Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[carlitos]

ufology is back!

You may have missed this post during your break?

....

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.

 

[R.A.F.]

UFOlogists are practicing pseudoscience when they begin with their conclusion that it's OMG PseudoAliens and work backwards. Rramjet is a prime example of that. If you look at the other UFO thread you will find that he has begun with his conclusion that some UFO cases defy mundane explanation and therefore must be pseudoaliens. He then uses anecdotes which are unfalsifiable to "prove" it.

Nice summery of why Rramjet (and those of his ilk) are incapable of conducting an unbiased investigation.

 

[ufology]

Hey there Carlitos ...

Regarding the quotes here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7454134&postcount=1681

The first part of the post above comments on a whole list of off topic subject matter, and as much as I would like to provide an answer, such answers were recently used to suspend me for several days, therefore if you want to discuss, "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." We'll need to do it on threads other than this one.

The second part that suggests that a double standard is being applied is comparing to sets of data out of context and therefore the analogy that the notion of the double satndard is based on is flawed. Therefore there is no double standard taking place with respect to my initial comment. The rest is simply a stated opinion and provides no frame of reference through which a proper response can be made.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

When did this place turn into 'Dodge' City?

 

[carlitos]

Breach of rule 11 removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

The second part that suggests that a double standard is being applied is comparing to sets of data out of context and therefore the analogy that the notion of the double satndard is based on is flawed. Therefore there is no double standard taking place with respect to my initial comment. The rest is simply a stated opinion and provides no frame of reference through which a proper response can be made.

j.r.

I really, really don't understand this response. Is this some type of doublespeak? "Ufology" (the pseudoscience, not the poster by that name) collects stories that originate from lucid dreams, car lights, hallucinations, oil well fires, blimps, faked photography, other hoaxes, birds, boats, satellites and stars and collects "data" about them.

Here's a different analogy. Bad things happen to good people - cancer, car accidents, whatever. Christians call it "God's will" and Buddhists call it "karma." Cancer and car accidents are unrelated phenomena. The hypothetical Christian or Buddhist is just rationalizing post hoc per their particular superstition. How is "ufology" different from that?

 

[ufology]

There's nothing pseudoscientific about it because, as you say, it's not ufology. The ufologists have already done their bit by causing the UFO to be brought to the attention of a proper scientist in the first place.

In other words, the only need that ufology has of legitimate science is to refute the conclusions that it wouldn't be jumping to if it weren't pseudoscience.

The above quote is almost correct. The part that isn't correct is the assumption that ufology is habitually jumping to conclusions. Historically, UFOs that after investigation have not been identified as any known or manmade object or phenomenon, have been classed as "unknown". Therefore in those cases, no pseudoscience is taking place.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

When did this place turn into 'Dodge' City?

That's the dishonest pseudoscientific tactic described here...

Observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed.

The judicious application of ignorance is a characteristic of pseudoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above quote is almost correct. The part that isn't correct is the assumption that ufology is habitually jumping to conclusions. Historically, UFOs that after investigation have not been identified as any known or manmade object or phenomenon, have been classed as "unknown". Therefore in those cases, no pseudoscience is taking place.

j.r.

Since you are avoiding any discussion of your consistency in applying your personal pseudoscience standards, can you answer this instead:

Is jumping to your conclusion an indicator of a pseudoscience?

 

[Weak Kitten]

ufology, please calm down and reread your posts before submitting them. I really do want to understand what you are saying but it is coming out a bit garbled in your haste.

Why don't we start with expressing in simple terms what a "pseudoscience" is. For example, the basic definition from Wikipedia is:

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.

I think that most people as saying that they do not feel that ufology adheres to a valid scientific method and/or lacks supporting evidence or plausibility. I understand that some of your argument is over what constitutes "supporting evidence" but that may be a subject for another thread.

 

[GeeMack]

The above quote is almost correct. The part that isn't correct is the assumption that ufology is habitually jumping to conclusions.

"Ufology" begins with the conclusion that aliens exist. It doesn't have to jump. It's already there. That very characteristic of being wholly non-objective and attempting to support a preexisting belief is one of the many things that very clearly place "ufology" in the realms of pseudoscience.

Historically, UFOs that after investigation have not been identified as any known or manmade object or phenomenon, have been classed as "unknown". Therefore in those cases, no pseudoscience is taking place.

At least one avid "ufologist" here on the JREF forum starts with the flawed premise that those alleged sightings which can't be identified are plauibly explained as ETs. So again you are just plain wrong in your assertion, and wrong about the notion that "ufology" isn't pseudoscience.

 

[GeeMack]

Is whining to avoid answering difficult questions an indicator of pseudoscience?

I think we've seen many examples where cries of persecution were used by pseudoscience promoters as a red herring to avoid answering relevant questions. I'd say, "I can't answer because I might get spanked," fits in that category.

 

[RoboTimbo]

However if a birdwatcher has a sighting of some rare ( perhaps previously unknown or extinct ) bird, he or she may record the details and try to get a picture and maybe some trace evidence and take that to an ornithologist. When that happens, and the scientist is looking at the evidence, I think it is fair to say that science is taking place.

j.r.

ufology, why do you think this post didn't get moderated?

 

[ufology]

A significant portion of ufology is completely fictional and culture based. For example, motion pictures including Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Earth vs The Flying Saucers, X Files and many more are all deeply embedded in ufology culture and any rational person can see it would be ridiculous to call these either science or pseudoscience ... and yet this is exactly what would be required in order to slap the pseudoscience label over all ufology. Clearly, there is no plausible rationale to advocate such a ludicrous position. Therefore it isn't plausible to create a rational argument to support the notion that ufology itself is a pseudoscience.

The only response I've seen to the above is an acknowledgement that ufology is entertainment and nothing more.

