Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[AdMan]

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.

I don't think he knows what special pleading means.

 

[Akhenaten]

Are you completely unable to see that this is special pleading, despite having it pointed out to you every time you do it?

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.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I don't think he knows what special pleading means.

Sad, really.

 

[carlitos]

what - you think we don't have google?

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.

Science, Secrecy, and Ufology

By Richard M. Dolan
copyright ©2000 by Richard M. Dolan

[Published in February/March issue of UFO Magazine]

Secrecy permeates the UFO field. What does this mean for Ufology as a science? Answer: the field cannot really be handled scientifically within the public domain. The great model is the Manhattan Project. When a project is undertaken at highly classified levels, you will find nothing of value about it within the mainstream. This was true during the development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s; it is true regarding the UFO.

UFOlogy: Science and the Flying Saucers

When you think of UFOs, the first things that usually come to mind are little green men, conspiracy theories, sci-fi buffs and uncomfortable probes. But to members of the Hong Kong UFO Club, the study of UFOs (UFOlogy) is a serious science. Pat Morais discovers that if the UFO Club has their way, someday soon you may be able to study for a degree in UFOlogy at your local university.

UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE: A PROPER INTRODUCTION TO UFOLOGY by Steven S. Bass, FFSc

Abstract
Ufology is a term with which most people are unfamiliar.
They would be surprised to learn that it studies flying
saucers! Some will never believe that Ufology is actually a SCIENTIFIC discipline! But, life is full of surprises,
and if you love surprises, you will love Ufology!

And the converse, too!
Pseudo-Science of Anti-Ufology, by Stanton T. Friedman

ufology, I linked special pleading^WP for you (click the "WP") in my posts. Words mean what they mean. ufology and pseudoscience both have well-understood meanings. The former is a subset of the latter. I'd do a venn diagram, but I wouldn't want to get to sciencey.

 

[ufology]

Source

So what ... if you prove that this book is pseudoscience, all you've done is prove within a huge field that includes a whole bunch of non-scientific activities that fall outside the definition of pseudoscience, that there is this example that might be pseudoscience ... it doesn't in any way prove all ufology is pseudoscience, and you haven't even proved this example is pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

I don't have enough hard drive space to host pictures of all the books that imply a scientific approach to UFOlogy.

These are just some of the most blatant ones.

I suspect if we looked at the content of those which don't imply science on the cover, we'd find some fine examples of the misuse of it within the pages.

In fact any book that supports the reality of alien visits in flying saucers can not help but misuse science, even if it doesn't realise it's doing so.

 

[R.A.F.]

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.

So those within UFOlogy who believe (without credible evidence) that UFO's are in actuality alien visitors are practicing pseudoscience?

I can agree with that...


The rest of UFOlogy, the mundane "stuff", is irrelevant.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, who should we think speaks for UFOlogy as a science? Stanton Friedman, Richard Dolan, Bill "Blinky" Birnes, MUFON? Or... you?

 

[ufology]

I don't have enough hard drive space to host pictures of all the books that imply a scientific approach to UFOlogy.

These are just some of the most blatant ones.

I suspect if we looked at the content of those which don't imply science on the cover, we'd find some fine examples of the misuse of it within the pages.

In fact any book that supports the reality of alien visits in flying saucers can not help but misuse science, even if it doesn't realise it's doing so.

Again ... so what ... I have hundreds that don't claim to be science. Instances of pseudoscience aren't the same as the whole field is pseudoscience. That's why we really need another thread and this one should be closed.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

So what ...

Yes we get the picture...

 

[Akhenaten]

So what ... if you prove that this book is pseudoscience, all you've done is prove within a huge field that includes a whole bunch of non-scientific activities that fall outside the definition of pseudoscience, that there is this example that might be pseudoscience ... it doesn't in any way prove all ufology is pseudoscience, and you haven't even proved this example is pseudoscience.

Stop saying 'prove' when you mean 'provide evidence'.

It's very pseudoscientific when you get those two mixed up.

 

[carlitos]

This thread is the #2 google hit for "ufology is a science." I don't think that the E in JREF would want it closed.

 

[AdMan]

This thread is the #2 google hit for "ufology is a science." I don't think that the E in JREF would want it closed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, why do you want this thread closed so badly just to open another one with the same subject? This one is a good object lesson about the dangers of pseudoscientific thinking when you're engaged in a pseudoscience like UFOlogy.

 

[Stray Cat]

Again ... so what ...

I have hundreds that don't claim to be science.

You have demonstrated that you wouldn't recognise science (or pseudo science for that matter) if it came up to you wearing a lab coat with a test tube in it's hand.

Instances of pseudoscience aren't the same as the whole field is pseudoscience.

I have yet to see you provide an example of UFOlogy that isn't pseudo science. And I don't mean some general guff about your book collection.
Give us a single instance of UFOlogy* and we'll see how well it copes with avoiding science or doing proper science.

That's why we really need another thread and this one should be closed.

The thread was closed... You reopened it.

* Bearing in mind that UFOlogy is the 'study of unidentified flying objects' and not 'watching movies about unidentified flying objects'.

 

[Akhenaten]

This thread is the #2 google hit for "ufology is a science." I don't think that the E in JREF would want it closed.

 

[ufology]

ufology, who should we think speaks for UFOlogy as a science? Stanton Friedman, Richard Dolan, Bill "Blinky" Birnes, MUFON? Or... you?

When I'm here you're dealing with me. But even if I weren't here, it doesn't change the fact that non-scientific ufology works exist, that Ufology Culture exists, that Ufology History exists and that therefore, whether I'm here or not, or Friedman or Dolan or Birnes agree or not, all ufology cannot be fairly and logically called pseudoscience ... or maybe you think this is pseudoscience:

http://www.bestourism.com/img/items/big/459/UFO-Festival-_Roswell-Festival_1910.jpg

From the Roswell UFO Festival ( example of ufology culture ).

j.r.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited to change image to a URL. It is not clear that the hosting site allows hotlinking.

 

[Agatha]

Why do you want to redefine "ufology" to include fiction, entertainment, sociology, journalism, anthropology, history and other similar fields? I am puzzled by your insistence that the film ballet I watched the other night is part of ufology.

it's clear that you are using a different definition of the word to that used by most ufologists and dictionaries as well as people here, so perhaps you could give us your definition. By 'definition', I don't mean description of what ufology encompasses, I mean the definition of the word as you understand it.

I have an OED next to me which doesn't list the word, but online MW does, as does dictionary.com and freedictionary.com.

 

[RoboTimbo]

When I'm here you're dealing with me. But even if I weren't here, it doesn't change the fact that non-scientific ufology works exist, that Ufology Culture exists, that Ufology History exists and that therefore, whether I'm here or not, or Friedman or Dolan or Birnes agree or not, all ufology cannot be fairly and logically called pseudoscience ... or maybe you think this is pseudoscience:

[qimg]http://www.bestourism.com/img/items/big/459/UFO-Festival-_Roswell-Festival_1910.jpg[/qimg]

From the Roswell UFO Festival ( example of ufology culture ).

j.r.

So is astrology a pseudoscience?

 

[AdMan]

Why do you want to redefine "ufology" to include fiction, entertainment, sociology, journalism, anthropology, history and other similar fields? I am puzzled by your insistence that the film ballet I watched the other night is part of ufology.

He's had to expand his definition of ufology way beyond "the study of UFOs" to include anything remotely UFO-related, in order to desperately try to show that ufology is not a pseudoscience. Too bad no one else defines it that way.