Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[John Albert]

Ufology, 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]

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.

Cherry picking out of context bits & pieces of an informal discussion thread prove nothing. So make the "wall" as big as you want. The bigger it is the more it proves that point for me. As for exactly what I claim, you'll have to do better than make mere proclaimations and compare me to some other unnamed ufologist someplace.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

You should really refrain from using terms you don't know the meanings of.

What I did is not cherry-picking. Those are all valid examples, direct quotes from you. They're statements you explicitly presented as facts, that are pseudoscientific and false. I even posted links to your posts so readers can see the excerpts right there in the exact context in which you said them. I'm 100% honest about this. You can't hide behind false allegations of subterfuge.

If I wanted to waste the time, I could reread all these goofy UFO threads and easily come up with at least a couple hundred more examples of you totally talking out of your ass while trying to sound scientific. That being the case, I don't think you're the guy most qualified to be holding court on the topic of what is or isn't pseudoscience.

 

[ufology]

Ufology, 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.

Wollery's response was just a rant portraying what his initial leading question had tried to setup and failed to acheive. I had expected better.

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

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

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.

So sure – the quacks and charlatans may be pseudoscientific – but that does not mean either that the whole field is pseudoscientific or that there is not good science being conducted in the field.

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?

FTFY

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

I have proposed a scientific hypothesis (testable and falsifiable). The “meaning” of it is that if the hypothesis is falsified then the UFO debunker’s assertion that all reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects is also falsified.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

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.

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

If ufology claimed to be a science you may have a point. But of course it does not claim to be a science. Besides, I have proposed a scientific hypothesis (testable and falsifiable) – which you all seem to either studiously ignore or dismiss it with the wave of a hand – I wonder why that might be. LOL.

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).

You mean like Randi and how members of the debunker set in the JREF have acted in this (and many other) threads?

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

Such as…?

(1) it is not scientific

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

(1) it is part of a doctrine that conflicts with (good) science.

If ufology claimed to be a science you might have a point, but 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.

Moreover, 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.

(1) it is not scientific

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

(1) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.

If good science is being proposed, then they should be applauded, if bad science is being proposed, then they should be called out for it. However, 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.

(1) it is not scientific

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

(2′) it is part of a non-scientific doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.

If good science is being proposed, then they should be applauded, if bad science is being proposed, then they should be called out for it. However, 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.

UFO-ology (popular culture and mistrust of government)

Ufology can be popular without it being a pseudoscience. Astronomy is popular – is that now a pseudoscience?

Many legitimate organisations can have a mistrust of government – Republicans for example – do you now label them (or the organisation) as pseudoscientific?

Popular pseudosciences
(…)
Supernatural
Ufology
Woo

So Wikepdia is now the ultimate authority? LOL. You’ll have to do better than to quote a site where the person who can shout the loudest gets to write the text. Can you tell me what the discipline or field of study of “woo” is BTW (or “Supernatural” for that matter) – it seems the person who wrote that into Wikipedia is not thinking critically or rationally or is particularly cognisant of grammar or correct category nomination…LOL.

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.

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

the field lacks a cumulative scientific progress; ufology has not, in his view, advanced since the 1950s.

That might be his opinion, but mere unfounded opinions do not constitute evidence of veracity in that opinion (in other words the mere statement of unfounded assertion does not somehow magically make that assertion true).

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.

Because I did it for him (in case you had not noticed) thereby saving him time and effort on exposing the nonsense that was proposed.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

It just pretends.

 

[Rramjet]

It just pretends.

Oh there is no doubt that ufology would probably like to be a science - with properly constitued peer-review structures and well funded programs of research - but as it stands no one (apart from the debunkers in the pursuit of a strawman argument of course) is claiming it currently is a science.

 

[John Albert]

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

It just pretends.

After all the one-sided debate of the last several pages, Rramjet is still parroting the same hollow, meaningless mantra? I knew there was a good reason I had that guy on ignore.

 

[Access Denied]

The vast majority of published ufology found in bookstores over the years have been collections of sightings as told by writers, not scientists.

Who claim to be “researchers”…

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.

In addition to Correa Neto’s response to this…

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?

