• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

ufology said:
The argument makes perfect sense. Although we're not talking about ghost hunting, if ghost hunting isn't claiming to be science and doesn't put out publications that fall under the definition of pseudo science then it's not pseudoscience ... it's just a pastime or a topic of interest, and only when they make it into a scientific endeavor can it be judged as being worthy or not. It is your bias that blinds you to this fact and refuses to let you see the logic ... you want so badly to lump everything in with pseudoscience that you've completely lost your credibility as a skeptic.

j.r.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that ghost hunting isn't pseudoscientific? Really?

Using your definition, what would qualify as an actual pseudoscience?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
I've dealt with Wollery's post already, where he rambles on about astronomy rather than the actual thread topic, and in the end makes no sense. Even his analogy is flawed. He goes so far as to deny that Astronomy History and so on is actually part of Astronomy. Futhermore his rant does nothing to make Ufology Culture or Ufology History or non-scientific ufology publications non-existent ... the fact is that they all exist and Wollery can wallow all he wants in his muddled logic trying to explain them away and it won't change that fact.
Click to expand...


Wollery never denied that "Ufology History" existed, nor was he trying to prove as much. That's a strawman argument right there.

What he did was point out to you that a discipline which studies a particular subject is a specific pursuit in itself, and all the ancillary stuff that others do around the periphery of that pursuit is not the pursuit itself.

He demonstrated that condition quite clearly, yet you simply handwave away his explicitly practical, real-world explanation as a "rant"?

Once again, you're distorting definitions and semantics to shoehorn them into support for your untenable position. We all know what it means to study something. We also know what it means to plop our asses in front of the TV and watch a movie. The ambiguity between those things is very, very minute. Maybe you successfully pulled that trick on your mom when you were a kid and she told you to turn off the TV and do your science homework, but that excuse ain't going to fly around here. You're not convincing us that watching Howard the Duck or Futurama constitutes valid ufological research.


ufology said:
A large portion of ufology involves the publication of non-scientific ufology and ufology-related books destined for mass market consuption ( not scientists ), and makes no claim to being science and are not formatted so as to appear "scientific". Therefore they don't fit the definition of pseudoscience. Therefore what logical rational means can be used to show that all ufology is pseudoscience when clearly a large portion of it doesn't fall under the definition?

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 scientific standards.
Click to expand...


Well what about your own pseudoscientific assertions?

You have personally demonstrated numerous examples of pseudoscientific thinking right here on these forums. All that technical nonsense you've spouted in the Evidence thread, about "cloaking devices," "anti-gravity propulsion," "plasma trails," your false statements about DNA and genomes, positing your own faulty understanding of radar as reasoning for why UFOs are showing up less and less frequently on newer equipment, etc., etc.? Well I've got news for you: that's pseudoscience!!!

You, the very same guy who swears up and down that ufology isn't pseudoscience, have engaged in the practice of pseudoscience under the guise of ufology right here before our very eyes!

You're not going to win this one, no matter how long you hang on here. This discussion was over long before you ever joined this forum. We all know that ufology is pseudoscience. We deal with pseudoscience every day. We search it out and read about it, and then discuss it on this and other forums. It's sort of like our hobby. Just like you read and study all that stuff about UFOs and outer space aliens, we read and study about pseudosciences. The crucial difference is, we don't believe in them.

I'll even let you in on a little secret. Everybody already knows ufology is a pseudoscience. Not just us skeptics, but the general public as well. "Ufology" is listed as an example in nearly every definition or listing of pseudosciences you find on the Internet. It's common knowledge among those of use who aren't pseudoscientists.
 
