Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[GeeMack]

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.

To sum up:

• Link 1 - "Ufology" is not pseudoscience because ufology simply proclaimed it.
  
  
• Link 2 - "Ufology" is not pseudoscience because ufology simply proclaimed it.
  
  
• Link 3 - "Ufology" is not pseudoscience because ufology simply proclaimed it.
  
  
• Link 4 - "Ufology" is not pseudoscience because ufology simply proclaimed it.
  
  
• Link 5 - "Ufology" is not pseudoscience because ufology simply proclaimed it.
  
  
• Link 6 - "Ufology" is not pseudoscience because ufology simply proclaimed it.

Hey wait. Didn't someone just say something isn't true simply because someone proclaims it?...

There has been no ample refutation and simply proclaiming there has been doesn't make it true.

Yet there it is, a list of simple proclamations which are supposed to show that...

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

You have got to be kidding. Linking to your own posts, posts which essentially amount to simply proclaiming, is about as transparently desperate of an argument as ever gets put forward here. And I'm pretty sure most of us would agree it's a despicably dishonest argument, too. So...

​

Okay, now that I'm done laughing at another fine example of how ridiculously dishonest the typical arguments of the alien believers are... Serious question: Are you just here for trolling? Because if you're here to seriously defend the pseudoscience of "ufology" against the term "pseudoscience", you have failed miserably and completely. So completely that I predict absolutely no recovery from the depth of failure your arguments have achieved.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There has been no ample refutation and simply proclaiming there has been doesn't make it true.

Oh yes, ample refutation. More than ample. That you don't like it doesn't matter. That you disagree with it doesn't matter.

Nobody has nullified the actual logical reasoning in any way shape or form.

That's because you didn't use 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.

No, everyone can point out your logical fallacies and how and where you are wrong and you won't listen. You will continue through life with your fingers in your ears.

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.

This is another example of your fingers in your ears. UFOlogy doesn't have to claim to be a science to be a pseudoscience. Why are you so against being a pseudoscientist if that's what you are? Are you ashamed of it?

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.

Well, no. Despite your proclamations to the contrary, UFOlogy has been defined as a pseudoscience for a long time and will continue to do so until the pseudoscientists start using critical thinking and stop acting like children playing scientist.

 

[AdMan]

You have got to be kidding. Linking to your own posts, posts which essentially amount to simply proclaiming, is about as transparently desperate of an argument as ever gets put forward here. And I'm pretty sure most of us would agree it's a despicably dishonest argument, too.

Yes. Thanks for responding and summarizing.

 

[John Albert]

Why are you so against being a pseudoscientist if that's what you are? Are you ashamed of it?

The pseudoscientist doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[carlitos]

If you can't say something constructive.........

j.r.

To point out your dishonest tactics, in the hopes that anyone reading this realizes that ufolists are dishonest charlatans.

 

[John Albert]

Wow. What an horrible commercial.

And I thought the ads were awful here in the US.

 

[Rramjet]

Can anyone actually tell me if there has been any rational or logical argument presented to demonstrate ufology to be a pseudoscience - or has it merely been proclaimed by the UFO debunkers?

Really, have the debunkers simply redefined "pseudoscience and made unfounded assertions based on that redefinition? I really want to know - what are the arguments to support the debunker case? Surely there must be at least one?

 

[Brainache]

Can anyone actually tell me if there has been any rational or logical argument presented to demonstrate ufology to be a pseudoscience - or has it merely been proclaimed by the UFO debunkers?

Really, have the debunkers simply redefined "pseudoscience and made unfounded assertions based on that redefinition? I really want to know - what are the arguments to support the debunker case? Surely there must be at least one?

Well there's the fact that Ufologists are claiming "Aliens!" when, if they weren't pseudoscientists, they would be claiming "Unidentified". That is pseudoscience.

There are other arguments, but let's start with that one.

 

[Akhenaten]

Can anyone actually tell me if there has been any rational or logical argument presented to demonstrate ufology to be a pseudoscience - or has it merely been proclaimed by the UFO debunkers?

Really, have the debunkers simply redefined "pseudoscience and made unfounded assertions based on that redefinition? I really want to know - what are the arguments to support the debunker case? Surely there must be at least one?

