Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[RoboTimbo]

Good post there Ramjet. I've seen you post that response several times now and the skeptics never provide a reasonable answer. They also tend to think that science is impervious to errors and fraud. Science always has a margin of error and there have been plenty of false claims and mistakes. I recently posted a report of over 700 incidents in the medical field alone. These skeptics need to expand their view of reality and start applying their skills to a wider view.

j.r.

Actually, it is a very pseudoscientific post with no evidence of critical thinking involved in its creation. His pseudoscientific hypothesis was definitively demolished in this post. Since neither of you have read it, I suggest you do now and then let me know what you still don't understand about it.

Did you fail to notice how fast Rramjet runs when I mention an actual falsifiable null hypothesis and how he screeches the loudest trying to wedge in his pseudoscientific one? A falsifiable null hypothesis isn't something you have to fear or run from.

I understand your emotional investment in flying saucery but you're the one who came here wanting to cooperate with skeptics. Have you also thrown off the mask now and admitting that that was never your intention? You just wanted another forum for your unfalsifiable pseudoscience stories?

 

[GeeMack]

Good post there Ramjet. I've seen you post that response several times now and the skeptics never provide a reasonable answer.

The question he poses demonstrates that he has no rational understanding of how the process of science works. It is as stupid as asking what purple smells like. It's nonsense.

They also tend to think that science is impervious to errors and fraud.

That is, of course, a lie. Those who understand science (not that ridiculous mockery of science that "ufologists" try to pass off as objective) recognize that science is continuously self correcting. It's one of the foundations of the method and one of the reasons that it is such a successful method for determining how the universe works.

Science always has a margin of error and there have been plenty of false claims and mistakes.

And pseudoscience, since dishonesty is one of its foundational components, is constantaly trying to shove its preconcevied conclusions into those margins.

I recently posted a report of over 700 incidents in the medical field alone. These skeptics need to expand their view of reality and start applying their skills to a wider view.

The wider view you speak of is a place beyond reality. Skeptics and scientists are not unaware of that region nor do they ignore it. The difference is they have the sanity, rationality, and intelligence to recognize the dividing line between fact and fantasy. The argument of the pseudoscientists, "ufologists" in this case, shows they are unwilling to make that distinction...

Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

 

[John Albert]

To keep this post within the context of the thread, I'll point out that the book and the author are major historical figures in ufology and that because the book is written as a collection of incidents and personal experiences and is not presented as science, it therefore falls outside the parameters of the pseudoscience definition.

That's a dishonest argument based on faulty logic and outright lies, which has been thoroughly deconstructed and debunked numerous times in this thread:

Your argument is based on a deliberately and dishonestly altered definition of "pseudoscience."

To be specific, you've abridged the definition to excise 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.

You plucked out the first sentence of the definition and presented it as a complete and whole definition, disregarding the entire rest of the article which contains many hallmarks of pseudoscience that are definitive of ufology.

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.

(italics mine)

Every single characteristic presented in that second sentence—the very next sentence on the page, that you so dishonestly excised from your "definition"—is absolutely definitive of the claims of ufologists:

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).

Your emasculated definition of "pseudoscience" is obviously false, because it totally fails at describing most practices generally recognized as pseudoscience. You've deliberately rendered the definition useless, for the purpose of supporting your own state of denial.

The special pleading you presented to support rejecting the rest of the article hinges around a flat-out lie that has been disproven by myself and others.

Your lie that "ufology does not claim to practice science" has been disproven by overwhelming examples of ufology organizations (especially MUFON, by far the world's largest, oldest, and best-established ufology organization) that explicitly claim to be applying science to the study of UFOs while still promoting the wholly unscientific conclusion of outer space aliens.

The proper definition of "pseudoscience" encompasses any claims that make categorical statements about the general operation and/or state of the physical Universe, but do not result from the proper application of scientific methodology or discipline.

Ufology fits that definition, according to the overwhelming majority of evidence presented above.

Therefore I've just provided another example of why ufology as a whole cannot be lumped in with pseudoscience.

No, you haven't. You merely weaseled yourself into a momentary distraction from being repeatedly hammered over the head about how badly all your arguments have failed.

I'm sure you realize by now that I will continue to point out your lies IN BOLDFACE TYPE every time you reiterate them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh and I have yet to see any evidence or logical argument that demonstrates ufology to be a pseudoscience.

And this is an outright lie unless you are reading only ufology's and your own posts and nobody else's. Actually, it's a lie even if you have read only ufology's and your own posts because they demonstrate handily that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

 

[John Albert]

Good post there Ramjet. I've seen you post that response several times now and the skeptics never provide a reasonable answer.