Last edited:
re: "the usage has become such that it encompasses the subject matter in general"

I'm not a fan of "argument by dictionary" but since ufology is lecturing us on the word itself, I looked it up. The dictionaries haven't caught up with "the usage" of this word either. :rolleyes:


Google Dictionary

u·fol·o·gy
noun /yo͞oˈfäləjē/ 

The study of UFOs
- - -

mirriam webster (can't copy / paste)

"The study of unidentified flying objects"
- - - -

yourdictionary.com

ufology
(yo̵̅o̅ fäl′ə jē)
noun
the study of UFOs, esp. when regarded as spacecraft from another planet
- - - -
reference.com

u·fol·o·gy   
[yoo-fol-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun
the study of unidentified flying objects.Origin:
1955–60; UFO + -logy


- - - -

World English Dictionary
ufology (ˌjuːˈfɒlədʒɪ)

— n
the study of UFOs
- - - -
answers.com

(yū-fŏl'ə-jē)
n.
The study of unidentified flying objects
- - - -
freedictionary.com


u·fol·o·gy (y-fl-j)
n.
The study of unidentified flying objects.[UFO + -logy.]​



Again, ufology, using your definition of pseudoscience, please name one or more pseudosciences. Otherwise, we'll be left thinking that you made that definition up yourself specifically so as to exclude your own personal thing.
 
23_Tauri said:
There's a culture around homeopathy too.

Diverse India: Culture & Homeopathic Healing Traditions

I'm guessing that by your standards that means that homeopathy can't be a pseudoscience either, right?
Click to expand...


So what ... we're not talking about homeopathy. But if we were, there are numerous references within homeopathy refering to itself as a science, as in "The Science of Homeopathy". Plus they constantly employ scientific formatting and methods in an effort to be seen as scientific. These things open them up to scrutiny under the definition. Ufology on the other hand does not define itself as a science, and merely advocating the use of science within the field to study UFOs is not the same as calling the whole field a science. So the analogy doesn't work. Even if there are examples of pseudoscience within the field as a whole, there is also still the issue that large portions of ufology publications and culture fall outside the definition of pseudoscience as well.

j.r.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Ufology on the other hand does not define itself as a science, and merely advocating the use of science within the field to study UFOs is not the same as calling the whole field a science. So the analogy doesn't work.
Click to expand...


We've been over this again and again.

Yes it does.
 
ufology said:
So what ... we're not talking about homeopathy. But if we were, there are numerous references within homeopathy refering to itself as a science, as in "The Science of Homeopathy". Plus they constantly employ scientific formatting and methods in an effort to be seen as scientific. These things open them up to scrutiny under the definition. Ufology on the other hand does not define itself as a science, and merely advocating the use of science within the field to study UFOs is not the same as calling the whole field a science. So the analogy doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure, as long as we're willfully ignoring carlitos's post just above. So more evidence comes to light that would suggest you're not even reading the replies here. Maybe for "ufology" ignorance is bliss.
 
AdMan said:
So you're saying that ghost hunting isn't pseudoscientific? Really?

Using your definition, what would qualify as an actual pseudoscience?
Click to expand...


Pseudoscience: Something that calls itself science or presents itself as science but doesn't meet accepted scientific standards.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
I've stated my case ... but we can take it one step at a time. A large portion of ufology involves the publication of non-scientific ufology and ufology-related books destined for mass market consuption ( not scientists ),
Click to expand...

coverofencyopediaofUfology.jpg


51K9E0NPYTL_SL500_AA300_.jpg


6a00d83451c49869e2013483612c8e970c-320wi.jpg


newufoev.jpg


713122.gif
 
ufology said:
So what ... we're not talking about homeopathy. But if we were, there are numerous references within homeopathy refering to itself as a science, as in "The Science of Homeopathy". Plus they constantly employ scientific formatting and methods in an effort to be seen as scientific. These things open them up to scrutiny under the definition. Ufology on the other hand does not define itself as a science, and merely advocating the use of science within the field to study UFOs is not the same as calling the whole field a science. So the analogy doesn't work. Even if there are examples of pseudoscience within the field as a whole, there is also still the issue that large portions of ufology publications and culture fall outside the definition of pseudoscience as well.

j.r.
Click to expand...


