Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[GeeMack]

All I can do is shake my head at the lengths the skeptics on this forum go to to maintain an adversarial and non-constructive approach to the topic.

Continuing to dishonestly blame other people for the "ufologists'" failure isn't really working for you. Seems some of your very fist posts on this forum were the same kind of passing the buck for "ufology's" failures.

You want something constructive? Take some of the very well articulated lessons in critical thinking that have been offered here by cooperative helpful skeptics, and apply those lessons to your persistently failed belief-in-extraterrestrials arguments.

But as long as you hold the preconceived belief that UFOs are of alien origin, and believe that applying some objective methodology will illuminate that "truth" (by your own admission, being wholly disconnected from objective reality), "ufologists" will continue to wallow neck deep in pseudoscience.

 

[ufology]

Can't be bothered to read what has arrived here since I last posted in this thread, but:

If "UFOlogy" makes assumptions about what "Unidentified Flying Objects" might be, beyond that we don't know what they are, then it is a pseudoscience.

Actually the above is a typical incorrect assumption. Before something can be called a pseudoscience it has to fall within the definition of pseudoscience, for which all substantial definitions include as a prerequisite, in some form or another, that the subject being labelled as a pseudoscience must first be presented as a science, and then fail to meet scientific standards. Until then anyone is entitled to have an opinion or tell us about someone else's ideas and opinions without being slammed with some derogatory label.

The undisciplined labeling of entire fields as pseudoscience is pseudosckeptical and biased and should be avoided by genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The surest way to avoid being pseudoskeptical with respect to this issue is to weigh each case on it's own merit, and by each case I mean each individual report or experiment. If the report or experiment says it's scientific or is formatted as scientific, but can be shown not to be genuine science for logical demonstrable reasons, then you would have a case for pseudoscience. Until then, carpet bombing the entire field of ufology is clearly an undisciplined pseudoskeptical approach.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually the above is a typical incorrect assumption. Before something can be called a pseudoscience it has to fall within the definition of pseudoscience, for which all substantial definitions include as a prerequisite, in some form or another, that the subject being labelled as a pseudoscience must first be presented as a science, and then fail to meet scientific standards. Until then anyone is entitled to have an opinion or tell us about someone else's ideas and opinions without being slammed with some derogatory label.

The undisciplined labeling of entire fields as pseudoscience is pseudosckeptical and biased and should be avoided by genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The surest way to avoid being pseudoskeptical with respect to this issue is to weigh each case on it's own merit, and by each case I mean each individual report or experiment. If the report or experiment says it's scientific or is formatted as scientific, but can be shown not to be genuine science for logical demonstrable reasons, then you would have a case for pseudoscience. Until then, carpet bombing the entire field of ufology is clearly an undisciplined pseudoskeptical approach.

j.r.

In the case of UFOlogy, it is a pseudoscience, as has been amply demonstrated and proven by every poster in this thread. Mostly by you and Rramjet who continue to reinforce the fact with every post you make.

A pity that you wanted to maintain your current pseudoscientific null hypothesis that alien vehicles are flying in our skies. Yours shows no evidence of any critical thinking going into it at all.

 

[ufology]

... as long as you hold the preconceived belief that UFOs are of alien origin, and believe that applying some objective methodology will illuminate the truth ("truth", by your own admission, being wholly disconnected from objective reality), "ufologists" will continue to wallow neck deep in pseudoscience.

The above quote is not in context. Anyone can hold whatever personal belief they want about one thing and still hold no preconceived opinion about another. For example, just because I have the opinion that one kind of ice cream is good doesn't mean I have the preconceived opinion that all kinds of ice cream are good. I'd actually have to try them before I would know. Similarly I can have the opinion that my own sighting convinced me that Earth is being visited by aliens, but that doesn't mean someone else's story is going to convince me.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

In the case of UFOlogy, it is a pseudoscience, as has been amply demonstrated and proven by every poster in this thread. Mostly by you and Rramjet who continue to reinforce the fact with every post you make.

A pity that you wanted to maintain your current pseudoscientific null hypothesis that alien vehicles are flying in our skies. Yours shows no evidence of any critical thinking going into it at all.

The above is simply more proclaimation without substance.

