funtime imaginary alien friends as real, they're just lies. Plain, simple, and for the most part transparent lies.

Without much doubt there will be attempts to recover with floundering, back pedaling, contortions of definitions, waffling, weaseling, and more lies built upon the foundation of lies already laid. But this...

To be precise, the request above is ill conceived. Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

... pretty much tosses any claim that there's critical thinking involved in "ufology" into the latrine. It's a failed proposition that belongs right there with the rest of the contents of the latrine.

 

[Rramjet]

Well let's take homeopathy as an example.

There's a mountain of anecdotal evidence for this - thousands of people who say they suffered with an ailment (often for years), took a homeopathic remedy, and got better.There is certainly photographic evidence (before and after pictures) to support these anecdotes, probably even actual physical evidence such as blood tests to prove that someone's health improved after taking a homeopathic remedy. People who believe in homeopathy are not, for the most part, cranks or frauds; they are people who have had personal experiences which have convinced them that a homeopathic remedy which they took made them better.

Illnesses often resolve of their own accord and there is also the well documented placebo effect. People do get better but any perceived correlation (and statistical analysis shows there is none in reality) between getting better and taking a homeopathic remedy has never been shown to have a causal link. Quite simply there is scientific evidence from epidemiological studies that homeopathy does not work.

People may still believe, but that belief is faith-based – it is not founded on the evidence we do have.

They know this with the same certainty that ufology knows that the light in the sky he saw could not have had a mundane explanation.

Now you return to making mere unfounded assertions. People believe in homeopathy, but that is a faith-based belief. For ufologists the “belief” is evidence based.

There is the multiple eyewitness, the radar, the film and photographic and the physical trace evidence on which such a “belief” in UFOs is founded.

That is the difference between ufology and homeopathy. In homeopathy we have scientific evidence that it does not work. In ufology, there is no scientific knowledge or evidence that rules out even the strong claim that UFOs = ET.

So how you can maintain that the evidence for homeopathy is “better” than that for UFOs is simply beyond me.

No amount of pointing out that homeopathy is scientific nonsense is going to convince these people otherwise, nor should it: if homeopathy works, it works, and if we don't know why we'd have to find out, even if that meant throwing away anything we think we currently understand about physics and chemistry.

Sure, people “believe” in the face of the evidence all the time – witness the debunker phenomenon in these UFO related threads for example – the debunkers “believe” that all UFOs are primarily caused by a misidentification of mundane objects – even when they are presented with the evidence that this is unlikely to be the case – they still manage to maintain their belief.

I'd say the evidence for homeopathy is far more compelling than that for UFOs which cannot be explained mundanely.

Yet you have presented no evidence for that belief of yours. One can only therefore assume it is a faith-based belief – and that IS then similar to the beliefs of those who think homeopathy works.

 

[Rramjet]

See, the whole purpose of critical thinking is to discern the truth by means of specific practices that have proven reliable at weeding out falsehoods and inconsistencies. That's why science is based on it. Science is the practice of discerning reality little by little through logic, trial and error, and independent verification by others. If you're trying to find out the truth about some physical matter, science is the best methodology we have to date.

So then you will be able to provide the scientific evidence that has “weeded out” ET then?

Rejecting science in favor of fantastic stories and wild speculation is not going to get you closer to the truth; it's rather like being lost in the woods and neglecting your compass in favor of dowsing your way out with a tree branch.

If all we had were “fantastic stories and wild speculation” you might have a point. Unfortunately for you we have credible multiple eyewitness testimony, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and a conjunction of those) on which to found our explanatory hypotheses. The evidence to date shows us there are UFO cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation. We can then legitimately propose exploratory hypothetical explanations (especially plausible ones such as ET).

 

[Rramjet]

Granted there are some histories that are made up from purely anecdotal accounts, but they do not make any claims against the material reality of the universe and they don't claim to have used any scientific method in reaching their conclusions.

Yes they do, they propose people, places, times and activities that are purported to have existed in the material reality of the universe.

Yes they do, they scientifically assess the anecdotes for reliability and veracity. They propose research hypotheses such as “If this anecdote is correct, then corroborating evidence should manifest here”. Or “If this person is a reliable anecdotal source, then other anecdotes from the same source should match what we already know.” – and so on…

If one wants to look through the historical records and pick and chose some disparate bits and pieces and then stitch them together to make a picture that is inaccurate to prop up a blind belief (such as the Apollo Moon Landing deniers), then it's far from a legitimate discipline of study and research.

