Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[GeeMack]

It's true. He's never claimed to have a null hypothesis, and he's presented numerous special pleadings to justify his feeling that he doesn't need one.

And all the while claiming here and on his alien believers club web site that the aim is to objectively seek the truth. Objectively seeking the truth is a scientific pursuit whether the word "science" or any of its derivatives are mentioned or not. When that claim of objectivity is made, but the pursuit is clearly directed at manufacturing support for a preexisting belief, that is where it becomes a mockery of science, hence pseudoscience. And no dishonest attempt to redefine terms is going to change that.

Of course people involved in an activity which is indefensibly silly might want to distance themselves from the terminology that makes it sound silly, even if that terminology perfectly defines the activity, so the motivation behind the dishonesty is understandable. But all the cherry picking, weaseling and waffling, deflecting the burden of proof, and crying persecution simply does not change the definition of the term "pseudoscience", nor does it change the contorted approach to objectivity which is common to those involved in "ufology".

 

[ufology]

But you do have a preconceived opinion. It is: "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin"

It is correct that I have an opinion that "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin". I also have an opinion that Ben & Jerry's is really good ice cream ... so what? Maybe you should use that instead? Where's Stray Cat when you need him? You could make the null hypothesis a bucket of flying ice cream ...

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is correct that I have an opinion that "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin". I also have an opinion that Ben & Jerry's is really good ice cream ... so what? Maybe you should use that instead?

j.r.

If you're talking about Cherry Garcia, that hypothesis requires the fewest assumptions. Unfortunately it isn't very useful for discussing UFOlogy.

Since your preconceived opinion is:

"Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin"​

you've chosen a null hypothesis that is unfalsifiable and is therefore pseudoscientific.

Why would you not want to use a falsifiable one such as:

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

It's simple and falsifiable and would help elevate UFOlogy above its current status of pseudoscience. I understood you to want to cooperate with skeptics to raise UFOlogy's game? We can only do so much. Won't you meet us halfway? Won't you start with a null hypothesis that is falsifiable rather than one that keeps UFOlogy in the realm of pseudoscience?

 

[GeeMack]

Start with no preconceived opinion and see where the evidence leads.

That would be science. But that is not what "ufology" entails. "Ufology" typically involves an effort to manufacture support for the preexisting belief that aliens exist.

The USI claim to be objectively seeking the truth...

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

And their acknowledgement that they hold a preconceived notion that aliens exist...

USI recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition and concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin.

There really is no honest way for "ufology" practitioners to distance themselves from the term that most appropriately defines what they do. It is, as shown throughout this thread and by the statements and objectives of the "ufologists" themselves, pseudoscience.

 

[GeeMack]

It is correct that I have an opinion that "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin". I also have an opinion that Ben & Jerry's is really good ice cream ... so what?

Ben and Jerry's ice cream is objectively known to exist. Aliens are, from an objective point of view, a figment of some peoples' wild imaginations. Also, regardless of your effort to cling to the claim when it suits you and distance yourself from it when it makes your group look like fools, you are supposedly engaged in objectively demonstrating that aliens visiting the Earth is true. Your comparison fails. It is ridiculous.

 

[John Albert]

...[a null hypothesis] isn't scientifically applicable and therefore shouldn't be used. Rather, a clean slate so to speak, in each case is a better way to begin. Start with no preconceived opinion and see where the evidence leads.

I have an opinion that "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin".

Do you see the discrepancy between these two statements? You might not see your own personal bias yourself, but the rest of us can see it clear as day, for the simple reason that we aren't you.

On the one hand, you say you don't need a null hypothesis because you'd rather start with no preconceived opinion, yet on the other you admit to having a preconceived opinion that "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin."

That conflict of interest right there is the reason why you need to start your research from the basis of a simple, specific, and falsifiable null hypothesis, and then conduct all your research toward the goal of falsifying that null hypothesis. That's the first step in redeeming yourself from the stigma of "pseudoscience."

You came here seeking something, right?

We're glad to help you find your way, but nobody can do the work for you. You've got to decide for yourself whether you want to get into the business of honest, worthwhile research, or continue floundering about in the indefinite murk of pseudoscience.

What RoboTimbo has been saying is absolutely correct. You need to start with a null hypothesis like:


"All UFO sightings are explainable by mundane causes."


...and then start honestly looking for substantial evidence to falsify that hypothesis.

 

[ufology]

That would be science. But that is not what "ufology" entails. "Ufology" typically involves an effort to manufacture support for the preexisting belief that aliens exist.

The USI claim to be objectively seeking the truth...

And their acknowledgement that they hold a preconceived notion that aliens exist...