 

[John Albert]

Before something can be called a pseudoscience it has to fall within the definition of pseudoscience, for which all substantial definitions include as a prerequisite, in some form or another, that the subject being labelled as a pseudoscience must first be presented as a science, and then fail to meet scientific standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

The undisciplined labeling of entire fields as pseudoscience is pseudosckeptical and biased and should be avoided by genuine skeptics and critical thinkers.

Judging by your own track record around here, the surest way to come off as an ignorant ass is to appoint yourself an authority on subjects like skepticism and critical thinking.

 

[23_Tauri]

Sorry, I don't watch linked YouTubes. Was there something in it that you could summarize here?

You're not missing much.

Dean Radin says that anecdote should be treated with the same weight as any other evidence. I guess that's because it's all he's got to go on. Oh, and people like anecdote. When he gives lectures on psi phenomena, the halls are packed.

For ufology: the point that Radin is trying to make regarding people who believe in nonsense not being stupid (they have degrees and stuff, right?) is a complete red herring. Plenty of intelligent, educated people believe in woo.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is simply more proclaimation without substance.

Not at all. It was a response to your unevidenced assertion. I've advised you before, you should read peoples' posts which aren't your own. You'll find all the justification for UFOlogy being a pseudoscience. Read Rramjet's and your posts and you'll find all the justification needed to keep it there.

Really, a pity you chose your pseudoscientific null hypothesis rather than a falsifiable one.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You're not missing much.

Dean Radin says that anecdote should be treated with the same weight as any other evidence.

So, Dean Radin is an idiot? Why would ufology want us to watch Radin be an idiot?

 

[23_Tauri]

So, Dean Radin is an idiot? Why would ufology want us to watch Radin be an idiot?

I have no idea. But it hasn't helped his cause.

 

[ufology]

For ufology: the point that Radin is trying to make regarding people who believe in nonsense not being stupid (they have degrees and stuff, right?) is a complete red herring. Plenty of intelligent, educated people believe in woo.

OK ... so I take it then from the above that we have consensus that although the studies are not pseudoscience, they are only relevant to the context of the relationship between belief and education, and have no bearing on whether or not the phenomena ( whatever it is ) is actually real.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

In this case, it would be difficult to tell whether or not they're pseudoscience, without examining the studies and determining if they follow good procedure and whether the data actually bear out the hypothesis.

This guy does appear to be talking out of his ass on several points though, and making crazy jumps to conclusion. Whether that's the way he conducts his research or just his presentation style is difficult to tell.

 

[23_Tauri]

OK ... so I take it then from the above that we have consensus that although the studies are not pseudoscience, they are only relevant to the context of the relationship between belief and education, and have no bearing on whether or not the phenomena ( whatever it is ) is actually real.

j.r.

first of all, when you refer to 'the studies', to which studies are you referring? In the clip, Radin talks about all the people, from many different backgrounds, including scientists and professors, who have come to him with stories about stuff that's happened to them that they can't explain in terms of what they know about science. That's not a study, that's a collection of anecdotes.

The studies that have been conducted on psi, and which have been discussed here on JREF, demonstrate that there is no scientifically-tested (i.e. robustly controlled), repeatable, verifiable evidence for the existence of ESP, telekinesis, precognition, or knowing when you know that your dog knows that you're coming home.

ETA: on belief in woo and educational level achieved, or general intelligence, there's plenty of highly-educated people out there who believe in big woo. Maybe they are being willfully ignorant (i.e. ignoring the data that refutes their belief system), or maybe they just choose to live in a state of cognitive dissonance, I dunno.

 

[John Albert]

first of all, when you refer to 'the studies', to which studies are you referring?

He threw out a suspiciously vague statistic that "60-70% of college professors" believe in psychic phenomena" or somesuch. That's the kind of study I was referring to.

BTW, just because this guy has a PhD, that's no insurance that he isn't fulla ****.

 

[23_Tauri]

In this case, it would be difficult to tell whether or not they're pseudoscience, without examining the studies and determining if they follow good procedure and whether the data actually bear out the hypothesis.

This guy does appear to be talking out of his ass on several points though, and making crazy jumps to conclusion. Whether that's the way he conducts his research or just his presentation style is difficult to tell.

Oh, one of the things I've just reminded myself about Radin, he used the word 'quantum' in the title of his best-selling book. I know I shouldn't snigger, but I do.