Are you completely unable to see that this is special pleading, despite having it pointed out to you every time you do it?
 
ufology said:
So what ... we're not talking about homeopathy. But if we were, there are numerous references within homeopathy refering to itself as a science, as in "The Science of Homeopathy". Plus they constantly employ scientific formatting and methods in an effort to be seen as scientific. These things open them up to scrutiny under the definition. Ufology on the other hand does not define itself as a science, and merely advocating the use of science within the field to study UFOs is not the same as calling the whole field a science. So the analogy doesn't work. Even if there are examples of pseudoscience within the field as a whole, there is also still the issue that large portions of ufology publications and culture fall outside the definition of pseudoscience as well.

j.r.
Click to expand...

We're comparing your special pleading for UFOlogy with other known pseudosciences. So far, UFOlogy is still without a doubt a pseudoscience. Until you can overcome your fallacy of special pleading, UFOlogy will remain a pseudoscience.

You might start by reading and understanding wollery's post. Also carlitos's.
 
ufology said:
Pseudoscience: Something that calls itself science or presents itself as science but doesn't meet accepted scientific standards.
Click to expand...


Ufology: Something that calls itself science or presents itself as science but doesn't meet accepted scientific standards.


It's a perfect fit, ufology, whether you want to see it or not.
 
Akhenaten said:
Are you completely unable to see that this is special pleading, despite having it pointed out to you every time you do it?
Click to expand...


There is no "special pleading" ... I present factual information when I say that ufology on the whole doesn't define itself as a science, and that there is the issue that the large part of ufology falls outside the definition of pesudoscience, including ufology culture, history and non-scientific publications. It isn't relevant if there are a few instances within a subset of the field as a whole ... they don't make all ufology pseudoscience any more than a bunch of quacks makes all medicine pseudoscience. And merely advocating the use of science to study UFOs isn't the same as calling all ufology science.

j.r.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
There is no "special pleading" ... I present factual information when I say that ufology on the whole doesn't define itself as a science and that there is the issue that the large part of ufology falls outside the definition of pesudoscience, including ufology culture, history and non-scientific publications. It isn't relevant if there are a few instances within a subset of the field as a whole ... they don't make all ufology pseudoscience any more than a bunch of quacks makes all medicine pseudoscience.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, it is most definitely special pleading. Why would you say that it isn't? It was specifically explained to you how it was special pleading.
 
ufology said:
There is no "special pleading" ... I present factual information when I say that ufology on the whole doesn't define itself as a science, and that there is the issue that the large part of ufology falls outside the definition of pesudoscience, including ufology culture, history and non-scientific publications. It isn't relevant if there are a few instances within a subset of the field as a whole ... they don't make all ufology pseudoscience any more than a bunch of quacks makes all medicine pseudoscience. And merely advocating the use of science to study UFOs isn't the same as calling all ufology science.
Click to expand...


:dl:​

Special pleading to deny engaging in special pleading. It's turtles all the way down!
 
23_Tauri said:
There's a culture around homeopathy too.

Diverse India: Culture & Homeopathic Healing Traditions

I'm guessing that by your standards that means that homeopathy can't be a pseudoscience either, right?
Click to expand...


Homeopathy is also so ingrained in British culture that Prince Charles himself is an avid promoter of it. Does that make it not pseudoscience?

What about the Kung Fu teacher who claims he can use his qi powers to knock somebody across a room without touching them? There's a culture and a history around those beliefs too, and countless books and movies have been made about them. Those claims are never made within a scientific context either. Is promoting a belief in qi "life-force energy" therefore not pseudoscientific?
 
Stray Cat said:
A bunch of book covers ... go to the link in this quote
Click to expand...


So what ... there are a pictures of some book covers ... what does that prove? Even if we take the one called "Scientific Ufology", it's defining itself as a subset of ufology as a whole ... and for all we know it describes actual science.

j.r.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom