Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Rramjet]

Surely something should be defined by its practicing adherents, Medicine isn't pseudo science because its practicioners are required to be qualified so that they use the scientific method in their work, likewise with any scientific field, you get the lab coat after the classroom

A field of research can only be defined by the good science that is conducted, not the bad science. In every discipline we can find examples of bad science (pseudoscience), but that does not mean we write of the whole field as pseudoscience. As ufology points out:

“Suppose some skeptic pointed to the cultural aspect of astronomy dealing with alternative theories and ideas, say perhaps Velikovsky or Sitchin ( 12th planet ) and kept focusing on them over and over again in order to slap the pseudoscience label over all astronomy. Would that be fair? Again, this is done all the time to ufology by skeptics.”

(your view of science also seems particularly elitist. As if science is not accessible to anyone who has not gained a formal “classroom” qualification… surely JREF is all about promoting scientific methodology and the accompanying critical thought processes within the general population – imagine if all those “unqualified” people thought that if they applied that very same scientific methodology as promoted to a problem, they would be then be ridiculed (or otherwise slapped down) as “unqualified” by the very same organisation that promoted the concept to them…)

 

[RoboTimbo]

A field of research can only be defined by the good science that is conducted, not the bad science. In every discipline we can find examples of bad science (pseudoscience), but that does not mean we write of the whole field as pseudoscience. As ufology points out:

“Suppose some skeptic pointed to the cultural aspect of astronomy dealing with alternative theories and ideas, say perhaps Velikovsky or Sitchin ( 12th planet ) and kept focusing on them over and over again in order to slap the pseudoscience label over all astronomy. Would that be fair? Again, this is done all the time to ufology by skeptics.”

(your view of science also seems particularly elitist. As if science is not accessible to anyone who has not gained a formal “classroom” qualification… surely JREF is all about promoting scientific methodology and the accompanying critical thought processes within the general population – imagine if all those “unqualified” people thought that if they applied that very same scientific methodology as promoted to a problem, they would be then be ridiculed (or otherwise slapped down) as “unqualified” by the very same organisation that promoted the concept to them…)

I concede that only the UFOlogists who subscribe to the ET and flying saucer theory are practicing pseudoscience. That would include those who have mentioned landing rings and "ET is a plausible explanation" or anyone who asserts to have ruled out plausible mundane explanations so that they can wedge in their pseudoaliens. They are the ones who drag down all of UFOlogy and give it such a bad name and cause shame and disgrace to the entire field.

 

[GeeMack]

I concede that only the UFOlogists who subscribe to the ET and flying saucer theory are practicing pseudoscience. That would include those who have mentioned landing rings and "ET is a plausible explanation" or anyone who asserts to have ruled out plausible mundane explanations so that they can wedge in their pseudoaliens. They are the ones who drag down all of UFOlogy and give it such a bad name and cause shame and disgrace to the entire field.

That would also include people who start, and members of UFO clubs where the members believe in extraterrestrials and the stated purpose is to swap alien stories and allegedly apply (a bastardized and dishonest version of) critical thinking in order to prove to themselves that there really, really are aliens visiting Earth.

 

[Akhenaten]

That would also include people who start, and members of UFO clubs where the members believe in extraterrestrials and the stated purpose is to swap alien stories and allegedly apply (a bastardized and dishonest version of) critical thinking in order to prove to themselves that there really, really are aliens visiting Earth.

This a priori assumption of flying saucery is what convinces me of the accuracy of the description of ufology as pseudoscience and both of our resident ufologists are classic examples of the practice.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It would be quicker to list the UFOlogists who aren't pseudoscients. I'll start:











Ok, I'm tapped. The only examples I know of are on this forum and they are definitely pseudoscientists, with their fingers in their ears and their pre-conceived conclusions firmly entrenched and absolutely no evidence of any critical thinking on their parts.

 

[Marduk]

I concede that only the UFOlogists who subscribe to the ET and flying saucer theory are practicing pseudoscience. That would include those who have mentioned landing rings and "ET is a plausible explanation" or anyone who asserts to have ruled out plausible mundane explanations so that they can wedge in their pseudoaliens. They are the ones who drag down all of UFOlogy and give it such a bad name and cause shame and disgrace to the entire field.

what he said

 

[Rramjet]

Still have no rational argument to support your own contentions then boys?

Never mind … I guess not all of us can be mature enough to approach contentious topics with a serious and critical mindset.

Ooooo I know …Perhaps if you wish real hard … I might go away … nope? … bad luck boys. Better luck next time eh?

Now close your eyes, pull the covers over your heads and maybe the big bad monster won’t be there in the morning … Boo!

LOL.