There really is no honest way for "ufology" practitioners to distance themselves from the term that most appropriately defines what they do. It is, as shown throughout this thread and by the statements and objectives of the "ufologists" themselves, pseudoscience.

I value human experience much more than those who make a habit of dismissing it. A lot of ufologists think that eventually we'll get scientific proof, but I think it is just as likely that these craft will stop visiting Earth and those of us who have seen them will pass on, and the whole era will be relegated to myth. If that happens, our collective experiences are all that future historians will have as a reference. So it is important for those of us who have had an experience significant enough to leave us with no doubt, to state our cases for the record.

j.r.

 

[Resume]

I value human experience much more than those who make a habit of dismissing it. A lot of ufologists think that eventually we'll get scientific proof, but I think it is just as likely that these craft will stop visiting Earth and those of us who have seen them will pass on, and the whole era will be relegated to myth. If that happens, our collective experiences are all that future historians will have as a reference. So it is important for those of us who have had an experience significant enough to leave us with no doubt, to state our cases for the record.

j.r.

Every ghost enthusiast, bigfoot enthusiast, or psychic enthusiast values his or her personal experience as much as you, and they all have as much physical evidence, which is exactly none.

 

[GeeMack]

I value human experience much more than those who make a habit of dismissing it.

If you're inferring that skeptics are dismissing the human experience you couldn't be more wrong. And lord knows you've been very, very wrong about several things. One of the big differences between skeptics and the faithful is skeptics' arguments are objective and honest. Believers' arguments are subjective and dishonest. But as far as the human experience, when viewed objectively and honestly, it is based on reality not delusion.

A lot of ufologists think that eventually we'll get scientific proof, [...]

Those "ufologists" who shun the notion that "ufology" is in any way a scientific pursuit think that eventually there will be scientific proof of something they simply take as an issue of faith? Now there's an argument from wishful thinking, an act of desperation.

[...] but I think it is just as likely that these craft will stop visiting Earth and those of us who have seen them will pass on, and the whole era will be relegated to myth.

These craft you speak of have never visited the Earth, not to the best of anyone's knowledge who values the human experience objectively and with a grip on reality.

If that happens, our collective experiences are all that future historians will have as a reference.

Sort of like Zeus and Apollo and Poseidon, how we recognize that those who believed in them were buying into some silly superstitions? I've got news for you. People already recognize those who believe in alien visitors as buying into some silly nonsense. People already realize that UFOs and aliens are the stuff of tabloid covers, sci-fi TV shows, and that those who pretend to engage in the study of UFOs are just like ghost hunters and Bigfoot believers. People already recognize that "ufology" is pseudoscience.

So it is important for those of us who have had an experience significant enough to leave us with no doubt, to state our cases for the record.

For the record a lot of religious zealots have seen Jesus on a piece of toast. A lot of hippies who ate some peyote have seen falling leaves turn into butterflies. A lot of people suffering from various brain damage, withdrawing from alcohol addiction, or who ate dangerously spoiled foods have seen visions of things far more interesting than lights zipping around in the sky.

But the current record on UFO aliens comes from a bunch of very uncreative people parroting the same kinds of descriptions, often demonstrably dishonest, and never ever supported with objective evidence. Given what we know about "ufology" and its adherents, it's possible the record on their experiences will be something like, "What a bunch of gullible nutcases those people were, pretending to objectively consider the UFO phenomenon while in reality they were attempting to support their preexisting belief in aliens."

For the record, "ufology" currently fits the definition of pseudoscience to a T. If that record is to change, "ufology" will need to get legitimate, stop dishonestly claiming to be objective, and start to apply the scientific method, the one that actually works to help us understand reality. Or "ufology" will have to go the other way and stop lying about its objectivity altogether and admit that it is simply a matter of belief, of having faith in aliens without any objective support. Even some of the most avid religious nutters are honest enough to acknowledge their faith without evidence.

But as long as "ufologists" screw around in that middle ground, dishonestly wavering from faith to a pretense of objectivity when it's convenient for their purpose, "ufology" will remain smack in the middle of the realms of pseudoscience, regardless of all the whining and complaining its participants do to deny it.

 

[carlitos]

Every ghost enthusiast, bigfoot enthusiast, or psychic enthusiast values his or her personal experience as much as you, and they all have as much physical evidence, which is exactly none.

Indeed.

It is correct that I have an opinion that "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin".
j.r.

Evidence?

 

[ufology]

Every ghost enthusiast, bigfoot enthusiast, or psychic enthusiast values his or her personal experience as much as you, and they all have as much physical evidence, which is exactly none.