On the contrary, several people over the past couple weeks (at least) have explained to Rramjet in numerous posts why that "experiment" is a scatterbrained idea that fails on numerous levels. If you're really incapable of seeing the illogic of that approach, then maybe you really should stick to your pretend science.

I have repeatedly pointed out where the second part—about ufology not being pseudoscience—has been thoroughly disproven.

Until you guys address the substance of those arguments, it is extremely dishonest of you to keep reiterating the lie that we haven't addressed your claims.

Every time one of you reiterates that lie, I will copy and paste all the same arguments that you have failed to address, in boldface type.

 

[wollery]

nvm.

 

[wollery]

Okay, lets start with that then:

If the UFO debunkers are correct and UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, etc) between “known” reports and “unknown” reports.​

There is your testable, falsifiable null hypothesis.

Perhaps you could explain, for the laypeople among the audience, exactly how the statistical test of that hypothesis actually works.

 

[Rramjet]

Good post there Ramjet. I've seen you post that response several times now and the skeptics never provide a reasonable answer. They also tend to think that science is impervious to errors and fraud. Science always has a margin of error and there have been plenty of false claims and mistakes. I recently posted a report of over 700 incidents in the medical field alone. These skeptics need to expand their view of reality and start applying their skills to a wider view.

j.r.

Thanks ufology. I doubt that it will do any good though. It will be completely ignored – or slammed in ad hominem attacks and with irrational and unfounded assertion (See how RoboT treats it for example). There will also be the same tired arguments put forward that the points raised in my post refute. For example see John Albert where he quotes Wikipedia (which is probably about the worst source on the planet for any authoritative definition)…

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.​

…and goes on to state (in bold type as if shouting will somehow magically confer veracity on the assertion):

Every single characteristic presented in that second sentence—the very next sentence on the page, that you so dishonestly excised from your "definition"—is absolutely definitive of the claims of ufologists:

But of course it is also definitive of claims by quacks and charlatans in the medical profession – so is he now contending medicine to be a pseudoscience?

And then of course he merely repeats a list of definitions that I have previously refuted many times over as being applicable to ufology on the grounds that:

• Ufology does not claim to be a science.
• Ufology can however legitimately claim to adhere to scientific principles during its investigations without it being a science – think History for example.
• There are quacks and charlatans in any field (medicine is a good example) but that does not mean we write the whole field off as pseudoscientific.

Which points the debunkers must overcome if they are to support their arguments that ufology is a pseudoscience – and of course they do not – they merely repeat over and over (like a mantra) their unfounded claims that completely ignore those points (as if they did not exist).

It is also interesting to note that John Albert lists:

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).

I am told that members of the JREF do not understand irony – well if ever there was evidence of that contention – this is it! LOL.

I am also reminded of Al Pacino in Scarface where he said:

“You need people like me, so you can point your finger and say ‘there’s the bad guy’”.

 

[Rramjet]

If the UFO debunkers are correct and UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, etc) between “known” reports and “unknown” reports.

Perhaps you could explain, for the laypeople among the audience, exactly how the statistical test of that hypothesis actually works.

Sure, no problem.

You take a descriptive characteristic (say a shape) and note its incidence in both the known and the unknown reports. The hypothesis states that we should expect the incidences to be evenly distributed between reports (if all objects are merely misidentified mundane objects then we expect it will be). Then we run (for example) a Chi-square analysis to see if the observed incidence statistically differs from the expected incidence. A simple and straightforward test of the hypothesis.

 

[tjlance1]

While many people equate UFO with aliens, the actual definition of they acronym is "Unidentified Flying Object". If we stay within the framework of the actual name, it is factual that a small percentage of sightings have not been explained. Given that, it is not logical to assume that these are alien sightings, but do need to be investigated. IMO it's a sad state when there are those that would rather concentrate on supposedly other worldly answers to these sightings instead of the actual natural wonders of this planet.

Do I believe in life outside of this planet? Yes I do. But life does not have to constitute intelligent life. It's an exciting premise, but given the vastness of the universe,it is highly unlikely that we would encounter another intelligent species. When I think of life within this universe, life could be as simple as bacteria living within the soil of some yet to be discovered planet. Even at that, it is still exciting to realize we are not alone.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thanks ufology. I doubt that it will do any good though. It will be completely ignored – or slammed in ad hominem attacks and with irrational and unfounded assertion (See how RoboT treats it for example).

How was it irrational or unfounded? Your unfounded pseudoscientific assertion is legitimately dismissed.

There will also be the same tired arguments put forward that the points raised in my post refute.

That's what everyone is telling you. You keep putting forward your same pseudoscientific arguments which have been thoroughly demolished.