 

[ufology]

I concede that only the UFOlogists who subscribe to the ET and flying saucer theory are practicing pseudoscience. That would include those who have mentioned landing rings and "ET is a plausible explanation" or anyone who asserts to have ruled out plausible mundane explanations so that they can wedge in their pseudoaliens. They are the ones who drag down all of UFOlogy and give it such a bad name and cause shame and disgrace to the entire field.

Subscribing to the theory, as it is put above, is far different from claiming that one has scientific proof. All that "subscribing to a theory" is, is having an opinion, and anyone can have an opinion without it being pseudoscience.

Until a ufologist says he or she has scientific proof of a particular non-ambiguous conclusion that isn't actually based on solid science, it's just an opinion. And that opinion can be based on whatever information is out there, including valid scientific studies.

In other words just because a ufologist uses valid science in support of an opinion, doesn't mean any pseudoscience is taking place. The definition of pseudoscience has to be applied to the scientific claim itself ( e.g. a scientific report ). Furthermore, even if someone does make some particular claim that fits the definition of pseudosciennce, it doesn't mean the whole field is suddenly pseudoscience.

As a practical example for discussion, I proposed that we look at some of the scientific work done by the Hessdalen Research Project ( link below ).

http://www.itacomm.net/ph/Reb3.pdf

I have not seen any comments on this article. Perhaps because nobody here understands the science being applied. They are debating the possible cause of a light caught on video by the project surveillance camera using various formulas involving luminosity and power.

j.r.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Still have no rational argument to support your own contentions then boys?

Never mind … I guess not all of us can be mature enough to approach contentious topics with a serious and critical mindset.

Ooooo I know …Perhaps if you wish real hard … I might go away … nope? … bad luck boys. Better luck next time eh?

Now close your eyes, pull the covers over your heads and maybe the big bad monster won’t be there in the morning … Boo!

LOL.

Wish what? That UFOlogy is a pseudoscience Let me wish real hard. Oh I have to have my covers over my head just encase of a big scary monster... Alright Alright here we go

Ufology is a pseudoscience where the promoters sorry researchers are demonstrating monstrous lack of critical thinking skills...

Holy crap it worked we have Rramjet here and Ufology as well showing us that they have no critical thinking skills and profess that Ufology isn't a science! It's my lucky day, week, month year probably...

 

[ufology]

Is This Pseudoscience - Opinions & Reasons Please

Here is a report by a Ph.D.

http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/EuroSETI2002_OSI.htm

Is this pseudoscience or ?

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

Here is a report by a Ph.D.

http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/EuroSETI2002_OSI.htm

Is this pseudoscience or ?

j.r.

first paragraph

At present nothing proves scientifically that our planet is being visited by alien intelligences

so if youre using this to support that, then youre the pseudoscientist

 

[Stray Cat]

As a practical example for discussion, I proposed that we look at some of the scientific work done by the Hessdalen Research Project ( link below ).

http://www.itacomm.net/ph/Reb3.pdf

I have not seen any comments on this article.

Then maybe you missed this:

Without even looking at the video I'm guessing you're referencing the Hessdalen Lights.
Yes, it's pseudo science. They are trying to prove their conclusion, which is all kind of arse about tit as far as the scientific method goes.
The "UFO Observatory" has been set up working 24/7 for many years, with zero results in advancing what was observed (exaggerated, misidentified and misreported) many years ago.

And this:

Finding one piece of evidence refuting what is basically a strawman doesn't really give the project any more credibility.

Look at the list of complete nonsense masquerading as science that they list on the Hessdalen Project website: http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/

Perhaps because nobody here understands the science being applied.

And you do?
Again you underestimate your audience.

They are debating the possible cause of a light caught on video by the project surveillance camera using various formulas involving luminosity and power.

Yes, and?

Does all that complicated sciency stuff bring them any closer to finding out the cause of the light?
After all those pages of graphs and sums, has their knowledge of the Hessdalen Lights been advanced in any way?

The answer is "no" by the way. However, if their Null Hypothesis was set correctly; "The Hessdalen Lights are nothing more than mundane lights often misidentified by people" there would be no need for rebuttals of other Hessdalen Researchers faulty work in order to give the impression that real science is being done.

And if you look in the citations at the foot of that paper, you will see long list of Pseudo scientific guff used to support their position... so all in all, it's not a good example.

 

[Correa Neto]

Despite its problems, IMHO the Hessdalen Research Project is way better than what "conventional" UFOlogists are usually doing- bringing forward decades-old material of poor quality (anecdotes, blurry pictures, pictures supposed and/or shown to be hoaxes, etc.). At least they are trying to get some new data.