Massive evidence in support of the contention that ufology is pseudoscience.

You're welcome.

 

[AdMan]

Can anyone actually tell me if there has been any rational or logical argument presented to demonstrate ufology to be a pseudoscience - or has it merely been proclaimed by the UFO debunkers?

Really, have the debunkers simply redefined "pseudoscience and made unfounded assertions based on that redefinition? I really want to know - what are the arguments to support the debunker case? Surely there must be at least one?

You gotta be kidding.

 

[John Albert]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

• Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.
• Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them). (See also: Reproducibility)
• Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's razor)
• Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
• Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.
• Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design.
• Lack of understanding of basic and established principles of physics and engineering.

Sound familiar?

Here are a few hallmarks we see an awful lot of around here:

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

• Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: falsifiability)
• Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict. Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g. Ignoratio elenchi)
• Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)
• Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience. This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).
• Presentation of data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims. This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.
• Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.

Here's one we got to see a lot of over the past couple days:

Personalization of issues

• Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.
• Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.
• Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to join a ufology forum and try introducing a reasoned, skeptical viewpoint to their community. How long do you reckon I'd last before getting banned?


If you've got the time, take a few minutes to read the entire Wikipedia page. There's a lot of information in there that would qualify "ufology" as a pseudoscience.

 

[zooterkin]

Wow. What an horrible commercial.

And I thought the ads were awful here in the US.

It was quite an old ad, from over 20 years ago, and probably looks worse than it is out of context.

 

[23_Tauri]

Can anyone actually tell me if there has been any rational or logical argument presented to demonstrate ufology to be a pseudoscience - or has it merely been proclaimed by the UFO debunkers?

Really, have the debunkers simply redefined "pseudoscience and made unfounded assertions based on that redefinition? I really want to know - what are the arguments to support the debunker case? Surely there must be at least one?

No, there's been a bit more than that I think, Rramjet.

Ufology is a pseudoscience because it pretends that it uses the scientific method in it's analysis of UFO sightings when it does not such thing. You don't have to be in a lab under controlled conditions to use the scientific method, you can be in the field making your observations. BUT, (and it's a very big BUT, and shaped like an elephant and standing in the living room in ufology's case) ufology doesn't make any effort to accurately record those observations or control for other variables.

For example, ufology (the pseudoscience, not the poster) will take as fact someone proclaiming that a UFO was so big and travelling so fast ("It was this big! It went faster than anything known to man!" ), when accurate measurements were not taken in the field. Elements such as distance, speed, size; these were not recorded properly. Compare this to an ornithologist going out in the field and measuring the size and distribution of a species of birds' eggs. (S)he will take his calipers and maps, maybe even a sat nav these days, and collect accurate, verifiable data. That's science! Do ufologists do this?

ETA: thank you to John A for posting the link to the wiki page on pseudoscience. Does any more need to be said, I wonder?

 

[Pixel42]

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to join a ufology forum and try introducing a reasoned, skeptical viewpoint to their community. How long do you reckon I'd last before getting banned?

Remember when that believer in reincarnation turned up and, after failing to make any headway, invited us to his favourite woo forum so that his fellow believers could help him convince us?

What fun that was.

ETA: Just did a search for the thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188210

The similarity with the conversation with ufology is striking. Only the Idée fixe is different.

 

[Akhenaten]

He sure showed us, alrighty.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Can anyone actually tell me if there has been any rational or logical argument presented to demonstrate ufology to be a pseudoscience - or has it merely been proclaimed by the UFO debunkers?

Really, have the debunkers simply redefined "pseudoscience and made unfounded assertions based on that redefinition? I really want to know - what are the arguments to support the debunker case? Surely there must be at least one?

While you're perusing the link Akhenaten provided for you, in this thread there are posts where actual examples with links of a pseudoscientist in action working his pseudosciencey things have been given. That pseudoscientist also lays claim to have a method for determining when human perception errors occur so that he can sound all sciencey and stuff. No documentation is ever provided for such wildly inflated claims, it's just some kid playing at being a scientist. Believe it or not, this same pseudoscientist claims that he can eliminate all mundane explanations for UFOs! I kid you not. Of course, this is another case of him not providing any evidence for his super powers. In fact, quite the opposite has been shown, where he failed so miserably so many times that now every time he says it, everyone knows he is outright lying.