For example see John Albert where he quotes Wikipedia (which is probably about the worst source on the planet for any authoritative definition)…

Interesting pseudoscientific take on it. John commented on ufology's dishonest cherry picking of Wikipedia's definition.

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.​

…and goes on to state (in bold type as if shouting will somehow magically confer veracity on the assertion):


But of course it is also definitive of claims by quacks and charlatans in the medical profession – so is he now contending medicine to be a pseudoscience?

You missed the point where UFOlogy is rife with pseudoscientific quacks and charlatans. You've not given any examples of UFOlogists who aren't quacks and charlatans and I can't think of any. Then review your quack (charlatan) pseudoscientific hypothesis.

And then of course he merely repeats a list of definitions that I have previously refuted many times over as being applicable to ufology on the grounds that:

• Ufology does not claim to be a science.
• Ufology can however legitimately claim to adhere to scientific principles during its investigations without it being a science – think History for example.
• There are quacks and charlatans in any field (medicine is a good example) but that does not mean we write the whole field off as pseudoscientific.

Your pseudoscientific refutations have been thoroughly trashed. You've never been able to overcome that.

Which points the debunkers must overcome if they are to support their arguments that ufology is a pseudoscience – and of course they do not – they merely repeat over and over (like a mantra) their unfounded claims that completely ignore those points (as if they did not exist).

Well, no. Your unfounded pseudoscientific assertion is dismissed. Your pseudoscientific arguments are in shattered little piles on the floor.

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

Rramjet, why would you not want a falsifiable null hypothesis instead of your idiotic pseudoscientific one?

 

[RoboTimbo]

If the UFO debunkers are correct and UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, etc) between “known” reports and “unknown” reports.

Sure, no problem.

You take a descriptive characteristic (say a shape) and note its incidence in both the known and the unknown reports. The hypothesis states that we should expect the incidences to be evenly distributed between reports (if all objects are merely misidentified mundane objects then we expect it will be). Then we run (for example) a Chi-square analysis to see if the observed incidence statistically differs from the expected incidence. A simple and straightforward test of the hypothesis.

So how many would you expect to be oil well fires like at Campeche, the UFOlogist's Waterloo? Do you see why your hypothesis is idiotic pseudoscientific waffling now? What did you fail to understand about wollery's excellent post?

Why do you not want to use an actual falsifiable null hypothesis such as:

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

Easily falsifiable, just bring forward one verified ET. Why do you quiver like a chihuahua whenever the subject comes up? Where do you find fault with it?

 

[Akhenaten]

If the UFO debunkers are correct and UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, etc) between “known” reports and “unknown” reports.

Perhaps you could explain, for the laypeople among the audience, exactly how the statistical test of that hypothesis actually works.

Sure, no problem.

You take a descriptive characteristic (say a shape) and note its incidence in both the known and the unknown reports. The hypothesis states that we should expect the incidences to be evenly distributed between reports (if all objects are merely misidentified mundane objects then we expect it will be). Then we run (for example) a Chi-square analysis to see if the observed incidence statistically differs from the expected incidence. A simple and straightforward test of the hypothesis.

In other words, "No, I can't. Will gobbledygook do?"

 

[ufology]

The matter isn't with me. I understand plain English. I asked a plain yes/no question, and even asked politely that you answer it simply without a bunch of waffling and weaseling. Obviously you can't honestly answer a simple yes/no question posed in plain English. Again it goes to demonstrate the typical dishonesty involved in the pseudoscience of "ufology".

Well if you understand plain English, why didn't you understand what the original author wrote when I used his direct quote. Surely you don't need me to interpret it for you?

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

Rramjet, in case you're wondering why I'm not responding to any of your arguments directed at me, it's because I have you on ignore.

Why do I have you on ignore?

• It's because you usually avoid engaging your opponents in honest discourse, instead referring to them in the 3rd person with ad hominem attacks, and disrespecting their individuality by using hasty generalizations to mischaracterize their positions. I'm specifically referring to your tactics of namecalling your opponents "debunkers" and cobbling their arguments together into an aggregate persona instead of addressing them individually in a respectful manner.

• It's because your arguments are illogical and you refuse to address critiques of your logic, instead focusing on the sort of dishonest tactics mentioned above.

• It's because you ignore counterarguments to your claims, and then reiterate the claims again and again ad nauseum as if they'd never been addressed in the first place; you even go so far with this dishonest denialism as to blatantly lie that nobody has refuted your oft-discredited assertions.

• It's because you have been caught in numerous lies, such as blatantly misrepresenting yourself as a trained scientist and arguing from that fraudulent position of authority when anyone with any common sense can tell it's a bald-faced lie. That's insulting and I refuse to play that game.