Again- based on UFO lore, there are hotspots and UFO flaps. Acquisition of reliable data on these objects should be possible is UFO lore were real. Why are you folks restricting yourselves to interview alleged eyewitnesses and presenting decades-old weak evidence? What about doing some real science out there and thus washing away the pseudoscience stigma?

Its almost like you are afraid the results will not match tales about aliens...

 

[dafydd]

Now close your eyes, pull the covers over your heads and maybe the big bad monster won’t be there in the morning … Boo!

LOL.

Quite right. No aliens no matter how much you want to wish them into being.

 

[TjW]

Here is a report by a Ph.D.

http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/EuroSETI2002_OSI.htm

Is this pseudoscience or ?

j.r.

Yep. Pseudoscience. Says so right in the first paragraph.

In the general context of the SETI project a new branch named SETV (Search for Extraterrestrial Visitation) was born and recently developed. This research is aimed at studying, by using the well-experimented methods of official physical science, the possible evidence of the visitation of probes, probably of robotic type, of exogenous origin inside our solar system [1, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24]. The SETV strategy is devoted to the monitoring of the entire solar system inside a sphere with a radius of 50 astronomical units with Earth in its center [17]. The use of space satellites equipped with specific detectors such as high-sensitivity infrared CCD cameras, coupled with ground-based stations such as radars and radiotelescopes connected with multichannel spectrum analyzers, wide-field and low-aperture optical telescopes (for search) and high-aperture optical telescopes (for analysis), may allow researchers to establish the possible evidence of anomalies associated with low-luminosity exogenous probes, possibly of the “Dyson sphere” type too, which are presumably located, according to predictions, in energetically favourables zones such as the Earth-Moon libration points, the asteroidal belt, the Moon and the circumlunar and circumterrestrial orbits [2, 3, 5, 10, 12]. This specific aspect of the research, already known as SETA (Search for Extraterrestrial Artifacts) is justified by statistical calculations of “galactic migration” which, based on the addition of a new parameter to the Drake formula, predict that our galaxy may have been colonized in a time lapse of the order of one million years and that the Earth itself may have been visited numerous times since the arrival of homo sapiens [11, 25]. On the basis of physical theories derived from general relativity it is also possible that ET civilizations of superior level may be able to use space-time tunnels such as “wormholes” [9]: this would shorten a lot the time of travel.

My bolding.
Claims to use science? Check.
Assumes the conclusion? Check.

That wasn't hard, was it?

 

[ufology]

Yep. Pseudoscience. Says so right in the first paragraph.

So the part you had emphsized was the Drake formula. I suppose the drake formula could be called pseudoscientific ... how do the astronomers weigh in on that? Is everything in astonomy pseudoscience now too because of the Drake formula?

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

So the part you had emphsized was the Drake formula. I suppose the drake formula could be called pseudoscientific ... how do the astronomers weigh in on that? Is everything in astonomy pseudoscience now too because of the Drake formula?

j.r.

There was more than one part emphasised.
The whole paragraph is full of assuming the conclusion or Begging the question

ETA: Even Drake himself admitted his equation was "iffy" Astronomers know it can not be used in practice... Apparently, pseudo scientists don't.

 

[Audible Click]

So the part you had emphsized was the Drake formula. I suppose the drake formula could be called pseudoscientific ... how do the astronomers weigh in on that? Is everything in astonomy pseudoscience now too because of the Drake formula?

j.r.

Are you serious? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know. A "yes" or "no" will do.

 

[TjW]

So the part you had emphsized was the Drake formula. I suppose the drake formula could be called pseudoscientific ... how do the astronomers weigh in on that? Is everything in astonomy pseudoscience now too because of the Drake formula?

j.r.

If we add this term assuming ETs have visited the solar system to the Drake equation, then using the Drake equation we can conclude that ETs must have visited the solar system.

Sounds like assuming the conclusion to me.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So the part you had emphsized was the Drake formula. I suppose the drake formula could be called pseudoscientific ... how do the astronomers weigh in on that? Is everything in astonomy pseudoscience now too because of the Drake formula?

j.r.

You seem to be misunderstanding the Drake formula.

The point of it is to show that no matter how stacked you think the odds might be against intelligent life arising, there are just so many stars out there that it's a virtual certainty that it's out there somewhere.

But, once you start limiting it to our local area by trying to add in factors like "from how far away are aliens likely to travel," or "how far away can we reasonably detect a civilization like ours," that pretty well nullifies the strength of the argument and we're backed to the odds being incredibly stacked against it.

It's not untenable to claim that there are aliens, based on the strength of the Drake equation. It's not a scientific claim, since the equation provides no evidence nor testable hypotheses, just a tenable one. However, it is unscientific and untenable to claim that there are aliens here. Do you see the difference?