 

[23_Tauri]

He threw out a suspiciously vague statistic that "60-70% of college professors" believe in psychic phenomena" or somesuch. That's the kind of study I was referring to.

Oh yes, I vaguely remember him saying that. A statistic which, even if true (and it probably is, most people do go a bundle on their doggie knowing what they're thinking) means absolutely nothing in terms of whether it actually exists or not.

 

[ufology]

In this case, it would be difficult to tell whether or not they're pseudoscience, without examining the studies and determining if they follow good procedure and whether the data actually bear out the hypothesis.

This guy does appear to be talking out of his ass on several points though, and making crazy jumps to conclusion. Whether that's the way he conducts his research or just his presentation style is difficult to tell.

The above are all fair comments ... maybe a little brusque, but I have no quarrel with the essential take.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

To be fair, that 9-minute talk may or may not have strayed into the realm of pseudoscience. All he really said was that stupidity and lack of education did not explain woo beliefs, something we've already known for awhile.

Beyond that, I don't know a whole lot about his work in specific, but all that "universal consciousness" parapsychology nonsense has been hashed and rehashed for over a century with absolutely zero conclusive, positive results. That bunk is undeniably pseudoscience.

 

[carlitos]

....

Yeah, no sorry, but you're wrong about that. Plenty of charlatans promote pseudoscience without explicitly claiming to be practicing science.

For example: homeopaths, naturopaths, psychics, clairvoyants, psychokinetes, psychic surgeons, faith healers, shamans, crystologists, reiki practitioners, chi-healers, martial "Bullshido" artists, ghost hunters, flat-Earthers, hollow-Earthers, etc., etc.

So the poster above takes a bunch of unrelated topics and mushes them all together, proclaims they are pseudoscience and then makes some ill conceived connection that because he thinks they are doing pseudoscience then ufology must be doing it too. There is no cohesive logical thought going on there, yet this poster claims to have a "beef" with my reasoning? All I can do is shake my head at the lengths the skeptics on this forum go to to maintain an adversarial and non-constructive approach to the topic.

j.r.

As opposed to lumping together sightings of blimps, airplanes and headlights together with hallucinations, lucid dreams and lies, and calling it "ufology?". What a joke.

No response to the above, eh? What a surprise, that you seem to be applying a double standard when arguing your points. ufology gets to combine dreams, headlights, smog and stars together, but grouping various unproven paranormal claims as 'pseudoscience' is not cohesive thought. Boggles the mind.

..... all that "universal consciousness" parapsychology nonsense has been hashed and rehashed for over a century with absolutely zero conclusive, positive results. That bunk is undeniably pseudoscience.

No, it's part of the wider reality^TM.

 

[Rramjet]

You must demonstrate that wherever “ufology” has made a paranormal claim, it also maintains that it is a scientific claim (for after all, something is only pseudoscientific if it claims to be scientific in the first place).

Yeah, no sorry, but you're wrong about that. Plenty of charlatans promote pseudoscience without explicitly claiming to be practicing science.

Perhaps I could amend that statement of mine then:

Something is only pseudoscientific if it claims – either explicitly or implicitly - to be scientific in the first place.

For example: homeopaths, naturopaths, psychics, clairvoyants, psychokinetes, psychic surgeons, faith healers, shamans, crystologists, reiki practitioners, chi-healers, martial "Bullshido" artists, ghost hunters, flat-Earthers, hollow-Earthers, etc., etc.

So yes, homeopathy definitely is a pseudoscience because it has no foundation in science yet claims to be using science (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/) – and possibly the Hollow-earthers – but I have no idea really I have never encountered their theories - but no to the rest. Naturopathy actually has a recognised foundation in science (http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=59), the Flat–earthers are interesting in that they use the logic of science against itself (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) – interesting but not pseudoscientific - and the rest do not claim to be doing science either explicitly or implicitly )

ETA: Oh I forgot Ghost hunters - yes they may claim to use scientific methodology - but you have to demonstrate that they do so spuriously (http://www.spinvestigations.org/).

I think your problem is that you tend to over-generalise - considering anything that may not conform to your own personal belief system to be “pseudoscientific”. Perhaps you should do a little closer investigation and recognise that not all those with whom you disagree are practicing pseudoscience?