There is no doubt that if one “cherry-picks” the evidence, then one can construct practically any story one likes. What we must do is look at the evidence as a whole – we must explore all the available evidence. We must not “cherry-pick” only those parts that seem to support out own pet beliefs.

I'm suggesting that transience does not exclude science from examining, measuring, testing and making predictions based upon results. Therefore, the transient nature of UFOs does not give them any special 'exemption'…

I agree. We should be able to come up with testable research (and null) hypotheses in order to test the assumptions underlying beliefs about UFOs. Indeed I have already proposed a null hypothesis that would allow us to test the UFO debunker belief that UFO reports primarily result from a misidentification of mundane objects. However, every time I propose that it is either ignored or hand-waved away. I am sure if we actually set our minds to it collaboratively we could come up with many testable hypotheses - but of course the debunkers are simply set on debunking rather than coming up with testable hypotheses. The debunkers are thus not involved in critical thinking at all - they just debunk from what seems to be a faith-based foundation (often resorting to mere denial, ridicule and ad hominem) and that is where it ends.

 

[ufology]

So then you will be able to provide the scientific evidence that has “weeded out” ET then?

If all we had were “fantastic stories and wild speculation” you might have a point. Unfortunately for you we have credible multiple eyewitness testimony, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and a conjunction of those) on which to found our explanatory hypotheses. The evidence to date shows us there are UFO cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation. We can then legitimately propose exploratory hypothetical explanations (especially plausible ones such as ET).

Ramjet ...

your commentary is consistently a cut above the rest of the weak ad hominem attacks and offhanded dismissals. It also seems that we agree, from a critical thinking perspective, that it is reasonable to believe that UFOs exist, even without a travel agency here on Earth to offer rides in them for skeptics and disbelievers.

So if we accept that UFOs are some sort of alien technology or life form, what hypothesis ( generic ) do you think is the most probable as an explanation for where they come from?

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack ... It's time for you to come up with a new routine.

Your failure was made certain at the point where you acknowledged willfully abandoning reality to support your own beliefs...

To be precise, the request above is ill conceived. Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

And as a result, your argument that any critical thinking is involved in "ufology" has failed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Illnesses often resolve of their own accord and there is also the well documented placebo effect. People do get better but any perceived correlation (and statistical analysis shows there is none in reality) between getting better and taking a homeopathic remedy has never been shown to have a causal link. Quite simply there is scientific evidence from epidemiological studies that homeopathy does not work.

Illnesses often resolve of their own accord UFOs often turn out to have mundane explanations and there is also the well documented placebo effect has never been even one case that turned out to be pseudoaliens. People do get better see things in the sky but any perceived correlation (and statistical analysis shows there is none in reality) between getting better seeing things in the sky and taking a homeopathic remedy pseudoalien spaceships has never been shown to have a causal link. Quite simply there is scientific evidence from epidemiological any studies that homeopathy does not work UFOs are pseudoalien spaceships.

People may still believe, but that belief is faith-based – it is not founded on the evidence we do have. [Funny, didn't have to change that sentence at all.]

Now you return to making mere unfounded assertions. People believe in homeopathy, but that is a faith-based belief. For ufologists the “belief” is evidence based.

Now you return to making mere unfounded assertions. People believe in homeopathy UFOs as pseudoalien flying saucers, but that is a faith-based belief. For ufologists the “belief” is evidence definitely faith based.

There is the multiple eyewitness, the radar, the film and photographic and the physical trace evidence on which such a “belief” in UFOs is founded.

You forgot FLIR again. LOL! More of your dishonesty.

There is the multiple eyewitness who can be mistaken or lying, the radar returns of something, hard to say with anecdotes, the film which of course can be faked easily and photographic which can be faked easily and the absolutely no physical trace evidence on which such a “belief” in UFOs is founded.

That is the difference between ufology and homeopathy. In homeopathy we have scientific evidence that it does not work. In ufology, there is no scientific knowledge or evidence that rules out even the strong claim that UFOs = ET.

That is the There is no difference between ufology and homeopathy. In homeopathy we have scientific evidence that it does not work. In ufology, there is no scientific knowledge or evidence that rules out even the strong claim that UFOs = ET.

So how you can maintain that the evidence for homeopathy is “better” than that for UFOs is simply beyond me.

So how you any pseudoscientist can maintain that the evidence for homeopathy is “better” any different than that for UFOs is simply beyond me.