It's easy to sit back and chant "show me the poof" and lump everything into the trash can that doesn't fit that narrow focus on reality. The fact is that there is a wider reality, and to deny its existence is to limit one's own perspective on the world.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

The fact is that there is a wider reality, and to deny its existence is to limit one's own perspective on the world.

This isn't a fact at all. Asking for proof isn't just an easy denial, as you are implying.

Why you seem to think that asking for proof is "limiting one's own perspective on the world" is beyond me. It is simply looking for reality.

 

[Pixel42]

The fact is that there is a wider reality, and to deny its existence is to limit one's own perspective on the world.

If you mean that there are things about the universe we don't yet understand I agree. The question is: what's the best way to go about finding out about them? Guessing wildly and making stuff up to put in the gaps in our understanding, or using the scientific method?

Since historically the former led to (for example) belief in volcano gods and the latter to (for example) a detailed understanding of vulcanism, I'm sticking with the scientific method.

 

[wollery]

It's easy to sit back and chant "show me the poof" and lump everything into the trash can that doesn't fit that narrow focus on reality. The fact is that there is a wider reality, and to deny its existence is to limit one's own perspective on the world.

j.r.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is pseudoscience.

Science, on the other hand, accepts that there are things we don't yet know or understand, and asks for evidence and proof, without assuming it already knows the answers it's going to find.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's easy to sit back and chant "show me the poof" and lump everything into the trash can that doesn't fit that narrow focus on reality.

Whether it's easy or not is moot, especially since nobody here is doing this and most are actually doing the hard yards to show you that following the evidence is the only way to establish what reality is.

I find it difficult to understand why you refer to a narrow focus on reality like it's a bad thing, until I recall that you prefer your pseudoscience nice and fringy.

It's kind of a shame, but not much.

The fact is that there is a wider reality, and to deny its existence is to limit one's own perspective on the world.

j.r.

The motto of crystal crazies, psychicotics, religionists and ufonuts everywhere.

There's only one objective reality and denying that is what the accredited sceptics refer to as woo. Pretending to study what lies beyond it is referred to by anyone with a lick of sense as pseudoscience.

 

[23_Tauri]

I value human experience much more than those who make a habit of dismissing it. A lot of ufologists think that eventually we'll get scientific proof, but I think it is just as likely that these craft will stop visiting Earth and those of us who have seen them will pass on, and the whole era will be relegated to myth. If that happens, our collective experiences are all that future historians will have as a reference. So it is important for those of us who have had an experience significant enough to leave us with no doubt, to state our cases for the record.

j.r.

What you don't seem to appreciate is that the 'era' of which you speak is part of a very long timeline of myth. This timeline takes in Ezekiel's wheels of fire, an account of a circle of fire coming from the sky written on an Egyptian papyrus from 1500BC, stars over Bethlehem, the miracle of Fatima, the Belgian UFO flap, etc. It's ALL myth.

Inexplicable lights in the sky are part of the record of human history across the globe. And not because the aliens have always been coming here. You believe it's aliens because you're living in the late 20th/early 21st century.

 

[TheFallOfUriGeller]

agreed with 23_Tauri

its been going on years and tbh im not that surpprised what with people claiming to be abducted and probed n stuffn

i think this is set to run and run, i just don't understand why if your capable of intergallatic travell and have so much technology and understanding would you come to earth and not do anything or show yourself. instead you "pick up a cow and do something with it, then pick up a human and stick a probe up his or her arse and god knows where else.

The reason for this god knows but while silly storys like this carry on, books will be written, films will be made, nut jobs will have intergalatic contact with aliens and christ knows what else its almost like a cult in a way - the more outrageous and rediculous the more some people are more inclined to believe with the famous quote "well why else would they say that?" lol

 

[PixyMisa]

It's easy to sit back and chant "show me the poof"

Evidence. We're asking not for proof, but for evidence.

and lump everything into the trash can that doesn't fit that narrow focus on reality.

Entirely appropriate and correct. If there's no evidence to support a claim, it should be discarded.

The fact is that there is a wider reality, and to deny its existence is to limit one's own perspective on the world.

Which is a claim without supporting evidence and should be discarded.

 

[Resume]

It's easy to sit back and chant "show me the poof" and lump everything into the trash can that doesn't fit that narrow focus on reality. The fact is that there is a wider reality, and to deny its existence is to limit one's own perspective on the world.

j.r.

Yes, when my neighbor who claims he has a fire-breathing dragon in his garage can't produce that dragon, I'm going to deny its existence. That's not limiting perspective but facing reality.

 

[zooterkin]

It's easy to sit back and chant "show me the poof"

The aliens are gay?