• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

Stray Cat said:
I was sat talking to a high ranking military man who doesn't wish to be identified due to perceived pressure from the MoD, but suffice to say he has 'inside knowledge' of some of the lesser known aspects of what goes on up there in the sky. As the conversation progressed we talked about all sorts of things, but one subject kept coming up time and again, the study of UFOs.
After a while I asked him; "What is the RAF position on UFOlogy".
He told me it was pseudo science.

So it must be true, because an anonymous and yet reliable military man told me so.

If anyone needs verifiable, physical evidence of this fact, I can scan in the page from my notebook where I wrote down his words.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you eliminated all known natural and manmade explanations, so I have no trouble accepting this as incontrovertible evidence.
 
Stray Cat said:
I was sat talking to a high ranking military man who doesn't wish to be identified due to perceived pressure from the MoD, but suffice to say he has 'inside knowledge' of some of the lesser known aspects of what goes on up there in the sky. As the conversation progressed we talked about all sorts of things, but one subject kept coming up time and again, the study of UFOs.
After a while I asked him; "What is the RAF position on UFOlogy".
He told me it was pseudo science.

So it must be true, because an anonymous and yet reliable military man told me so.

If anyone needs verifiable, physical evidence of this fact, I can scan in the page from my notebook where I wrote down his words.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that you could also produce a video of a military man saying that very thing. (with a little bit of audio altering)
 
tsig said:
I have a feeling that you could also produce a video of a military man saying that very thing. (with a little bit of audio altering)
Click to expand...

Why would you need to alter the audio? It could be completely silent. You just don't understand the subtlety of evidence in UFOlogy.

Just seeing his lips move is evidence that he is saying that UFOlogy is pseudoscience. I'm not going to keep spoon feeding you guys. It's the conjunction of evidence. Hell, we may even have him on FLIR.
 
Akhenaten said:
I'm sure you eliminated all known natural and manmade explanations, so I have no trouble accepting this as incontrovertible evidence.
Click to expand...

Well apart from utilising my infallible 'judge of character' abilities (he was wearing a uniform for goth's sake), I can point towards scientific studies that show it is possible to tell when someone is lying (without the use of a useless polygraph) just by using your infallible optic senses.

Between 1881 and 1883, a scientist named Carlo Collodi was undertaking a study of what it meant to be human, it was a kind of early consciousness study that was to have reverberations across the decades and is still cited in various forms to this day (not least by myself in this instance). He concluded that it was possible to tell simply by looking at someone (if you know exactly what to look for), if they were telling lies. The results of that study were written up and published in 1883 and in 1940 a documentary about the results of the study was produced.

Luckily there is a brief abstract of the published paper online here:
www.somescienceystuff.con/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-lying/study-results.html
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
Well apart from utilising my infallible 'judge of character' abilities (he was wearing a uniform for goth's sake), I can point towards scientific studies that show it is possible to tell when someone is lying (without the use of a useless polygraph) just by using your infallible optic senses.
Click to expand...


We all know that polygraph machines and other measurement and observation equipment such as microscopes, telescopes, spectrometers, geiger counters, etc. only get in the way of real, actual observation. Real science can only be done using our eyes and visual cortex instead of all that fancy-schmantsy equipment.
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
Well apart from utilising my infallible 'judge of character' abilities (he was wearing a uniform for goth's sake), I can point towards scientific studies that show it is possible to tell when someone is lying (without the use of a useless polygraph) just by using your infallible optic senses.

Between 1881 and 1883, a scientist named Carlo Collodi was undertaking a study of what it meant to be human, it was a kind of early consciousness study that was to have reverberations across the decades and is still cited in various forms to this day (not least by myself in this instance). He concluded that it was possible to tell simply by looking at someone (if you know exactly what to look for), if they were telling lies. The results of that study were written up and published in 1883 and in 1940 a documentary about the results of the study was produced.

Luckily there is a brief abstract of the published paper online here:
www.somescienceystuff.con/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-lying/study-results.html
Click to expand...

And you telling us exactly what you heard makes it a first person account. Try to refute that, you pseudoscience debunkers!
 
Akhenaten said:
I'll have to study that more closely to make sure there are no strings attached, but I have a nose for these things and it looks pretty good so far.
Click to expand...
That really tickled me.
giggle.gif
 
It's not everyday I get tickled by a Pharoah. :blush:

Sorry, have we gone off-topic? My apologies, mods, back to pseudoscience!
 