Sure, people “believe” in the face of the evidence all the time – witness the debunker phenomenon in these UFO related threads for example – the debunkers “believe” that all UFOs are primarily caused by a misidentification of mundane objects – even when they are presented with the evidence that this is unlikely to be the case – they still manage to maintain their belief.

Sure, people “believe” in the face of the lack of evidence all the time – witness the debunker creduloid pseudoscientist phenomenon in these UFO related threads for example – the debunkers creduloid pseudoscientists “believe” that all UFOs are primarily caused by a misidentification of mundane objects pseudoaliens – even when they are presented with the evidence that this is unlikely to be the case – they still manage to maintain their belief.

Yet you have presented no evidence for that belief of yours. One can only therefore assume it is a faith-based belief – and that IS then similar to the beliefs of those who think homeopathy works.

Didn't have to change that last sentence at all either. LOL.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So then you will be able to provide the scientific evidence that has “weeded out” ET then?


If all we had were “fantastic stories and wild speculation” you might have a point. Unfortunately for you we have credible multiple eyewitness testimony, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and a conjunction of those)

And FLIR. You forgot FLIR again. LOL!

on which to found our explanatory hypotheses. The evidence to date shows us there are UFO cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation. We can then legitimately propose exploratory hypothetical explanations (especially plausible ones such as ET).

Blimp, hoax, oil well fire. You know, the ones your lack of critical thinking and fatally flawed version of a process of elimination ruled out. LOL!

 

[Stray Cat]

So then you will be able to provide the scientific evidence that has “weeded out” ET then?

Attempt to shift the burden of proof another example of un-critical thinking.

If all we had were “fantastic stories and wild speculation” you might have a point. Unfortunately for you we have credible multiple eyewitness testimony, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and a conjunction of those) on which to found our explanatory hypotheses. The evidence to date shows us there are UFO cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation. We can then legitimately propose exploratory hypothetical explanations (especially plausible ones such as ET).

What's it called when you keep saying inaccurate stuff over and over again in the vain hope that if you say it often enough people will believe it?

There is a thread with 8,938 posts in it that clearly shows you have non of the stuff you mention above. Unless you've been holding the good stuff back for the last 18 months.

 

[LashL]

This thread has generated a disproportionate number of reports and is chock full of breaches of the Membership Agreement, so it is being closed until a Moderator has the time to clean it up. As always, do not attempt to start a new thread on the same subject while this one is closed for clean up.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Pixel42]

A very good question. On topic and to the point.

The thrust of your reply, if I understand it correctly, is that ET-piloted aircraft are inherently more plausible than ghosts and other such supposedly paranormal phenomena.

Even if that were true (and I don't think it is - ETs living on other planets yes, ETs travelling to earth to perform physically impossible maneuvers in our atmosphere for no apparent reason no) it doesn't alter the fact that the standard of evidence is no better than that for supposedly paranormal phenomena, several of which have been shown by careful application of the scientific method not to be real.

The only reasonable assumption for the remaining phenomena for which such experimental verification is impossible, until and unless better evidence is produced, is that they too are due to the same human errors and cognitive biases as the ones which can be experimentally shown not to exist. And the more time goes by without such evidence appearing, the more reasonable that assumption becomes.

 

[ufology]

The thrust of your reply, if I understand it correctly, is that ET-piloted aircraft are inherently more plausible than ghosts and other such supposedly paranormal phenomena.

Even if that were true (and I don't think it is - ETs living on other planets yes, ETs travelling to earth to perform physically impossible maneuvers in our atmosphere for no apparent reason no) it doesn't alter the fact that the standard of evidence is no better than that for supposedly paranormal phenomena, several of which have been shown by careful application of the scientific method not to be real.

The only reasonable assumption for the remaining phenomena for which such experimental verification is impossible, until and unless better evidence is produced, is that they too are due to the same human errors and cognitive biases as the ones which can be experimentally shown not to exist. And the more time goes by without such evidence appearing, the more reasonable that assumption becomes.

Everything that is said above is fine up to the point where it is claimed that "The only reasonable assumption ... ".

How does one "reasonably assume" that "human errors and cognitive biases" can explain how a USAF pilot can chase a UFO in a jet for 2 minutes during the daylight, come to as close as 500 yards, see it clearly as a flying disk, and watch it zoom off leaving his jet behind in a matter of seconds. If there was human error, the pilot would not have been able to fly his jet, let alone stay on the tail of a UFO for 2 minutes. That takes coherent, conscious, action and fast accurate reflexes over an extended time. So it isn't reasonable to conclude there was any human error or misperception.