I would encourage ufology to read my review of John’s new book UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities at Reality Uncovered…

“Mr. Non-Lethal” Discloses Aviary’s Most Closely Guarded Secret?
http://www.realityuncovered.net/blo...scloses-aviary’s-most-closely-guarded-secret/

I don’t think it’s about what he thinks it’s about. For example, from John’s interview in Popular Mechanics…

“We thought there was probably a black program on UFOs somewhere in government, and those involved would probably be willing to work with a group that had appropriate clearances and could help disseminate information. What we found out, of course, was that there was no program and that information collection was pretty much ad hoc.”

 

[wollery]

Wollery's response was just a rant portraying what his initial leading question had tried to setup and failed to acheive. I had expected better.

j.r.

Then it should be an easy task for you to respond to it and point out where it's wrong.

Of course, if you can't then I'd understand why you'd want to ignore it, or dismiss it flippantly like you just did.

 

[Rramjet]

Who claim to be “researchers”…

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.

Not everything treated and presente as science is science, especially within UFOlogy.

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

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?

I would encourage ufology to read my review of John’s new book UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities at Reality Uncovered…

“Mr. Non-Lethal” Discloses Aviary’s Most Closely Guarded Secret?
http://www.realityuncovered.net/blo...scloses-aviary’s-most-closely-guarded-secret/

I don’t think it’s about what he thinks it’s about. For example, from John’s interview in Popular Mechanics…

“We thought there was probably a black program on UFOs somewhere in government, and those involved would probably be willing to work with a group that had appropriate clearances and could help disseminate information. What we found out, of course, was that there was no program and that information collection was pretty much ad hoc.”

That sounds like an entirely reasonable conclusion for John to come to there Access Denied. It could even be that he adhered to the scientific principles of research in coming to that conclusions. So how does it prove ufology to be a pseudoscience? Of course it doesn’t.

 

[John Albert]

The story so far...

This has degenerated into a debate purely about semantics, which isn't surprising. "Pseudoscience" is one of those loosely-defined, derogatory terms that gets bandied around a lot, often to demonize viewpoints one does not agree with. The reason "pseudoscience" is considered such a derogatory term is because it implies fraud, or academic dishonesty at the very least. Small wonder people would want to avoid association with that stigma.

"Pseudoscience" does have an established definition though, no doubt about that. The term has been in the skeptic's lexicon for many decades at least (the Online Etymological Dictionary dates it at 1844!?!). Presumably, the term has always been used to mean the same thing: stuff promoted as scientific fact that does not derive from the honest practice of real science.

We've posted several definitions of "pseudoscience" here in this thread, and they all generally agree that it denotes a self-professed field of research or advertised technology that involves claims intended to sound scientific, but the actual scientific methodology is either flawed or absent.

The ufologists in this discussion (Ufology and Rramjet) have tried to avoid the epithet by cherry-picking a definition and then whittling it down to specifically exclude everything that doesn't promote itself as a purely academic, scientific study. This dishonest fallacy of redefinition is intended to hamper the application of the term as much as possible, to allow themselves some leeway to weasel around it by means of hasty generalizations and "No True Scotsman"-type arguments.

The argument that "pseudoscience" requires an academic presentation or explicit claim to science is obviously false to anyone familiar with the term. Some classic examples of pseudoscience are naturopathy, chi healing, transcendental meditation, biodynamic farming, psychokinesis, and ESP, none of which actually profess to be academic sciences. On the contrary, most of these invoke appeals to tradition/naturalism/esotericism instead of false science; others make claims of paranormal forces allegedly shrouded in mystery, similar to the sort of claims ufologists make about UFOs.

The fact is, the vast majority of ufologists do openly profess to use a scientific approach in their study of UFOs, but they also default to the so-called "extraterrestrial hypothesis" as an explanation for some percentage of sightings. The "fearless, independent UFO scientist" archetype has been part of UFO culture since the 1950s, but despite their pretense of a scientific approach, most ufologists reject major portions of the scientific method and reject conventional logic in favor of the unfounded assumption of ET or other paranormal mechanisms.

Even Wikipedia, the source from which ufology initially cherry-picked his partial definition, prominently includes ufology in its list of pseudosciences.

 

[wollery]

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.

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

A subject doesn't have to claim to be a science to be pseudoscientific. It doesn't even need to claim to be adhering to scientific principles. It just has to present a supposedly scientific facade, regardless of what it claims.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

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.