If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

 

[The Man]

Two main points. First:

Is your use of the straw man tactic intentional? A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The misrepresentation is that you claim that I am trying to redefine critical thinking, which is not true. The actual definition I used came from the Foundation For Critical Thinking. The remainder of the introduction is simply a quick start for new posters.

Following that it was pointed out by other posters that there are several interpretations and definitions and that we should have a more clear definition of Critical Thinking for use in this discussion. My response was to concur but cautioned that it should not be narrowed so far as to make it synoymous with the scientific method, as that would derail the thread. Here are more points to consider.

Dr. Richard Paul is an internationally recognized authority on critical thinking, with eight books and over 200 articles on the subject. Among a lot of other things, he says that, "since critical thinking can be defined in a number of different ways consistent with each other, we should not put a lot of weight on any one definition. Definitions are at best scaffolding for the mind."

Here are some other thoughts:

Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions.

Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem; in general, whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do so in a reasonable and reflective way.

Critical thinking is also an important part of the scientist's toolbox, and conversely science can play an important role in the application of critical thinking. For example in determining which hypothesis ( either generic or scientific ) is the most reasonable. So science, as I have said before is not ruled out with respect to critical thinking and I've invited the presentation of scientific data.

In the spirit of Dr. Richard Paul's "scaffold for the mind" analogy, I have made the point that ultimately the common thread that runs through all definitions of critical thinking, although not always stated in these exact words is that critical thinking is an intellectual pursuit of the truth wherever it may lead, and whatever means helps advance that effort is reasonable to consider.

So I haven't "redefined" critical thinking. I've simply placed it into a context suited for the subject matter, and I've left it open for further discussion. In that context, science is most welcome in the realm of critical thought, but in the absence of purely scientific data, the discussion can still continue based on what available information we do have.

In the case of UFOs, there are firsthand accounts, some of which are backed by corroboration and detecting equipment such as cameras or radar. It does not seem reasonable ( at least to me ) to dismiss all such accounts. But this is only in relation to judging the objective reality of UFOs. There are other aspects of the field that can be discussed as well.

All in all I believe the above makes my position fair minded and as clear as possible under the circumstances. By all means the floor is open for further comment on how the thread can be improved.

I stated your position quite specifically…

So much so you’re trying to redefine critical thinking to accept what has been demonstrated to be the most unreliable source of information, anecdotal accounts.

Are you now claiming the acceptance of anecdotal accounts as “critical thinking” is no longer your stated position?

Generic cut and pate responses about how actually addressing your purported “critical thinking” is a “strawman” will not help you.

Attempting to adjust critical thinking to “the subject matter” is not thinking very critically at all, nor is actually addressing your assertions a “straw man tactic”.

Second Point:

Your assertion: "Just because you can 'see it' doesn’t make it real." is highly dependent on the context of the relality in which the 'it' was seen. However the common thread that runs through all contexts is that there was some stimulus that had an effect on the visual cortex. Even hallucinations have some causal factor. However hallucinations in healthy unimpaired ( non chemical induced ) adults is very rare, and I've not found a case anywhere that has indicated a high probability of a hallucinated UFO sighting by such a person. The closest is the Mantell case, due to altitude ( hypoxia ), but even that case was backed up by multiple witnesses ... something was up there, possibly a Skyhook balloon, and it was seen by more than one observer, including ground observers. So although you are technically correct, it would be more precise of you to say that a visual observation does not mean that what was perceived is what we might assume it to be. Additionally there are conditions around such incidents that can help to assess the situation in greater detail. In other words, observation can and most often does provide useful information.

We use our eyes daily to accomplish many tasks successfully, and are living proof that good eyesight in healthy unimpaired people far more often than not, does indicate the material reality of things that are presumed to be materially real. For skeptics to cherry pick experiences they want to debunk and use them as exceptions in every case is unreasonable and pseudoskeptical.

j.r.

“context of the relality in which the 'it' was seen”? So you’ve got more than one “reality” and each with its own “context”? How unfortunate for you.