So that's why you might notice that I don't address your posts. If you ever want to engage me in conversation, I suggest you clean up your act.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, you've never answered this. Rramjet's screeching got in the way. I don't think he wants you to answer for yourself.

The above dodges having to respond to the substance of the report quoted in earlier posts, and tries to impose a scientific method on something that can't by it's very nature accomodate it. All we can do with UFO reports is consider them in a historical context and do our best to determine how reasonable it is to believe the stories happened the way they are told.

Then you're admitting that it isn't objective now? Good show!

In the report I posted we have a USAF jet interceptor pilot who chased a flying saucer in broad daylight for around two minutes. It wasn't a "maybe it was a flying saucer" situation. The pilot clearly saw it and described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole" ... and at the time he was moving near the speed of sound, "at the mach". No null hypothesis is needed here ... "Was it a bird?", "Was it a balloon?", "Was it an airplane?" ... don't be obtuse ... it was a flying saucer, otherwise known as a UFO.

So you're saying that your null hypothesis is that it was a flying saucer while saying that you don't need a null hypothesis? The pilot probably saw either a floater in his eye or a piece of debris floating in his cockpit.

Now maybe someone can tell me if they know of any disk shaped objects that could fly at the speed of sound in 1952 ... how about today?

Everything in the cockpit of the plane.

Oh ya and then it just pulled away, "Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it wondered what to do next." ... so let's make that a supersonic flying disk.

j.r.

Not "let's", just you and other pseudoscientists who don't use critical thinking. You wanted to present this story as objective when it isn't. Nor can it be falsified, just like your null hypothesis.

Why would you not want to adopt a null hypothesis that is falsifiable such as:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations"?

Simple and easily falsifiable. You only need just one confirmed ET. Not anecdotes.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, in case you're wondering why I'm not responding to any of your arguments directed at me, it's because I have you on ignore.

Why do I have you on ignore?

• It's because you usually avoid engaging your opponents in honest discourse, instead referring to them in the 3rd person with ad hominem attacks, and disrespecting their individuality by using hasty generalizations to mischaracterize their positions. I'm specifically referring to your tactics of namecalling your opponents "debunkers" and cobbling their arguments together into an aggregate persona instead of addressing them individually in a respectful manner.

• It's because your arguments are illogical and you refuse to address critiques of your logic, instead focusing on the sort of dishonest tactics mentioned above.

• It's because you ignore counterarguments to your claims, and then reiterate the claims again and again ad nauseum as if they'd never been addressed in the first place; you even go so far with this dishonest denialism as to blatantly lie that nobody has refuted your oft-discredited assertions.

• It's because you have been caught in numerous lies, such as blatantly misrepresenting yourself as a trained scientist and arguing from that fraudulent position of authority when anyone with any common sense can tell it's a bald-faced lie. That's insulting and I refuse to play that game.

So that's why you might notice that I don't address your posts. If you ever want to engage me in conversation, I suggest you clean up your act.

Hey J.A. - perhaps instead of indulging in the vitriolic rant, you could simply address yourself to the following points then:

• Ufology does not claim to be a science.
• Ufology can however legitimately claim to adhere to scientific principles during its investigations without it being a science – think History for example.
• There are quacks and charlatans in any field (medicine is a good example) but that does not mean we write the whole field off as pseudoscientific.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Actually, analysis has shown that this was not correct. Analysis and recent revelations indicate it was a hoax. Is that any surprise for a UFO photgraph?

OK. But I'm still waiting for an analysis of any picture that shows the object to be an alien flying saucer.

 

[GeeMack]

Well if you understand plain English, why didn't you understand what the original author wrote when I used his direct quote. Surely you don't need me to interpret it for you?

I understand that the report did not conclude the thing the pilot saw was an extraterrestrial or alien craft. What was not clear, and still isn't clear given your persistent waffling and evasion, is whether you understand that. That's why I am asking you. Your continued ignorance of the question is noted.

 

[Akhenaten]

• Ufology does not claim to be a science.

Some does, some doesn't. It all pretends to be, and that's what garners it the epithet.

• Ufology can however legitimately claim to adhere to scientific principles during its investigations without it being a science – think History for example.

Ufology can makes as many extraordinary claims as it wants to for itself, but none of them change the fact that what ufologists do is start from their conclusion that ET/aliens are zipping about the place in their flying saucers and work backwards from that ridiculous assumption, No scientific principles in evidence there, Rramjet.

• There are quacks and charlatans in any field (medicine is a good example) but that does not mean we write the whole field off as pseudoscientific.

Disciplines such as medicine have checks and balances in place to ensure that quacks and charlatans are weeded out. How would you describe the system of checks and balances that ufology employs?