Still makes it a pseudoscience or don't you understand the idea of using scientific principles in unscientific ways? History is nothing like UFOlogy or do you not understand?

Oh there is no doubt that ufology would probably like to be a science - with properly constitued peer-review structures and well funded programs of research - but as it stands no one (apart from the debunkers in the pursuit of a strawman argument of course) is claiming it currently is a science.

I'm just wondering if anyone else read this post? It's amazing that someone can think like this I'm almost speechless

Funding and peer review structures will not make it a science, hell you can get two Ufologists to write a paper about Aliens and have it peered reviewed by another two Ufologists. Hasn't it occurred to you that people can fund Ufology research there's nothing stopping that.

Rramjet do you enjoy twisting words around on people you disagree with? NO ONE HERE CLAIMS IT'S A SCIENCE PERIOD. If you say you use science to promote that UFOs are alien crafts you are not being scientific.

I'm thinking that you just don't understand the word pseudoscience, so here's a sentence about it. Pseudo is the Latin for false and science is the word for science so if you stick Pseudo in front of science you'll get false science.

 

[Akhenaten]

A subject doesn't have to claim to be a science to be pseudoscientific. It doesn't even need to claim to be adhering to scientific principles. It just has to present a supposedly scientific facade, regardless of what it claims.

Just the bogus name is a giveaway that it's pretending to be something it's not.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

And then you didn't test the underlying assumption. All it takes is just one confirmed ET. Why would you not want to do that?

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.

So how many have been oil well fires? Do you see yet why you've proposed what I can only say is a deliberately idiotic pseudoscientific hypothesis? You may have missed wollery's latest demolition of that hypothesis so I'll give you some time to go back and read it. This time try to understand it. Here's the link to his excellent dismantling of your idiotic hypothesis.

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

Well, no. I haven't ignored it. I've explained to you why it is idiotically pseudoscientific. Why do you ignore that it is idiotically pseudoscientific?

Here's a null hypothesis that should satisfy you if you want to shed the mantle of being pseudoscientific:

"All UFO reports are the result of mundane explanations."​

Why would you not want to use a falsifiable null hypothesis? Why do you want to continue to play the pseudoscientist? All it takes is one confirmed ET. Do you see yet why UFOlogy is a pseudoscience and you prove it every time you post? If not, why not?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

You prove the point that UFOlogy is pseudoscience with your pseudoscientific waffling.

...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.

So sure – the quacks and charlatans may be pseudoscientific – but that does not mean either that the whole field is pseudoscientific or that there is not good science being conducted in the field.

In the case of UFOlogy, the quacks and charlatans are the rule rather than the norm. You've shown no examples of non-quacks or non-charlatans.

I have proposed a scientific hypothesis (testable and falsifiable). The “meaning” of it is that if the hypothesis is falsified then the UFO debunker’s assertion that all reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects is also falsified.

Well, no. You've proposed an idiotic pseudoscientific hypothesis. I've given you an actual falsifiable null hypothesis. Why would you not want to use it?

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.

See above about there being no examples of non-quacks or non-charlatans in UFOlogy and then see your example of a quack (charlatan) hypothesis.

If ufology claimed to be a science you may have a point. But of course it does not claim to be a science. Besides, I have proposed a scientific hypothesis (testable and falsifiable) – which you all seem to either studiously ignore or dismiss it with the wave of a hand – I wonder why that might be. LOL.

Well, no. UFOlogy is a pseudoscience even if it doesn't claim to be a science. Besides, you have proposed an idiotic pseudoscientific hypothesis that proves the point. LOL!

If ufology claimed to be a science you might have a point, but 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.

Well, no. UFOlogy is a pseudoscience even if it doesn't claim to be a science.

Moreover, 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.

Moreover, while UFOlogists claim to be doing science, they nevertheless fail to adhere to scientific principles in their substandard and shoddy research on the topic. Delphos, Rogue River and Venezuela are examples.

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

Of course not, it's a pseudoscience.

If good science is being proposed, then they should be applauded, if bad science is being proposed, then they should be called out for it. However, 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.

We call you on it all the time. It doesn't seem to stop you from doing your pseudoscience.

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

And yet it is a pseudoscience.

If good science is being proposed, then they should be applauded, if bad science is being proposed, then they should be called out for it. However, 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.