What kind of "bias" is involved in reporting the description to his commanders? USAF pilots are trained to recognize many kinds of aircraft, including known exotic enemy aircraft. It isn't reasonable that he would fabricate the shape of a disk.

Then add that the pilot was sent to intercept the UFO because it was picked up on radar ... then add a bunch more similar cases ... and then many many many more from civilians that don't have any natural or manmade explanation.

It's not reasonable at all to dismiss all these other incidents, but one's own scientifc minded bias enters the equation and becomes a mirror of prejudice: From Wikipedia on Occam's Razor

"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.”

It has been my experience here that the "world views" between the skeptics and believers are so divergent that it is almost impossible for either side in the debate to see it from the opposing side's point of view. I can claim all I want that I understand the principles of science and logic behind the assumpions made by both skeptics and myself, but it doesn't matter to most skeptics. They simply proclaim that I couldn't possibly understand or I wouldn't believe what I believe.

It's a common historical fallacy for people to take the "you just don't understand, therefore you're wrong" position. It's even worse when someone takes the time to demonstrate that they do indeed understand only for the explanation to be dismissed without any valid explanation, usually by some ad hominem attack. Why do people do that? Is it fear of being ostracized from their skeptical community? There is clear evidence in favor of that.

If you're going to buy into the big box scientific institutional paradigm, you can't be seen as being woo-woo until you've got your Ph.D. and tenure. If anything, the real bias is on the side of the skeptics because they have everything to lose by admitting they could be wrong. On the other hand, the case for bias in the experiencers is exactly the reverse. They are often reluctant to make the claims because of the fear they will be socially attacked and stigmatized ( this forum is proof enough of that ).

For all these reasons there is no justified basis for claiming the only reasonable assumption for all UFO reports is human errors and cognitive biases ... Given the wealth of information, it is far more reasonable to assume that UFOs are real and that they aren't any natural or manmade phenomenon ... where does that leave us to look next, if not up?

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

People have been claiming to see "ghosts" for tens of thousands of years. I'm certain the sheer numbers of ghost sightings on record dwarf UFO sightings by several orders of magnitude.

Therefore, by Rramjet's own "Weight of Evidence" argument, ghosts are far more likely than ET to actually exist.

 

[John Albert]

How does one "reasonably assume" that "human errors and cognitive biases" can explain how a USAF pilot can chase a UFO in a jet for 2 minutes during the daylight, come to as close as 500 yards, see it clearly as a flying disk, and watch it zoom off leaving his jet behind in a matter of seconds.

Maybe it was one of those "alternate realities" you were talking about in that other thread.

(Translation for those of us simplistic old fuddy-duddys who still only believe in one reality: "Maybe he lied.")

That sounds far more reasonable to me than the assumption of outer space aliens in a flying saucer.

 

[ufology]

People have been claiming to see "ghosts" for tens of thousands of years. I'm certain the sheer numbers of ghost sightings on record dwarf UFO sightings by several orders of magnitude.

Therefore, by Rramjet's own "Weight of Evidence" argument, ghosts are far more likely than ET to actually exist.

Well you're gonna love this one. The phenomena that gives rise to belief in ghosts is something real. What it is I don't know. I don't believe in "life after death", but strange things happen that we don't have explanations for, so we try to fit those experiences into some context we can relate to. Such is the case with ghosts. If there were nothing to give people the impression there were ghosts, there wouldn't be so many ghost reports. Similarly if there was nothing to give rise to UFO reports, there would be far fewer UFO reports.

j.r.

 

[Pixel42]

Everything that is said above is fine up to the point where it is claimed that "The only reasonable assumption ... "

If you accept that the standard of evidence for ghosts and ET-piloted UFOs is no better than the standard of evidence for phenomena which have been experimentally shown not to exist (and you just did) then yes: the same human errors and cognitive biases which led to perfectly intelligent and sensible people believing in the phenomena which have been shown not to exist are also the most likely explanation for them believing in ghosts and ET-piloted UFOs. The more time and effort is devoted to discovering better evidence without success, the more likely it becomes that that is indeed the explanation. A reasonable person would certainly by now take it as their working assumption in both cases, until and unless better evidence is eventually produced.