Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[GeeMack]

However other kinds of conclusions can be made, including the probability that sightings are some sort of natural or manmade object or a hoax.

Until there is objective reason to believe anything exists or occurs other than "natural or manmade", it would be irrational to consider probabilities or possibilities beyond those.

 

[ufology]

No report has ever done anything like that. None. Zero. Ever. Since the beginning of time. Nothing can rule anything in or out without objectivity, and "ufology" has, by your own admission, abandoned objectivity. "Ufology" is pseudoscience.

Actually if you look through the Bluebook Archives you can find lots of reports where an astronomer has ruled out certain astronomical causes. It's fairly easily done with many things.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Until there is objective reason to believe anything exists or occurs other than "natural or manmade", it would be irrational to consider probabilities or possibilities beyond those.

Would not an objective reason to suggest that something other than a natural or manmade object, be that there was sufficient information to rule out a natural or manmade explanation with reasonable certainty?

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, you didn't answer this.

Note my bolding above. I asked you early in the thread what you brought to the table that would be different than the other pseudoscientist's anecdotes. You gave a waffling answer then, and since then your posts indicate the true answer to be "nothing". You want lots of anecdotes to equal pseudoaliens. Do you also propose that we investigate Santa Claus sightings on a case by case basis to see which ones are "real" or "genuine" sightings? If not, why not?

If you don't want to be stuck with the pseudoscientific label, don't be pseudoscientific. I'll make a suggestion, don't bring anecdotes to the table like a pseudoscientist would. Instead of going the pseudoscience route like Rramjet and looking for ways to falsify his preconceived conclusion that it's pseudoaliens, try doing it the other way. Begin with the null hypothesis that it's mundane, then falsify that with actual evidence. Not anecdotes.

Is there any reason that you would not want to do it that way?

Is there any reason that you would not want to do it that way?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I can agree that no scientific conclusion an be drawn about the true nature of unexplained UFOs until we have sufficient eveidence, preferably of an empirical nature, that can be examined under controlled conditions.

However other kinds of conclusions can be made, including the probability that sightings are some sort of natural or manmade object or a hoax. Skeptics are often very good at weeding those out and would make excellent allies in that capacity. I don't think it is necessary to present empirical scientific evidence before a skeptic can voice their opinion in this regard either, just that it be fair minded and genuine.

As for discussing the issue of alien visitation outside the realm of empirical scientific study, skeptics are certainly welcome to voice constructive opinions, as is anyone else. It would not be fair to limit people's freedom to express ideas, concepts or theories ( generic ) in an open forum.

j.r.

It's not necessary, but with nothing but stories, can you guess what that opinion is going to be?

You have chosen not to make the effort to understand the value of anecdotes.
You don't eliminate anecdotes so that you can call your conclusion scientific. You eliminate them because you have to. Otherwise your conclusion is worthless, let alone scientific. Ufology cannot have it both ways. You can't propose serious conclusions based on anecotes and be taken seriously. C'est la vie.

 

[GeeMack]

Actually if you look through the Bluebook Archives you can find lots of reports where an astronomer has ruled out certain astronomical causes. It's fairly easily done with many things.

Actually you said...

However if the report concludes that it must have been an alien spacecraft because the astronomical report rules out Venus, then we'd obviously have a problem. However not all reports do anything like that.

And no, no objective report has ever concluded that something must have been an alien spacecraft because an astronomical report ruled out Venus. None. Zero. Ever. Since the beginning of time. No report assembled by sane, intelligent people has ever concluded any such ridiculous thing. Your dishonest attempt to backpedal is noted. That dishonesty that is rampant throughout the field of "ufology" contributes to the already well evidenced fact it is indeed pseudoscience.

 

[Rramjet]

ufology, you didn't answer this.

< Begin with the null hypothesis that it's mundane, then falsify that with actual evidence.>

Is there any reason that you would not want to do it that way?

Here then is a null hypothesis that fulfils your criteria – yet you continue to ignore it RoboT:

If the UFO debunkers are correct in that all UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (such as shape, speed, colour, etc) between known reports (those that have been plausibly explained in mundane terms) and unknown reports (those that have no plausible mundane explanation).

If all reports arise from the same population (misidentified mundane objects) then we would expect the null hypothesis to hold true (that there is no difference on the defined characteristics between reports).

Why do you continue to ignore that null hypothesis RoboT?

