Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, is reiki a pseudoscience?

 

[GeeMack]

The Question: Is Ufology Pseudoscience?

Without a doubt, objectively and definitively.

Pseudoscience: Something that is presented as science, or in some way puts on a convincing act to fool people that it is actual science, but fails to meet accepted scientific standards.

Like when a self proclaimed advocate of "ufology", one who even takes on the nickname "ufology" on a skeptics' forum, admits to starting with a preconceived conclusion that aliens exist, then sets about the task of following an allegedly objective methodology to illuminate that truth. So far "ufology" meets that definition of pseudoscience.

Let's expand a bit though, shall we? Over at Wiki we find this succinct description of the common use of the term "pseudoscience"...

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research; but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

And from your own alien believers club web site...

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.

[...]

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.

Yes, there is that purported attempt to apply an objective methodology to "illuminate the truth [...] that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin". Yep. Still "ufology" is pseudoscience, definitively and objectively.

Ufology: Ufology is a title used for the full array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs. This goes beyond limited faulty definitions that focus merely on the study of UFO reports and includes the full range of ufology publications and culture.

We'll try that...

Homeopathy is a title used for the full array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in treating patients using highly diluted preparations that are no more effective than a placebo. This goes beyond limited faulty definitions that focus merely on the study of mixing and administering the remedies and includes the full range of homeopathic publications and culture.​

Yep, "ufology" is still pseudoscience, unless you want to argue that homeopathy isn't.

The Logic:

The phrasing of the question "Is ufology Pseudoscience" requires that the definition of pseudoscience be applicable to Ufology as a whole. If the question were something like "Is there Pseudoscience In Ufology", then the definition could apply to instances of pseudoscience in ufology and a proper discussion could take place.

That is absolutely and definitively the logical fallacy of special pleading. It's dishonest, and it's not valid logic, so your caption is inappropriate and your argument has failed.

However that is not how the thread topic was phrased, it explicitly asks "Is Ufology Pseudoscience", which clearly encompasses all ufology and not just a subset of the field as a whole. Therefore to answer the question, we must ask if all ufology falls under the definition of pseudoscience ... does it? The answer is "no", and in the past two specific examples were cited that each compose a large portion of ufology as a whole. They are included below again for reference:

Okay, break that down...

However that is not how the thread topic was phrased, it explicitly asks "Are Northern Cardinals Red", which clearly encompasses all Northern Cardinals and not just a subset of the species as a whole. Therefore to answer the question, we must ask if all Northern Cardinals fall under the definition of red ... do they? The answer is "no", [...]​

See? As stupid an argument anyone might offer to claim "ufology" isn't pseudoscience. Argument failed. "Ufology" is, objectively and by definition, pseudoscience.

Only One Outside Example Is Needed:

To show that ufology as a whole cannot be classed as pseudoscience, all that is required by logic is a single example of a common aspect of ufology that does not conform to the definition of pseudoscience. Two have been provided above ( ufology culture and non-scientifc publications ). No logical, fair minded rebuttal has been forthcoming. I submit that none has been provided because it isn't plausible to create one, and therefore the thread should be closed to prevent further looping and irrelevant commentary.

Sure, let's go with that...

To show that Northern Cardinals as a whole cannot be classed as red, all that is required by logic is a single example of a common aspect of Northern Cardinals that does not conform to the definition of red.​

Okay, yes, as far as arguments go it's just plain raw stupid. So is "ufology" pseudoscience? By definition, honestly and objectively, yes, it is.

Your entire argument above has failed to objectively demonstrate that "ufology" isn't pseudoscience, and in fact goes to further support the notion that it is. If you'd like to check to see how well you've succeeded in changing the common usage of the term "ufology" or "pseudoscience", you should start a poll. You'll likely be very, very disappointed with the results.

 

[Akhenaten]

The Question: Is Ufology Pseudoscience?

Yes.

Pseudoscience: Something that is presented as science, or in some way puts on a convincing act to fool people that it is actual science, but fails to meet accepted scientific standards.

Drivel. Anything pretending to be science is pseudoscience and ufology does that in spades. The very name itself is such a pretence.

Ufology: Ufology is a title used for the full array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs. This goes beyond limited faulty definitions that focus merely on the study of UFO reports and includes the full range of ufology publications and culture.

Rubbish. It's a made up word used to try and trick people into thinking it's something scientific. Luckily this thread is here to expose this trickery.

The Logic:

The phrasing of the question "Is ufology Pseudoscience" requires that the definition of pseudoscience be applicable to Ufology as a whole.

<waffle>

This assertion is utter rubbish. Substitute homeopathy, astrology or reiki for ufology and this becomes even more readily apparent.

Ufology Culture:

Ufology Publications:

<snip>

Well, I have to admit, they aren't all pseudoscientific crap.

____

Further Distinctions: Special Pleading:

Advocating the use of science to study UFOs is not the same as calling ufology a science unto itself. Therefore things like the MUFON motto don't apply to field as a whole, but only to the scientific study of UFOs themselves. Context is also important in that simply because someone might use an actual scientific study as a point of reference, does not make an entire informal book or presentation into a science project.

FTFY

Only One Outside Example Is Needed:

<snip>

Wrong.

 

[ufology]

Without a doubt, objectively and definitively...

None of the above post ( shortened ) ... explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can fairly and logically be called pseudoscience. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yep, great post GeeMack. That absolutely nails the lid shut on whether ufology is a pseudoscience. ufology's (the poster) own post clearly shows that UFOlogy (the pseudoscience) is a pseudoscience. On top of the fact that ufology refuses to address the very questions, the answers to which would show his hypocrisy for what it is. You can always tell when they paint themselves into a corner. Good summary about the parallels with homeopathy which ufology was trying to not see.

Maybe we should start that thread asking if one of the other pseudosciences is a pseudoscience, see what fallacious arguments their adherents come up with. Maybe even see if ufology would participate.

 

[ufology]

Yep, great post GeeMack. That absolutely nails the lid shut on whether ufology is a pseudoscience. ufology's (the poster) own post clearly shows that UFOlogy (the pseudoscience) is a pseudoscience. On top of the fact that ufology refuses to address the very questions, the answers to which would show his hypocrisy for what it is. You can always tell when they paint themselves into a corner. Good summary about the parallels with homeopathy which ufology was trying to not see.

Maybe we should start that thread asking if one of the other pseudosciences is a pseudoscience, see what fallacious arguments their adherents come up with. Maybe even see if ufology would participate.

None of the above post explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can fairly and logically be called paseudoscience. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

None of the above post ( shortened ) ... explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can be fairly and logically called paseudoscience.

But it does! It made perfect sense to me and explained the whole thing quite eloquently.

You must have read it wrong.


BTW, paseudoscience is another thing altogether. Are you in the right thread?

Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

You know who else cites his own posts like this? DOC. If that doesn't raise a red flag for you, nothing will.

 

[RoboTimbo]

LOL.

None of the above post explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can fairly and logically be called paseudoscience. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

On top of the fact that ufology refuses to address the very questions, the answers to which would show his hypocrisy for what it is. You can always tell when they paint themselves into a corner.

 

[ufology]

But it does! It made perfect sense to me and explained the whole thing quite eloquently. You must have read it wrong. BTW, paseudoscience is another thing altogether. Are you in the right thread?

You know who else cites his own posts like this? DOC. If that doesn't raise a red flag for you, nothing will.

None of the above post explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can be fairly and logically called pseudoscience. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

None of the above post explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can be fairly and logically called pseudoscience. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

LOL.

Full rebuttal here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122440

 

[GeeMack]

None of the above post ( shortened ) ... explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can fairly and logically be called paseudoscience. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

Okay, I can work with that, too...

None of the above explains how albino cardinals and ones which have been painted blue can fairly and logically be called Northern Cardinals. Therefore Northern Cardinals on the whole still cannot be labeled as red.​

See? The argument is just as stupid every time you try it. Just. Plain. Stupid.

 

[ufology]

Okay, I can work with that, too...

None of the above explains how albino cardinals and ones which have been painted blue can fairly and logically be called Northern Cardinals. Therefore Northern Cardinals on the whole still cannot be labeled as red.
​

See? The argument is just as stupid every time you try it. Just. Plain. Stupid.

Very plainly this time ... above ... absolutely none of the post explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can be fairly and logically called pseudoscience. Instead it talks about cardinals. Cardinals are not the topic here. Ufology is. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, is astrology a pseudoscience?

 

[Stray Cat]

Very plainly this time ... above ... absolutely none of the post explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can be fairly and logically called pseudoscience. Instead it talks about cardinals. Cardinals are not the topic here. Ufology is. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

Already answered, not a good idea to spam the forum.

LOL.

Full rebuttal here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122440

 

[ufology]

Already answered, not a good idea to spam the forum.

This is not spam. It is a notice asking for a clear logical answer that has yet to be given in context not using off topic content like homeopathy or cardinals ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is not spam. It is a notice asking for a clear logical answer that has yet to be given in context not using off topic content like homeopathy or cardinals ... full explanation here:

<spam snipped>

j.r.

ufology, do you have any logical arguments to use? GeeMack has systematically demolished that one and you've never been able to rebut it.

 

[Akhenaten]

None of the above post ( shortened ) ... explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can fairly and logically be called pseudoscience. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

None of the above post explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can fairly and logically be called paseudoscience. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

None of the above post explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can be fairly and logically called pseudoscience. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

Very plainly this time ... above ... absolutely none of the post explains how ufology culture and non-scientific publications can be fairly and logically called pseudoscience. Instead it talks about cardinals. Cardinals are not the topic here. Ufology is. Therefore ufology on the whole still cannot be labeled as pseudoscience ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

This is not spam. It is a notice asking for a clear logical answer that has yet to be given in context not using off topic content like homeopathy or cardinals ... full explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is not spam.

You won't find me arguing that five days is too long this time.

 

[Apology]

If watching movies about UFOs makes me a UFOlogist, then what does watching pornography make me?

Before you answer, I should warn you that I'm planning on watching Scarface and Silence of the Lambs later this afternoon.

 

[Stray Cat]

Well I'm really hungry tonight, so I'm going to watch Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares because it'll make me a chef, then I can cook something really good.