Exactly. An entertainment,nothing more.

The above interpretation of ufology as "entertainment and nothing more" clearly immunizes the field of ufology from any application of the pseudoscience label.

Of course we all know that there is also much more to ufology than mere entertainment, and that the existence of the underlying phenomenon at its core is what makes it so fascinating and enjoyable for so many people.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course we all know that there is also much more to ufology than mere entertainment, and that the existence of the underlying phenomenon at its core is what makes it so fascinating and enjoyable for so many people.

j.r.

Yep, it's that "much more" that makes it a pseudoscience.

ufology, why was the following post not moderated?

I've reviewed quite a few of Rramjets posts and haven't found anything to pick on him about. The links to the stuies are no longer valid, so I can't comment on the specifics. Here is something I would be tempted to class as pseudoscience if I were predisposed to slapping labels on entire groups:

Homeopathy: http://www.homeopathicdirectory.com/

Code of Ethics ... theory and practice, and supporting other homeopaths in that goal. Promote the art and science of homeopathy through appropriate research. If conducting homeopathic research, give substances used in provings.

Above we have the claim being made that homeopathy is a science. Now we can ask the question, "But does it have supporting evidence and plausibility that can be reliably tested, and does it have scientific status?" Let's look at what Wikipedia says:

"Depending on the dilution, homeopathic remedies may not contain any pharmacologically active molecules, and for such remedies to have pharmacological effect would violate fundamental principles of science. Modern homeopaths have proposed that water has a memory that allows homeopathic preparations to work without any of the original substance; however, there are no verified observations nor scientifically plausible physical mechanisms for such a phenomenon. The lack of convincing scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience and quackery."

If we are to accept that there is any valid use for the word "pseudoscience", homeopathy would seem to be a good example.

j.r.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

 

[carlitos]

Yep, it's that "much more" that makes it a pseudoscience.

I think earlier I called it mythology apologetics. It's the same logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty, but in defense of alien stories instead of religion. How else can you group movie fandom, hallucinations, birds, squid boats and lies into one thing and pretend to study it as a singular phenomenon?

....The part that isn't correct is the assumption that ufology is habitually jumping to conclusions. Historically, UFOs that after investigation have not been identified as any known or manmade object or phenomenon, have been classed as "unknown". Therefore in those cases, no pseudoscience is taking place.

j.r.

The French ufology study (COMETA - PDF link) came to the conclusion that UFOs were real, physical objects likely being piloted by aliens. Part of their evidence is stories that the Bilderbergs and the Trilateral commission secretly rule the world at the behest of aliens. Did they jump to that conclusion? Was that pseudoscience?

 

[ufology]

I think earlier I called it mythology apologetics. It's the same logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty, but in defense of alien stories instead of religion. How else can you group movie fandom, hallucinations, birds, squid boats and lies into one thing and pretend to study it as a singular phenomenon?

The French ufology study (COMETA - PDF link) came to the conclusion that UFOs were real, physical objects likely being piloted by aliens. Part of their evidence is stories that the Bilderbergs and the Trilateral commission secretly rule the world at the behest of aliens. Did they jump to that conclusion? Was that pseudoscience?

The first part of the above quote confuses the UFO phenomenon itself with ufology as a field. Therefore all the things the writer lumps in with the phenomenon don't actually apply to the phenomenon itself, but to the field in general.

As for the COMETA report. What it comprises is a collection of opinions from former bureaucrats and military people. Some science has been done within some of the projects mentioned, but that doesn't make the COMETA report science or pseudoscience, and it doesn't justify slapping the pseudoscience label over the entire field.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

The first part of the above quote confuses the UFO phenomenon itself with ufology as a field. Therefore all the things the writer lumps in with the phenomenon don't actually apply to the phenomenon itself, but to the field in general.

As for the COMETA report. What it comprises is a collection of opinions from former bureaucrats and military people. Some science has been done within some of the projects mentioned, but that doesn't make the COMETA report science or pseudoscience, and it doesn't justify slapping the pseudoscience label over the entire field.

No True Scotsman. Just as dishonest this time as it is every time you try it.

 

[ufology]

No True Scotsman. Just as dishonest this time as it is every time you try it.

The above interpretation simply doesn't apply.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The first part of the above quote confuses the UFO phenomenon itself with ufology as a field. Therefore all the things the writer lumps in with the phenomenon don't actually apply to the phenomenon itself, but to the field in general.

As for the COMETA report. What it comprises is a collection of opinions from former bureaucrats and military people. Some science has been done within some of the projects mentioned, but that doesn't make the COMETA report science or pseudoscience, and it doesn't justify slapping the pseudoscience label over the entire field.

j.r.

So in your opinion, even when UFOlogy is involved in pseudoscience, it isn't proper to call it pseudoscience?

Why was this post not moderated?

The nature of the purpose of the word "ufology" is used in a similar context to the word "aviation", not that we are actually comparing ufology and aviation here, but that we are comparing how the titles are used. Aviation is made up of many facets including aircraft design, manufacturing, operation, history, business, art and entertainment. Aviation is in and of itself not a science. However within the array of activities and interests we call aviation, the hard science is called aeronautics. Also within aviation are fringe-science ideas that might very well be considered to be pseudoscience. For example "chemtrails", the discharge of chemicals from an aircraft for some nefarious purpose. We don't know for sure what all the "chemtrails" are, maybe they are what the conspiracy theorists say they are, or maybe they aren't ... maybe the chemtrail conspiracy is pseudoscience, but even if it is, that doesn't make aviation itself pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, now that it has been shown beyond any doubt that you may answer this question with impunity, I'll ask it again and I'll expect an honest answer.

Do you believe homeopathy to be a pseudoscience?