 

[GeeMack]

Would not an objective reason to suggest that something other than a natural or manmade object, be that there was sufficient information to rule out a natural or manmade explanation with reasonable certainty?

No. The premise is foolish. If there is sufficient information to rule out a natural or man made explanation, other natural or man made explanations are still under consideration. When considering objective reality, there has never been a situation where there has been "sufficient information to rule out [all] natural or manmade explanation with reasonable certainty". And if such a situation should ever occur, gods messing with your head would be exactly as good an explanation as aliens. Interesting that you seem to fear considering that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Here then is a null hypothesis that fulfils your criteria – yet you continue to ignore it RoboT:

If the UFO debunkers are correct in that all UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (such as shape, speed, colour, etc) between known reports (those that have been plausibly explained in mundane terms) and unknown reports (those that have no plausible mundane explanation).

If all reports arise from the same population (misidentified mundane objects) then we would expect the null hypothesis to hold true (that there is no difference on the defined characteristics between reports).

Why do you continue to ignore that null hypothesis RoboT?

Because your null hypothesis is idiotic as I and others have explained to you. Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your null hypothesis is idiotic? Here's a better null hypothesis for you pseudoscientists:

If all the reports of UFOs which defy plausible mundane explanation are pseudoaliens, they should match (color, shape, FLIR, etc) those reports which have been verified to be of pseudoaliens.​

Why do you continue to ignore this falsifiable null hypothesis, Rramjet? Just match them up with all the ones that are verified pseudoaliens. Easy peasy for a pseudoscientist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, you can see the path that the pseudoscientist above wants to lead you down.

If you don't want to be stuck with the pseudoscientific label, don't be pseudoscientific. I'll make a suggestion, don't bring anecdotes to the table like a pseudoscientist would. Instead of going the pseudoscience route like Rramjet and looking for ways to falsify his preconceived conclusion that it's pseudoaliens, try doing it the other way. Begin with the null hypothesis that it's mundane, then falsify that with actual evidence. Not anecdotes.

Is there any reason that you would not want to do it that way?

I notice that Rramjet clipped off the part about "Not anecdotes." when he partially quoted me.

Is there any reason that you wouldn't want to start with a hypothesis that is falsifiable so that you don't get the pseudoscientist label like Rramjet? Easily falsifiable, just one confirmed ET.

 

[ufology]

ufology, you didn't answer this. Is there any reason that you would not want to do it that way?

The issue is that instead of dealing with cases, we're spending time arguing a pointless debate on the semantics of pseudoscience. Perhaps what we should do is start by indetifying major instances of pseudoscience in ufology. Allow me to propose the following as an example:

There is something known as the Raelian Movement. It is a part of ufology because it deals with the phenomena of UFOs and aliens and so on. However ufologists do not consider Realism itself to be ufology any more than an anthropologist would consider Catholicism itself to be anthropology. The Raelian Movement is actually a legally recognized religion in Canada. They have a number of beliefs they say are based on science, and I think those beliefs and practises would probably fit the definition of pseudoscience.

Now if a skeptic here were to compose an objective level-headed report showing the connection between Raelism and pseudoscience, I would be happy to consider publishing it up under the Raelian entry on my website. This would demonstrate cooperation between skeptics and ufologists toward a common cause in a useful and constructive manner. Given the amount of text wasted arguing here, several such constructive articles could have been written by now.

If we were to start cooperating this way and work our way down to more contentious issues, perhaps we could establish a rapport that isn't so adversarial. That would be a healthy and constructive achievement. Anyone who wants to take me up on this offer is welcome to send me a private email to work out the details.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

The issue is that instead of dealing with cases, we're spending time arguing a pointless debate on the semantics of pseudoscience. Perhaps what we should do is start by indetifying major instances of pseudoscience in ufology.

It's because ufology itself is pseudoscience.

Again there you go wanting to slap the label over everything. People are entitled to their opinions and ideas whether they are scientifically proven to exist or not and they can write them down and publish them too.

Prices are down 11%! Now's a good time for you to stock up on straw.

I didn't say they couldn't do it. I said it's pseudoscience when they do.

Neither of things means they are doing pseudoscience.

Yeah, they do. Both of those things constitute the "doing" and promoting of pseudoscience, just like the bigfoot hunters and ghost hunters do.

But once they start saying they have scientific proof and start using scientific credentials and formatting that don't meet scientific standards in support of their claim, then their claim may fall under pseudoscience, but not until.

Claiming anecdotal evidence, and forwarding pseudoscientific hypotheses like outer space aliens, moonbases in the Solar System, anti-gravity propulsion, plasma trails, and the like, is the very definition of pseudoscience.

You just said it yourself ... science is science and ufology is not.

Ufology is not science because it is pseudoscience.

For example, if an astronomer is asked for a sky map on a certain date, that is a genuine scientific report. And if that report is used to rule out the possibility of Venus as the stimulus for a UFO report, nothing pseudoscientific has taken place.

Why would you seek to "rule out" the possibility of Venus in the first place? Are you trying to use objectivity to determine the real identity of an unidentified object, or eliminate possible "mundane" causes to leave the door open to the ET hypothesis?

However if the report concludes that it must have been an alien spacecraft because the astronomical report rules out Venus, then we'd obviously have a problem. However not all reports do anything like that.

Most UFO reports I've seen tend to emphasize the possibility of ET over all other causes. That approach in itself is pseudoscientific, because it uses an anti-scientific approach to reach a scientific-sounding conclusion. It uses "pseudo-evidence" (stories) to indicate the existence of something material that has never been proven to exist by means of "real," material evidence.

Does that make any kind of sense? Am I getting through at all?

Even if some UFO reports don't conclude that it was aliens, the entire field is rife with a massive body of pseudoscientific mythology, including imaginary science-fiction technology, various "species" of aliens, weird abduction scenarios, conspiracies about "men in black" from the government who use alien technology to thwart witnesses, etc. All that garbage "pseudo-knowledge" is exemplary of pseudoscience.

In many cases no scientific reports are used at all and no scientific conclusions are drawn. Yet you want to slap the label on them too? Why?

You're ignoring a fundamental criterion for what constitutes pseudoscience. It doesn't matter whether ufologists refer to scientific materials or not. What makes it pseudoscience is using false scientific methods (like gathering stories as "evidence," comparing and correlating these stories to determine "hypotheses," etc.) to foster belief in things that are contrary to actual scientific knowledge.

As for what the JREF is trying to do, I'm fine with it. It's why I'm here.

Well good for us, I suppose, though a week ago you were threatening us all with legal action.

Ufology is a contentious topic and is constantly under attack.

It's not under attack; it's just called pseudoscience because it is pseudoscience. It makes unfounded claims without evidence and promotes them as scientific facts. That's why it has no credibility.

You have the opportunity to work with someone in the field to help clear up the problems, but most of my time here is spent deflecting attempts to demonize it all. Can we not take a more constructive approach?

Sure, but you have to understand that the problems are inherent in the way ufologists do business, and not in the way skeptics criticize their methods. Since you've been here, you've promoted numerous pseudoscientific ideas and have been called out on it.

If you really want to conduct the study of UFOs in a non-pseudoscientific manner, you're going to have to completely reorder your priorities, learn critical thinking skills, and adopt scientific methods of research. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels and ufology will continue at exactly the same pace of progress (ie. zero) as it has over the past 60-odd years.

You might want to consider adopting a new name for your new pursuit as well, to make a clean break from the pseudoscientists and cranks. Besides, "ufology" sounds really stupid anyway.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

The issue is that instead of dealing with cases, we're spending time arguing a pointless debate on the semantics of pseudoscience. Perhaps what we should do is start by indetifying major instances of pseudoscience in ufology. Allow me to propose the following as an example:
There is something known as the Raelian Movement. It is a part of ufology because it deals with the phenomena of UFOs and aliens and so on. However ufologists do not consider Realism itself to be ufology any more than an anthropologist would consider Catholicism itself to be anthropology. The Raelian Movement is actually a legally recognized religion in Canada. They have a number of beliefs they say are based on science, and I think those beliefs and practises would probably fit the definition of pseudoscience.

Now if a skeptic here were to compose an objective level-headed report showing the connection between Raelism and pseudoscience, I would be happy to consider publishing it up under the Raelian entry on my website. This would demonstrate cooperation between skeptics and ufologists toward a common cause in a useful and constructive manner. Given the amount of text wasted arguing here, several such constructive articles could have been written by now.

If we were to start cooperating this way and work our way down to more contentious issues, perhaps we could establish a rapport that isn't so adversarial. That would be a healthy and constructive achievement. Anyone who wants to take me up on this offer is welcome to send me a private email to work out the details.

j.r.

Raëlianism isn't' pseudoscience. Ufology is. Raëlianism is a cult, a sect, if you will. They even have a charismatic leader and everything. That's not pseudoscience. Though they did claim to have cloned a human once, as a publicity stunt.

 

[AdMan]

The issue is that instead of dealing with cases, we're spending time arguing a pointless debate on the semantics of pseudoscience.

You were the one who brought up the semantics of pseudoscience in this thread, arguing that if something wasn't labeling itself as science in the first place (which we've now seen ufology in fact does), it couldn't be pseudoscience.

Are you backing away from that position now, and calling the discussion of such arguments pointless?

 

[John Albert]

Now if a skeptic here were to compose an objective level-headed report showing the connection between Raelism and pseudoscience, I would be happy to consider publishing it up under the Raelian entry on my website. This would demonstrate cooperation between skeptics and ufologists toward a common cause in a useful and constructive manner. Given the amount of text wasted arguing here, several such constructive articles could have been written by now.

If we were to start cooperating this way and work our way down to more contentious issues, perhaps we could establish a rapport that isn't so adversarial. That would be a healthy and constructive achievement. Anyone who wants to take me up on this offer is welcome to send me a private email to work out the details.

So you want to enlist the help of skeptics to help you bash a UFO cult that you happen to disagree with, for your UFO club that promotes the equally baseless beliefs that you were abducted by outer space aliens and witnessed them on numerous occasions?

Sorry, dude, I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The issue is that instead of dealing with cases, we're spending time arguing a pointless debate on the semantics of pseudoscience. Perhaps what we should do is start by indetifying major instances of pseudoscience in ufology. Allow me to propose the following as an example:

That's because dealing with "cases" is pointless. Rramjet already tried that. It's pseudoscience. I have proposed that UFOlogy start with a null hypothesis that is falsifiable such as the one I gave above. A pseudoscientist would fight tooth and nail against such a suggestion (see Rramjet's tantrum above). I hope you don't. I hope you were sincere about turning UFOlogy around from being a pseudoscience.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Better yet, change your site. Start your own debunking. Start with Raël, and then debunk everything. You have the knowledge. You'll piss off your friends for sure, but it's time to do the right thing. Wouldn't that be awesome? You get to use critical thinking. Come to the dark side... I hear we have cookies.

 

[Access Denied]

One of the best ufology books ever written is Beyond Top Secret by Timothy Good. If you haven't read it, then please take the time to do so.

Why, because he was the first to publish the hoaxed MJ-12 “documents” in Above Top Secret?

What else did you “learn” from him?

Stanton Friedman really hates being a pseudoscientist. If they're so ashamed of it, why do they do it?

That’s easy, evidently it’s for the fame and fortune…

http://www.roswellfiles.com/storytellers/Friedman.htm

"As I gave more lectures, I found that I enjoyed speaking, and that people believed me no matter what I said. After all, I was a nuclear physicist for Westinghouse…"
- Stanton Friedman in his book TOP SECRET/MAJIC

[keyword “was”]

 

[Correa Neto]

One of the best ufology books ever written is Beyond Top Secret by Timothy Good. If you haven't read it, then please take the time to do so. I have hundreds of other titles that are also not scientific treatises. The vast majority of published ufology found in bookstores over the years have been collections of sightings as told by writers, not scientists.

Have you noticed what someone else wrote about it and the MJ-12 documents?
Have you missed these parts of my previous post?

"Now, good journalism, or just simple, plain, good and honest collection of stories involves, among other things, keeping track of original sources and presenting the material on a faithful, unbiased way."

and

"So, as journalism or as unbiased and reliable story telling UFOlogy also fails. It is just plain bad journalism, tabloid journalism. Note UFOlogy relies a lot on tabloid journalism as source…

So, UFOlogy when presented as science, usually is pseudoscience; when presented as journalism or faithful unbiased collection of tales it also usually fails, its pseudo journalism or tabloid journalism. The bottom line is- UFOlogy’s methods are failed."

It doesn't matter actually if you ask us ignore the pseudoscience aspect of UFOlogy. Even as a mere collection of sighting reports it fails. And skeptics or mainstream science are not to blame - its your own (remember, you are a part of UFOlogy) fault.

The minority are treated as science and they include commentary by Sagan, Klass, Hynek, Condon and a couple of others. I think John Alexander has one out now in the stores. If you want to focus your attention on pseudoscience in ufology, you're going to need to take them into consideration too.

Not everything treated and presente as science is science, especially within UFOlogy. How many of those books you claim to be scientific display good methodology and reach as final conclusion "not alien"? How many display poor methodology and end up with "alien" as conclusion?

Take Valèe's books, for example- They are indeed presented as if followed scientific methodology, at least to a certain point. Are they science or pseudoscience? And Stanton Friedman's? And MacBee's work? And all the books and sites and organizations claming to follow scientific methods?

What about when UFOlogists make claims like "statistic studies show the preponderance of this or that type of UFO or alien" and then, when asked for the raw data, the methods, the studies themselves fail to show them?

What about UFOlogists attempting to sell anecdotes as reliable evidence for aliens? Quite common, isn't it? I would even say its the standard "beef" at UFOlogy's menu. Pseudoscience or science?

UFOlogy's characterization as pseudoscience comes from UFOlogists' own acts.

As for ufologists fabricating credentials and data; before pointing fingers, there have been plenty of scientists who have fudged their data and credentials too. The scientific community is chock full of its own political issues. Over 700 incidents of fraud, serious errors, retractions in the medical field alone over a ten year period.

No human enterprise is foolproof. Science's track records on detecting and exposing fake data and fake credentials are much better than UFOlogy's. That´s because critical thinking, peer-rewied publications and the scientific methods. UFOlogy, on the other hand keeps presenting hoaxes for decades, UFOlogists with fake credentials (heck, the evidence points to one of such characters posting at this very thread) and/or completely flawed methods keep on presenting their crap book after book, UFO meeting after meeting, UFO "documentary" after UFO "documentary". And credulouids keep on buying...

I say it should be applied evenly and fairly within each field on a case by case basis using fair minded critical thinking to compare actual incidents in their proper context with the accepted definitions of science and pseudoscience. By doing this we can then claim to have actually studied the issue properly and would have a rationale for claiming that pseudoscience is more prevalent in one field or another.

j.r.

Oh, but at JREF's UFO threads, we've been using "fair minded critical thinking to compare actual incidents in their proper context with the accepted definitions of science and pseudoscience". The result, so far, usually has been pseudoscience, wishfull thinking and in a few cases, such as the contactee I linked to, sheer nuttyness.

I suggest you should to use "fair minded critical thinking to compare actual incidents in their proper context with the accepted definitions of science and pseudoscience". This will, however, trash most of the evidence and fantasies you UFOlogists so dearly keep. Your own sighting and your interpretations of it, for example, will meet such fate.

You, based on your previous posts, are not actually willing to do what it takes to change UFOlogy's current situation. Actually not just you, but most of UFOlogists. Skeptics and mainstream scientists would like to see UFOlogists raising the bar, using critical thinking and scientific methods. We know it ain't happening anytime soon.

We know what you actually want, we know what this and other UFO threads are all about. You want skeptics and mainstream scientists to accept special pledges and lower evidence and methodology quality standards regarding UFOlogy's claims. It ain't happening.

 

[ufology]

Raëlianism isn't' pseudoscience. Ufology is. Raëlianism is a cult, a sect, if you will. They even have a charismatic leader and everything. That's not pseudoscience. Though they did claim to have cloned a human once, as a publicity stunt.

I didn't say Raelism is pseudoscience. I said it's a recognized religion in Canada and that it is a topic within the field of ufology. There is also a lot of pseudoscience associated with it. Here are a few examples

What if, out of the thousands of UFO sightings that occur each year, one person actually met the occupant – the “driver” of one of these UFOs? And what if this person were given information by this space-being that explained the secret history of life on Earth and its pending future? And, what if all this information had been published decades ago and acknowledged by thousands of people, including scientists and historians?

Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers
In “Message from the Designers”, Rael presents us with the vast amount of information that he received during his UFO encounters in 1973 a third option: all life on earth having been created by advanced scientists from another world.

Today’s new cloning technology is the first step in the quest for immortality or eternal life. What past religions used to promise only after death in a mythical paradise will soon be a scientific reality here on Earth – this is Rael’s challenging conclusion in an incisive and wide-ranging review of how science is about to revolutionize all our lives.


"A recent article by a team of Indiana University published on the Magazine 'Science' describes how the 1mm long water flea has 31,000 genes in her genome while human beings seem to have only 23,000. In other words, this humble form of pond life has a much more complex genome than the human one.

Rael commented this article saying that this discovery should be added to the list of 'proof that there is no evolution'. "

j.r.