So I see you are simply going to try to sidestep the point. Their faux controller was not a “hallucination” or “presumed to be materially real” it was materially real and know to be so as they constructed it, it just wasn’t an actual air traffic controller. Heck, even if an actual air traffic controller just happened to be there it still doesn’t mean there would be any air traffic to control. Your assertion that “an optical stimulus has causal consequences” is again exactly what they were invoking and it failed them just as it now fails you. Your assertions above again simply amount to a demonstrative lack of critical thinking. “the material reality of things that are presumed to be materially real”? What happens when you forgo that presumption? What happens when you forgo the rest of your “common thread” presumptions? Critical thinking only starts when you finially become an outspoken critic of, first of all, your own thinking.

 

[The Man]

Wow, now we're on "argument by copy & paste"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7386439&postcount=564

Your Wall o' Waffle™ acknowledged and duly ignored as it has already been shown to be false in the other thread you pasted it into.

One main point:


This rubbish is nothing but a copypaste of Post #564 In the "Critical Thinking in Ufology" thread.

Are you hoping for a different set of answers in this thread?

Perhaps this is an indication that we should be asking for a merge of the various ufailogy threads.

I’m inclined to agree as it seems to have become, as apparently intended, the main gist of such.

 

[ufology]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Sound familiar?

Here are a few hallmarks we see an awful lot of around here:

Here's one we got to see a lot of over the past couple days:

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to join a ufology forum and try introducing a reasoned, skeptical viewpoint to their community. How long do you reckon I'd last before getting banned?

If you've got the time, take a few minutes to read the entire Wikipedia page. There's a lot of information in there that would qualify "ufology" as a pseudoscience.

John Albert ...

Post all the definitions of pseudoscience you want. I've not disputed that certain instances that fit the defintion of pseudoscience might take place in ufology, but the most important part of the definitions above is:

"Assertion of scientific claims ..."

The claim itself has to be defined as a scientific claim and then be deemed as not in line with the scientific method.

and the opening line of the definition:

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific ...

So unless something is unambiguously presented as scientific first, it's not claiming to be "science", and is therefore not subject to the definition of pseudoscience ( how many times do we need to go through this? ).

Because ufology in and of itself represents an entire field, a large part of which isn't science in the first place, for example journalism and reporting, mythology and lore, history of the subject and social & cultural influence, it is simply inapropriate to forcibly jam ufology as a whole into the pseudoscience label. The only reason that skeptics attempt to do so is to suit their own bias and make it easy to slap a derogatory term over the entire field ... I'm sorry but it won't work. It's weak and shows a lack of fair mindedness.

That being said, by all means root out what you consider to be instances of pseudoscience within the field, and let's put them to the test using actual examples. That would be more constructive.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

Because ufology in and of itself represents an entire field, a large part of which isn't science in the first place, for example journalism and reporting, mythology and lore, history of the subject and social & cultural influence, it is simply inapropriate to forcibly jam ufology as a whole into the pseudoscience label. The only reason that skeptics attempt to do so is to suit their own bias and make it easy to slap a derogatory term over the entire field ... I'm sorry but it won't work. It's weak and shows a lack of fair mindedness.

Nonsense. You are not being persecuted. You are being called out on your consistently dishonest arguments, your persistent use of logical fallacies, your complete and admitted abandonment of critical thinking, and your lies.

"Ufology" is pseudoscience as demonstrated by the policy position on the web site of the UFO Society International. They acknowledge that they have a preconceived notion that aliens exist...

USI recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition and 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.

... and the claim that there is some objective methodology involved in their search for that preconceived notion they mistakenly call "the truth"...

Our aim is to illuminate the truth by presenting accurate, objective, and verifiable information that can be enjoyed by all our visitors. To achieve this goal, content from multiple sources is distilled into concise articles for a general audience. This methodology greatly contributes to accuracy and economy because cross checking facts and eliminating redundant data are a natural part of the distillation process.

So...

That being said, by all means root out what you consider to be instances of pseudoscience within the field, and let's put them to the test using actual examples. That would be more constructive.

It has been rooted out at this crackpot web site which claims to be one of the preeminent "ufology" sites on the 'net, UFO Society International, where we have a large body of evidence to show that "ufology" is, by definition, pseudoscience.