Access Denied said:
True, that’s why UFOlogy is a pseudoscience ...
Click to expand...


You are describing circumstances in which some action by someone in certain situations might be considered pseudoscience by some, but that does not validate slapping the label over the whole field.

The logic proving ufology is not in and of itself a pseudoscience has already been illustrated by these posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=163
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=165
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=197
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=247
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=254
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=371

To sum up:

Large parts of ufology are not involved in doing science or claiming to be science therefore according to the definition of pseudoscience, ufology on the whole cannot be labeled pseudoscience. Only certain instances within the field as a whole might qualify as pseudoscience if the context is correct.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
You are describing circumstances in which some action by someone in certain situations might be considered pseudoscience by some, but that does not validate slapping the label over the whole field.

The logic proving ufology is not in and of itself a pseudoscience has already been illustrated by these posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=163
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=165
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=197
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=247
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=254
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=371

To sum up:

Large parts of ufology are not involved in doing science or claiming to be science therefore according to the definition of pseudoscience, ufology on the whole cannot be labeled pseudoscience. Only certain instances within the field as a whole might qualify as pseudoscience if the context is correct.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Look at the posts immediately following those and you'll see ample refutation of them plus overwhelming evidence that UFOlogy is indeed a pseudoscience. In fact, you should read all of the posts which aren't yours or Rramjet's.
 
It doesn't meet the standards we "polarized skeptics" :) require for science so we label it as pseudoscience. What do you call it...George?
 
The suffix is kind of the problem when you want to contend that ufology is neither science nor psuedoscience.

 
ufology said:
You are describing circumstances in which some action by someone in certain situations might be considered pseudoscience by some, but that does not validate slapping the label over the whole field.

The logic proving ufology is not in and of itself a pseudoscience has already been illustrated by these posts:

<links to previously debunked rubbish>
Click to expand...


DOC?


ufology said:
To sum up:

Large parts of ufology are not involved in doing science or claiming to be science therefore according to the definition of pseudoscience, ufology on the whole cannot be labeled pseudoscience. Only certain instances within the field as a whole might qualify as pseudoscience if the context is correct.

j.r.
Click to expand...


This 'No True Ufailogiist' nonsense of yours is getting a bit tired. You haven't noticed that nobody's buying it, have you?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Look at the posts immediately following those and you'll see ample refutation of them plus overwhelming evidence that UFOlogy is indeed a pseudoscience. In fact, you should read all of the posts which aren't yours or Rramjet's.
Click to expand...


There has been no ample refutation and simply proclaiming there has been doesn't make it true. Nobody has nullified the actual logical reasoning in any way shape or form. You can point out all the instances of pseudoscience you want and it won't make ufology a pseudoscience any more than my pointing out all the quacks in medicine make medicine a pseudoscience. Then add to that, that ufology isn't a science in and of itself anyway ... therefore according to the definition ( which states it must be claimed to be science ), it doesn't even fit the definition.

The pro-pseudoscience case was lost a long time ago, and continuing to refute that will only result in me reminding people of that.

j.r.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
<rant>

The pro-pseudoscience case was lost a long time ago, and continuing to refute that will only result in me reminding people of that.

j.r.
Click to expand...


You seem to be kind of overlooking that your views on the matter don't count.

You came here with your silly claim(s) trying to bring about a change of opinion and you've failed spectacularly. As I've pointed out to you once before, there are likely more people now who believe that ufology is pseudoscience than there were before you started your misguided campaign.

Just my opinion, I hear you say?

Wanna have a poll, ufology?

I could sure do with a laugh. Will you post it or would you rather I did?
 
ufology said:
Large parts of ufology are not involved in doing science or claiming to be science therefore according to the definition of pseudoscience, ufology on the whole cannot be labeled pseudoscience. Only certain instances within the field as a whole might qualify as pseudoscience if the context is correct.
Click to expand...
And sadly 99% of the time, the context is "OMG it's Aliens and they're here"
Which makes it pseudo science.

Your medical analogy has also been shown to be severely faulty too. Quackery is pseudo science... all of it, even the adverts for it (and advertising isn't a science). Medicine distances itself from such quackery in the same way that astronomers and scientists distance themselves from UFOlogists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom