Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[wollery]

If there were such arguments then of course you would have presented them. That you have not probably means you cannot – and you cannot because they do not exist. Prove me wrong.

I have presented them. Others have presented them. Since you continually ignore or dismiss them there's little point in simply reproducing them. Just because you don't like the arguments, or don't agree with them does not mean that they do not exist, and to pretend that they don't exist is simply a ridiculous position to hold.

If the UFO debunkers are correct in that UFO reports arise primarily from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference between known and unknown categories of reports on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, colour, etc). After all, if they all arise from the same source, then the described characteristics should be equally epresented/interpreted/misrepresented/misinterpreted across all reports.

This is an unsafe assumption. See the arguments below.

LOL. According to the debunkers in this thread – leading with your conclusion is pseudoscientific…

No, they state, quite correctly, that assuming your conclusion and then ignoring or dismissing contrary evidence is pseudoscientific. Stating the conclusion you have reached before you explain how you arrived at it is actually standard practice in science. That's the point of the abstract in peer-reviewed papers. If you really had been trained as a scientist and written peer-reviewed papers, as you have claimed before, then you should know that.

No it does not, it implies that the misidentifications, erroneous observations and inaccuracies should be spread evenly over all reports. That is, when the reports are grouped according to the specified characteristics (shape, speed, etc) then those groupings can be statistically tested to determine if the knowns and the unknowns come from the same population. That is, if all reports arose from the same population we would expect an even distribution between all reports of (for example) the colour white (or a circular shape, etc).

Which completely ignores several classes of mundane explanation which would not group together. For instance, hallucination, delusion and hoax. The descriptions of objects and circumstances in each of these cases could very easily be unique, and therefore the statistics would show such cases to be different from any identified cases. It also ignores the possibility of unknown mundane causes, which would not be drawn from the same population, and would always be unidentified.

It also ignores a large raft of psychology in which people who misremember things tend to continue altering their story and memories as time passes, and assign events and objects properties that they only imagine they might have had if the object had been what they thought it was. This means that someone who isn't particularly invested in UFOs will imagine that the object they saw was probably a plane, and their memory will be reinforced that it was roughly plane shaped and travelled at jet plane speeds, whereas someone who believes in UFOs will imagine that it was probably more disk shaped and must have been travelling much faster.

You might want to start by reading the Wiki page on Confabulation, and follow some of the links from there.

Oh, so now you are hypothesising that ONLY identified reports will be accurate and ONLY unidentified reports will be inaccurate. Okay then, you will then be able to present the evidence to support that hypothesis? No, I thought not.

No, that's not what I am contending at all. What I am contending is that if all UFOs were actually mundane objects then it logically follows that identifiable reports will tend to be more accurate, and unidentifiable ones less accurate, which would be a large contributing factor in making them unidentifiable. It's simple logic to see that the less accurate a report is the less likely it is that the object it describes would be identifiable. That is not to say that ONLY identified reports would be accurate and ONLY unidentified ones would be inaccurate, but there would be a strong tendency towards that. It simply folllows logically from the premise.

Ummm…huh? The contention is actually that if all reports arose from the same population then we would expect an even distribution between all reports of (for example) the colour white (or a circular shape, etc).

I think you may find that you may be beginning with a conclusion - and that then is preventing you seeing the underlying logic.

If a description of an identifiable object has the same characteristics as an unidentified object then what is preventing the unidentified object from being identified? If it has the same characteristics as an identified object then it should be easy to identify.

It is standard practice in science to provide authoritative reference sources in support of your contentions.

Does this mean that you are going to provide an authoritative reference for you contention that, "there should be no difference between known and unknown categories of reports on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, colour, etc)"? Or is it something you just pulled out of your rear end?

That is a completely unfounded assertion and may be dismissed as such. Define “ufologist” for a start…

Read a few websites. Find a ufology website that doesn't argue that case. Find a ufology society that doesn't contend that to be the case.

…and yet you just did mention it and it is completely irrelevant to the argument. The argument was about whether it was necessary for someone to have qualifications before their research could be taken to have a sound scientific basis. You contended that it was necessary. I replied that it was elitist for you to think so - and that what really mattered was the science, not the qualifications of the person conducting it.

That's simply hysterically funny. I was actually making the argument that whether or not someone has a PhD is irrelevant.

Let's just review that little exchange shall we;

This is why ufologists make such a big deal if someone with a PhD weighs in on their side. We've seen it from you in the last page of posts, you cited a paper "by a PhD", as though that gave it some sort of extra-special status.

I point out that qualifications are irrelevant to the argument.

Oh, so its okay of PhDs (or someone with “qualifications”) to “weigh in” on your side and for you to then use the argument from authority (as you do in reference to yourself) to strengthen your case – but if someone with similar qualifications weighs in on the side of ufology, then ufologists are somehow illegitimately “making a big deal” out of it?

(Bolding mine) You accuse me of using my qualification as an argument (without any supporting evidence that I ever have).

I've never used my PhD as an argument. In fact, I rarely mention it. I do occasionally mention that I'm a professional astronomer, where it's relevant.

I respond to that accusation by refuting it.

…and yet you just did mention it and it is completely irrelevant to the argument. The argument was about whether it was necessary for someone to have qualifications before their research could be taken to have a sound scientific basis. You contended that it was necessary. I replied that it was elitist for you to think so - and that what really mattered was the science, not the qualifications of the person conducting it.

And then you claim that I brought up the subject of my PhD when it was irrelevant to the argument, despite the fact, as demonstrated above, that you brought it into the argument first. You can't bring up a subject and then claim that my mentioning it, in response to you, is irrelevant to the argument.​

You introduced the subject of my PhD. You claimed that I use it as an argument from authority. Are you going to produce some evidence to back up the claim that I use my qualifications as an argument from authority, or is it another of your unfounded assertions that we may dismiss?

..and yet you argue differently:

No, I note that professional astronomers require years of training, whereas ufologists require no training at all. The result is that astronomers are far less likely to make mistakes or be unscientific in their approach. This is a simple statement of fact. It doesn't mean that ufologists can't perform good research, or that astronomers can't perform bad research. Or do you want to revise your contention that scientists making errors is implausible?

Incorrect. He admitted the research as the production of a PhD in response to the persistent claims that "ufologists" are unqualified to conduct science.

Except that this isn't the work of a ufologist, but rather a debunking of ufology. If he had produced a paper by a qualified scientist that supported a ufology position then he might have had a point. You can't claim a paper produced by a qualified scientist that debunks a ufologist position demonstrates that ufologists are qualified. That argument makes absolutely no sense!

Oh, so now YOU are returning to the very argument that you just rejected - the argument from authority – the question is, wollery, whether or not the science is sound, not whether it has the weight of “authority” behind it.

It isn't an argment from authority but a statement of fact. The process of refereeing a paper greatly lessens the probability of it containing bad science. Or do you also want to revise your contention that it is highly improbable for peer-reviewed journals to publish bad science?

That is the beauty of science. One does not have to have one’s arguments supported to recognise good science – or are you contending that science is only good if it supports your own conclusions?

Red herring. His contention (which you confirmed in the above paragraph) was that there are qualified ufologists. Since this paper isn't by a ufologist, and actually debunks the ufology position, that argument is moot.

You contended the argument from authority to dismiss reports from ufologists (an argument you now say you reject – but only sometimes – when it suits you…), I was merely pointing out that the same argument could be applied to the debunkers and their identified as mundane reports…

I think everyone can see from the above exchanges that I have made no such contention. In fact, I have argued exactly the opposite. The point of an argument from authority is that it fallaciously claims that an argument is valid merely because it comes from someone with a particular qualification. I have never claimed that, and unless you can show otherwise then I suggest you retract the claim that I have.

I merely noted that you have supplied no evidence that your claim there is actually true - and that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Again, go read a few ufology websites, most of them are chock full of pseudoscience and credulous belief.

…coming from one who has just ignored much of what I posted…LOL.

I note that you don't deny the charge. Maybe you can point to a part of your post that I ignored.

He does not have to waste his time – I am doing such an excellent job for him.

Only in your imagination.

 

[John Albert]

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

Raelism is a religious cult built around the pseudoscientific claims of ufologists that flying saucers from outer space are visiting Earth.

There's no doubt that pseudoscience can influence religions, just as religion can influence pseudoscience.

Take Scientology for example. There's no denying the pseudoscientific basis of that faith: Dianetics psychobabble, "E-meters," ET spacecraft, alien "engrams" possessing human bodies, etc.

Likewise, religion frequently influences pseudoscience. Take for example the Biblical archaeologists who use the practice of archaeology to reinforce and confirm Biblical stories (like The Naked Archaeologist TV show on the History Channel), or the "Intelligent Design" proponents who allow their religious fundamentalism to influence their work in various fields related to biology.

Because religion predates the discovery of the modern scientific method by several thousand years, all the major world religions are based on pseudoscience. At any rate, there's no doubt that a lack of critical thinking is at the root of both religion and pseudoscience.

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?

What if somebody actually saw and had a conversation with an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary? What if that conversation revealed that the activities of mankind are pissing off God to the extent that He's about to write off the human race entirely, and condemn us all to the eternal fires of Hell?

Unless we have testable, verifiable material evidence to confirm such an allegation, it cannot be assumed that the event is real, regardless how convincing such an appeal to incredulity may seem to somebody who has already invested their unwavering faith in the existence of the BVM.

And, what if all this information had been published decades ago and acknowledged by thousands of people, including scientists and historians?

Innumerable billions of humans throughout history have—and still are—subscribed to beliefs that have since been proven to be false. Such an appeal to popularity is no proof that any such claim is real.

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.

Again, it's an appeal to ignorance, faith and/or incredulity that has no bearing on the actual veracity of the claim. What do you intend to prove or disprove by citing this information?

Today’s new cloning technology is the first step in the quest for immortality or eternal life.

I disagree. I'd say that heterosexual intercourse 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.

Cloning is not an extension of one's own life; it is merely a reproduction of one's own genetic information into a new living organism. That new organism might display similar physical and mental characteristics of the original organism, but the clone and the original will not be one and the same organism with one and the same consciousness.

"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'. "

Again, what do you intend to prove or disprove by citing this information?

 

[John Albert]

BY THE WAY, here's a huge list of things you've failed to address:

Obviously, you're operating on a flawed and incomplete definition of what constitutes pseudoscience. To be specific, you're abridging the definition to remove all aspects that might apply to ufology.

The definition of pesudoscience you've been quoting:

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

is the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry on Pseudoscience.

However, you blatantly ignore all subsequent text on the page, wherein the definition is elaborated and specified.

The very next sentence on that page reads:

Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

(bolding is mine)

Every single characteristic presented in that second sentence—the very next sentence on the page, that directly follows the one you lifted from Wikipedia and have been parroting as your intransigent definition—is absolutely definitive of the claims of ufologists (at least the ones who allege ET or other paranormal causes).

All of those characteristics are also common features of the arguments that you and Rramjet have promoted on these forums in every single UFO-related thread.


Now because you're so insufferably predictable, I already know what your lazy and disingenuous response to my last two sentences is going to be:

"All you have are unfounded assertions."

To prove my assertions are not unfounded, here are just a few examples of you personally making statements that fit those pseudoscience characteristics from Wikipedia, the very source of the definition of "pseudoscience" that you've been using as a basis to deny that ufology fits that designation.

Ready? Here we go:

The use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims:

¹ vague
² exaggerated
³ unprovable

To date there are certain markers that still rule out natural or manmade explanations for objects which appear to be of appreciable size ³

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7359634&postcount=288

Earth has been visited by objects of alien origin. Therefore, unless these objects are alien life forms in and of themselves, aliens must either exist or have existed at some time in the past to create these objects. ^1,2,3

...any reasonable person can tell there is a genuine mystery going on.^1,2,3

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=114

there is no mundane explanation for them all [speaking of ET abductions] that is reasonable.^1,2,3

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7394136&postcount=187

the genetic differences between humans and dogs is only 25% and between humans and chimps 5%^1,2

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7395930&postcount=209

Quite a few ufologists suggest that he and his aircraft were abducted by a UFO, so technically it is a UFO abduction and it counts as such.^1,2,3

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7401878&postcount=293

It is entirely possible that some other planet or moon in our system has some kind of base on it inhabited by an alien intelligence. A high tech base could easily go undetected by our space probes.^1,3

we have alledged inside leaks from people who have worked inside [USAF Space Command] saying that they do track unkown objects coming into the Earth - Moon system, and we do have reports of gigantic machines in the atmosphere^1,2,3

We have a tendency to measure the potential of other intelligence against our own limitations.^1,2,3

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7393763&postcount=281

Our own scientists are rapidly figuring out how to end aging in humans and according to researchers, we'll have it figured out sometime this century.^1,2,3

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7395746&postcount=294


Over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation:

The bias above is the presumption that things have been shown not to exist. In actual fact there is no way to show ( as proof ) that these things don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7394220&postcount=503

It's not always wise to make assumptions about what we "know". We only think it is reasonable to believe there is no intelligent life anywhere in our solar system other than on Earth, but we don't actually "know". It is entirely possible that some other planet or moon in our system has some kind of base on it inhabited by an alien intelligence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7393763&postcount=281

The "null hypothesis" as a scientific principle doesn't apply to ufology because of the the lack of controlled and measurable conditions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7378896&postcount=341

There are all these eyewitnesses who saw something...The sheer number of somethings seen has enabled investigators in the past to reasonably conclude that "the phenomenon is real", and they go on to make some other coclusions based on the observations and investigations of people they trusted

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7386542&postcount=569

with UFOs, we don't know for sure what we are dealing with. There is no way to guage what the simplest thing is for them. Therefore Occam's razor shouldn't even be used as a guage in the first place, but if we are to use it, we must admit that because we don't know all the limiting factors, it is entirely possible that it is really easy for them to travel interstellar distances.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7373876&postcount=397

Certainly we can't take all abductions stories at face value. But it would be equally as irresponsible to dismiss all of them as it would be to dismiss all the explanations.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7394136&postcount=187

I also find it reasonable to believe based on the sheer number of experiences by other people that I am not the only person on Earth that has seen a UFO ( alien craft ).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7394030&postcount=114


A general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories:

In ufology, we don't have empirical data that can be directly observed and measured repeatedly... Therefore we cannot make any scientific conclusions about the actual subject matter ( UFOs ).

we can only do our best to apply critical thinking in an effort to determine the most reasonable explanations and look for further clues in that direction.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7406577&postcount=637

What you really mean to say here is that there is no objective empirical scientific evidence that the public is aware of. So What?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7398702&postcount=127

ufology falls outside the realm of systematic, empirical testing & knowledge, and therefore is not applicable to scientific skepticism

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7394220&postcount=503

Critical thinking has already been explained at the start of this thread and it is not the same as the scientific method. Scientific evidence isn't the only evidence that can be used, so we aren't limited only to that data here, or to reaching any conclusions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7364509&postcount=65

I would say that the more we can apply scientific principles [to the study of ufology] the better off we are, but if we are going to do that, it should be done by real scientists who know how to do it properly. Then we could say that although ufology itself isn't a "science", it offers genuine scientific data. In the mean time I think that critical thinking adds just as much credibility as science.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7354245&postcount=131

I understand the concept of critical thinking quite well, and any difficulty putting it into practice here would only be the lack of genuine participation on the part of others.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7410614&postcount=341

Ufology does not rule out the application of science toward the advancement of knowledge within the field.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7342007&postcount=58


I could easily post many more, but I've already spent more than enough time on this post that you'll probably only hand-wave away or ignore entirely. For an even bigger, more specific list of criteria that indicate ufology is indeed a pseudoscience (also copy-pasted straight from the exact same Wikipedia page from where you selectively culled your pet definition) please revisit my previous post that you so flippantly hand-waved with yet another reiteration of your same tired, thoroughly debunked nonsense.

 

[ufology]

BY THE WAY, here's a huge list of things you've failed to address:

We've been through enough of it all already, particularly how the overriding context in the opening line of the Wikipedia definition of pseudoscience applies to everything that follows. Why it keeps getting missed I don't know.

As for the rest. The skeptics dismiss all human experience regarding UFOs and proclaim that they are reasonable in doing so by invoking the necessity for proof within the parameters of the scientific method. In contrast, I believe that information provided by witnesses and technology is worth consideration and that the collected accounts make a powerful, but scientifically unproven case. It's about as simple as that, and it doesn't look like there will be a resolution one way or the other any time soon.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

We've been through enough of it all already, particularly how the overriding context in the opening line of the Wikipedia definition of pseudoscience applies to everything that follows. Why it keeps getting missed I don't know.

It keeps getting "missed" because your overriding assumption about it is wrong. Ufologists do in fact claim to be doing science, and regardless whether they explicitly state that their aim is science, their methodology and conclusions are pseudoscientific.

As for the rest. The skeptics dismiss all human experience regarding UFOs and proclaim that they are reasonable in doing so by invoking the necessity for proof within the parameters of the scientific method. In contrast, I believe that information provided by witnesses and technology is worth consideration and that the collected accounts make a powerful, but scientifically unproven case. It's about as simple as that, and it doesn't look like there will be a resolution one way or the other any time soon.

That's why you're doing pseudoscience. Just like the bigfoot hunters, ghost hunters, homeopaths, etc., you value the words of credulous believers over proven facts, and distort all logic and reason around your unsubstantiated beliefs.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What would you think about starting with a falsifiable null hypothesis such as:

"UFO reports are all the result of mundane explanations."

You would take a huge step away from being a pseudoscience if you were to start with that. Easily falsifiable with just one confirmed case of ET. Why would you not want to do that?

 

[Akhenaten]

As for the rest. The skeptics dismiss all human experience regarding UFOs and proclaim that they are reasonable in doing so by invoking the necessity for proof within the parameters of the scientific method.

Rubbish.

It's human experience with flying saucers that is being dismissed. UFOs happen all the time.

In contrast, I believe that information provided by witnesses and technology is worth consideration and that the collected accounts make a powerful, but scientifically unproven case. It's about as simple as that, and it doesn't look like there will be a resolution one way or the other any time soon.

j.r.

There is no case, scientific or otherwise, to be made that your flying saucer stories are anything other than anecdotes, and they'll never add up to evidence for Aliens/ET, no matter how many of them you collect and no matter how much you pretend to have scientifically analysed them.

 

[ufology]

It keeps getting "missed" because your overriding assumption about it is wrong. Ufologists do in fact claim to be doing science, and regardless whether they explicitly state that their aim is science, their methodology and conclusions are pseudoscientific.

That's why you're doing pseudoscience. Just like the bigfoot hunters, ghost hunters, homeopaths, etc., you value the words of credulous believers over proven facts, and distort all logic and reason around your unsubstantiated beliefs.

I'm not making an overriding "assumption" ... the article makes the statement clearly in black & white at the outset and it's plain to see how everything else logically follows.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

This guy's got more woo-woo than Michael Jackson.

 

[John Albert]

I'm not making an overriding "assumption" ... the article makes the statement clearly in black & white at the outset and it's plain to see how everything else logically follows.

But I've already disproven your argument that "Ufologists don't claim to be doing science."

 

[ufology]

This guy's got more woo-woo than Michael Jackson.

You're addressing the arguer not the argument, and without any relevant commentary on the topic of the thread. Perhaps you would like to suggest a relevant point of discussion?

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

What would you think about starting with a falsifiable null hypothesis such as:

"UFO reports are all the result of mundane explanations."

You would take a huge step away from being a pseudoscience if you were to start with that. Easily falsifiable with just one confirmed case of ET. Why would you not want to do that?

Okay – here we go again… let’s test that underlying assumption there RoboT:

If the UFO debunkers are correct in that UFO reports arise primarily from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference between known and unknown categories of reports on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, colour, etc).

After all, if they all arise from the same source, then the described characteristics should be equally represented/interpreted/misrepresented/misinterpreted across all reports.

Why do you continue to ignore that testable (falsifiable) null hypothesis RoboT? Are you scared that it might produce results counter to your beliefs?

 

[ufology]

But I've already disproven your argument that "Ufologists don't claim to be doing science."

I don't claim that ufologists don't do science. I claim that ufology isn't a science unto itself and that anyone who claims that it is, is misrepresenting the field.

As for ufologists who claim to be doing science. Perhaps they are doing science, like astronomy, or physics or chemistry. As I've said many times before, if they claim to be doing science, and it turns out that their science does not meet accepted scientific standards, then you could make a case that pseudoscience is taking place ... until then any such allegation of pseudoscience is invalid.

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

Oh and I think it has been pointed out many times that while ufologists do not claim ufology to be a science - they can nevertheless claim to adhere to scientific principles in their research on the topic. Just as History does for example.

...and just because there are quacks and charlatans who claim to be "scientific" in any field of research (medicine is a good example) that does not mean we write off the whole field as pseudoscientific.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Oh and I think it has been pointed out many times that while ufologists do not claim ufology to be a science - they can nevertheless claim to adhere to scientific principles in their research on the topic. Just as History does for example.

...and just because there are quacks and charlatans who claim to be "scientific" in any field of research (medicine is a good example) that does not mean we write off the whole field as pseudoscientific.

Still makes it a pseudoscience or don't you understand the idea of using scientific principles in unscientific ways?

 

[Akhenaten]

If the UFO debunkers are correct in that UFO reports arise primarily from misidentified mundane unidentified objects, then there should be no difference between known and unknown categories of reports on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, colour, etc).

FTFY

After all, if they all arise from the same source, then the described characteristics should be equally represented/interpreted/misrepresented/misinterpreted across all reports.

You have yet to show that this even means anything, let alone that it's true.

 

[John Albert]

This guy's got more woo-woo than Michael Jackson.

You're addressing the arguer not the argument, and without any relevant commentary on the topic of the thread. Perhaps you would like to suggest a relevant point of discussion?

You bet!

I'm not making an overriding "assumption" ... the article makes the statement clearly in black & white at the outset and it's plain to see how everything else logically follows.

But I've already disproven your argument that "Ufologists don't claim to be doing science":

Looks like [MUFON are] making some pretty blatant scientific pretensions to me. Judging by that, it's obvious they want to be taken seriously as a scientific organization.

Besides MUFON, here are a few other ufology groups who openly claim to be doing science:

http://www.ufo-science.com
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
http://www.ufoscience.org/
http://www.ufocenter.com/
http://www.ufohypotheses.com/

Some of these websites also contain links to other websites devoted to promoting pseudoscience, and ads for quack medicines, perpetual motion machines and other pseudoscientific scams.

It appears that most UFO research groups (especially MUFON, the oldest and by far the largest one) do indeed invoke the claim of "science" to describe their work. Ufologists make just as many claims to science as any other pseudoscientists, and probably even more than most. For example, there are huge branches of pseudoscience that rely on the low-tech, "ancient tradition" angle, like your chi-healers, naturopaths, reiki practitioners, acupuncturists, spirit mediums, astrologers, etc. Those pseudoscience purveyors seldom make claims that their work is especially scientific.

Also, you and Rramjet both have made numerous claims to the practice of scientific techniques.

Despite his recent parroting of your own disingenuous claims about ufologists not claiming to do science, Rramjet has repeatedly described himself as a "scientist" here on these forums.

When Rramjet proposes his hypothetical ufology meta-analysis comparing characteristics of UFO anecdotes, or chants his favorite mantra about "'anecdotal evidence' blah blah blah 'physical trace evidence' blah blah blah 'nuts and bolts craft' blah blah blah," what do you think he's trying to do? He's trying to make a case using scientific research and data analysis. Not doing a very good job of it I'll admit, but there's no doubt he's trying to present himself in a "sciencey" manner.

What do you think you're doing when you go out into the field to meet an "eyewitness" and make out a sighting report? You're collecting and cataloging data. When you discuss with colleagues the relative merits of the ETH, PSH and IDH, you're engaging in discourse. These are all ostensible "sciencey" activities. These are the trappings of science that ufologists use to try and give validity to their paranormal claims. The difference is that ufologists assume the existence of unproven paranormal causes, then work backward to try and validate those paranormal myths using whatever means they can. That is why ufology is a pseudoscience.

Regardless whether you claim to be a scientist or not, the business of promoting any paranormal claim as fact is pseudoscience.

Your argument that ufologists don't claim to be doing science has now been disproven, so I'm asking you kindly to please stop repeating this lie.

Remember?

Even without explicitly using the word "science," making scientific-sounding claims without actually doing science is also in the definition of pseudoscience.

Ufology exhibits nearly every hallmark of pseudoscience presented in that Wikipedia article that you specifically chose as your official, inarguable, no-two-ways-about-it definition.

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.

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.

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).

Besides that definition, others have pointed out that ufology is explicitly included in many definitions of pseudoscience:

Well, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy…

[since you're so adverse to science]

Science and Pseudo-Science
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

Philosophers and other theoreticians of science differ widely in their views of what science is. Nevertheless, there is virtual unanimity in the community of knowledge disciplines on most particular issues of demarcation. There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, and Velikovskian catastrophism are pseudosciences.

It would appear ufology fits best under the “wider sense” definition as follows…

(1) it is not scientific, and
(2″) it is part of a doctrine that conflicts with (good) science.

As opposed to the root “non-science posing as science” definition you're trying to avoid…

(1) it is not scientific, and
(2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.

Or the alternate “doctrinal component” definition…

(1) it is not scientific, and
(2′) it is part of a non-scientific doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.

From Chem1:

Some examples: astrology (from ancient Babylonian culture,) UFO-ology (popular culture and mistrust of government), Creation Science (attempt to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible), "structure-altered" waters (commercial quackery.)

From Biocab.org:

By quoting to well-known scientists, ET's activists misinform people, who usually end believing that the Ufologists' fibs are facts based on science.

From RationalWiki:

Popular pseudosciences

Alternative medicine
Astrology
Creation science
Homeopathy
Supernatural
Ufology
Woo

Absolute Astronomy:

Ufology has sometimes been characterized as a partial or total pseudoscience, which many ufologists reject. Pseudoscience is a term that classifies studies that are claimed to exemplify the methods and principles of science, but that do not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lack supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lack scientific status.

Feist thinks that ufology can be categorized as a pseudoscience because, he says, its adherents claim it to be a science while being rejected as being one by the scientific community.

The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method...and because, he says, the field lacks a cumulative scientific progress; ufology has not, in his view, advanced since the 1950s.

You've still never given a credible answer to this preponderance of information that indicates ufology is indeed a pseudoscience.


...and another thing:

Why have you still not answered Wollery's excellent response to your "large parts of ufology are not claiming to be doing science" argument? He made a very apropos correlation between ufology and astronomy that you might find compelling.

 

[ufology]

You bet!
Even without explicitly using the word "science," making scientific-sounding claims without actually doing science is the definition of pseudoscience.

The above is incorrect. What is being described above might be considered a characteristic of pseudoscience within certain contexts.

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by ..."

... "making scientific-sounding claims without actually doing science."

Ufology is not pseudoscience ... only pseudoscience is pseudoscience and it must be applied on a case by case basis rather than carpet bombing entire fields and accepting the collateral damage in the name of science. Otherwise you are only politicing based on personal bias and that would not be valid skepticism.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

The above is incorrect. What is being described above might be considered a characteristic of pseudoscience within certain contexts.

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by ..."

... "making scientific-sounding claims without actually doing science."

The part I highlighted is the reason why ufology is a pseudoscience.

Ufologists like yourself claim that outer space aliens are visiting Earth, and you guys proffer anecdotal "evidence" as proof of that claim.

That is an example of "making a scientific-sounding claim without actually doing science."

Before you trot out your tired old lie about "unfounded assertions," I'm going to remind you right now that I can easily repost a wall of examples of you personally making scientific-sounding claims without actually doing science. Alternatively, you could simply scroll up about a third of a page and read them for yourself.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above is incorrect.

No it's not, and I have no doubt that if you'd attempted to reply to the other 95% of the post you'd have got that wrong too.