We call you on it all the time. You just continue on your merry way doing your pseudoscience.

Ufology can be popular without it being a pseudoscience. Astronomy is popular – is that now a pseudoscience?

No, UFOlogy and homeopathy are pseudosciences.

Many legitimate organisations can have a mistrust of government – Republicans for example – do you now label them (or the organisation) as pseudoscientific?

No, UFOlogy is a pseudoscience, though.

So Wikepdia is now the ultimate authority? LOL. You’ll have to do better than to quote a site where the person who can shout the loudest gets to write the text. Can you tell me what the discipline or field of study of “woo” is BTW (or “Supernatural” for that matter) – it seems the person who wrote that into Wikipedia is not thinking critically or rationally or is particularly cognisant of grammar or correct category nomination…LOL.


Ufology does not claim to be a science.

But you prove that it's pseudoscience every time you post. LOL.

That might be his opinion, but mere unfounded opinions do not constitute evidence of veracity in that opinion (in other words the mere statement of unfounded assertion does not somehow magically make that assertion true).

Then you should understand why your proclamations that UFOlogy is pseudscience are dismissed. UFOlogy is a pseudoscience. I've listed more links than just Wikipedia in this thread. What did you think of them?

Because I did it for him (in case you had not noticed) thereby saving him time and effort on exposing the nonsense that was proposed.

See above about you proving that you are a pseudoscientist every time you post. LOL.

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

There you go, pseudoscientists, an actual falsifiable null hypothesis. Why would you not want to use it?

 

[Access Denied]

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.

Right, with your hero Maccabee being the best example of a UFOlogist, second only to Friedman in terms of popularity, not to mention sales, who claims that and therefore they are in fact practicing pseudoscience.

I must admit you're doing a great job of debunking ufology's disingenuous argument for us here, keep up the good work!

Ufology does not claim to be a science.

You say that but all the top UFOlogists and UFO organizations do. MUFON has already been demonstrated to be doing so and have you never heard of NIDS or the JSE?

[Hint: the S stands for Science]

That sounds like an entirely reasonable conclusion for John to come to there Access Denied. It could even be that he adhered to the scientific principles of research in coming to that conclusions. So how does it prove ufology to be a pseudoscience? Of course it doesn’t.

You clearly have no clue with respect to Col. Alexander’s background, he was in fact one of the government’s leading pseudoscientists…

http://www.johnbalexander.com/ufophenomenology

Ever see the movie The Men Who Stare at Goats?


P.S. Please your fix your improper quote attributions in your last post.

 

[ufology]

"Pseudoscience" does have an established definition though, no doubt about that. The term has been in the skeptic's lexicon for many decades at least (the Online Etymological Dictionary dates it at 1844!?!). Presumably, the term has always been used to mean the same thing: stuff promoted as scientific fact that does not derive from the honest practice of real science.

The fact is, the vast majority of ufologists do openly profess to use a scientific approach in their study of UFOs, but they also default to the so-called "extraterrestrial hypothesis" as an explanation for some percentage of sightings. The "fearless, independent UFO scientist" archetype has been part of UFO culture since the 1950s, but despite their pretense of a scientific approach, most ufologists reject major portions of the scientific method and reject conventional logic in favor of the unfounded assumption of ET or other paranormal mechanisms.

Even Wikipedia, the source from which ufology initially cherry-picked his partial definition, prominently includes ufology in its list of pseudosciences.

Again we see that it must first be "promoted as scientific" and again we see accusations of cherry picking by me when in fact it's the other way around. There is no logic in applying the label of pseudoscience to the entire field of ufology and anyone who does is ignoring the fact that that most of the ufology works ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises. They are simply collections of events and opinions assembled into book form for the public at large.

Also, simply because it is written that some people consider ufology to be pseudoscience doesn't make it so. The same article that is referred to in the quote above also quotes the Tunguska Event as pseudoscience. Clearly this too is misplaced. The Tunguska Event itself is a scientific fact and labelling the entire topic as pseudoscience demonstrates how poorly the term has been applied to it as well.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You've still not answered this, ufology.

"UFO reports are the result of mundane explanations."

Simple and easily falsifiable. Would that be a good null hypothesis so that UFOlogy could start to shed the image of being a pseudoscience?