Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Akhenaten]

More misrepresentations ... As mentioned several times already, I used 4 ( four ) separate independent definitions that all show that pseudoscience is something that is presented as science in some way shape or form ...

By calling itself something-or-otherology, for instance.

... including consistent formatting that is intended to convey a scientific approach, but again doesn't meet accepted scientific standards.

A classic example of which would be starting a thread on an educational forum entitled UFOs: The Research, the Evidence that starts off by saying:

"I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that. It is a collection of reports, case studies and general documentary information."​

This is no "redefinition" ... it is the heart of the matter ... it's why they call it pseudoscience and not pseudophys-ed or pseudogardening.

As for the definition of ufology. I've mentioned that the Oxford Dictionary, traces the etymology back to 1959, "The articles, reports, and bureaucratic studies which have been written about this perplexing visitant constitute ‘ufology’ . . .

So far, so good, but then the rot sets in.

. . . ( no mention of it being a science unto itself )."

Adding your own editorial notes to Oxford dictionary definitions?

Ambitions and capabilities, ufology.

But as if that weren't bad enough you go on to add all this other guff . . .

And that since then, thousands of ufology books and articles have been published, and ufology has had a significant influence on entertainment, marketing, the arts and modern culture in general, plus I've used famous examples to back this up. Ufology Culture and ufology books for the general public ( non-scientifc ) consumption are facts and a large part of ufology ... and they don't apply to the definition of pseudoscience ... they never have and never will.

This is what people are talking about when they mention redefinition, ufology. You didn't get any of that nonsense out of the Oxford dictionary, now did you?

Therefore ufology as a whole cnnot be fairly lumped into pseudoscience ... only certain proven cases within the field itself ... of which examples would be better discussed in the evidence thread.

j.r.

Therefore?

You need to familiarise youself with the meaning of non sequitur.

 

[Akhenaten]

<waffle>

To sum up ... everything the poster says above is a misrepresentation and it continues to ignore the logic presented in numerous posts by this author, and now including the Skepic's Dictionary itself. It's time to move along.

j.r.

1. Resurrect zombie thread.
   
   
2. Present manifesto.
   
   
3. Characterise any and all opposition as 'misrepresentation'.
   
   
4. Call for an end to discussion.

That'll end well.

 

[wollery]

1. Resurrect zombie thread.
   
   
2. Present manifesto.
   
   
3. Characterise any and all opposition as 'misrepresentation'.
   
   
4. Call for an end to discussion.

That'll end well.

1. Resurrect zombie thread.
   
   
2. Present manifesto.
   
   
3. Characterise any and all opposition as 'misrepresentation'.
   
   
4. Ignore or dismiss out of hand, any coherent argument against your position.
   
   
5. Call for an end to discussion.

You missed one.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've already pointed out many times that you're erroneous in your interpretation of that one condition ("presented as science") in the strictest possible terms, so as to disallow the definition from identifying pretty much anything ... bla bla bla

Click the reference link to see the full text of this author's quote.

Again, you have attacked the semantics ... bla bla bla

Use the link to read the actual quote ...

What the hell is this nonsense about?

There's nothing wrong with paring down someone's post so that you only quote the bit that you want to address, but specifically removing that part and instructing readers that they need to follow links back the the original post is both obfuscatory and inflammatory.

Are you trying to antagonise people?

 

[Akhenaten]

1. Resurrect zombie thread.
   
   
2. Present manifesto.
   
   
3. Characterise any and all opposition as 'misrepresentation'.
   
   
4. Ignore or dismiss out of hand, any coherent argument against your position.
   
   
5. Call for an end to discussion.

You missed one.

Gratefully acknowledged.

 

[Stray Cat]

I think this scientifically structured graph also applies to those books on UFOlogy that ufology states aren't pseudo scientific because they aren't presented as scientific:

Also, I don't think I have been given the information from ufology that I requested regarding him supplying an example of one of these 'not presented as scientific books' on UFOlogy.

I'm still quite sure that if one read such a book, it would sill be steeped in pseudo science, if not explicitly presented as such. Which ufuology seems to overlook, that pseudo science is trying to 'get under the radar* of science and is often presented in such a way as not draw attention to it's complete lack of scientific adherence, whilst telling stories to a general public that may not be trained in the scientific methods or processes.

So Ufology; could you please give an example of one of these well known UFOlogy books that is un-pseudo scientific?


* Reminder; that's "get under the radar" not get under the transponder.

 

[Akhenaten]

Anyone who actually reads the thread with a fair minded approach can see that my case is far superior than that of the skeptics, so if there's any hand waving from me it's because it's deserved.

j.r.

You probably should have put a smilie at the end of this post.

Somebody might think you were being serious.

 

[wollery]

Anyone who actually reads the thread with a fair minded approach can see that my case is far superior than that of the skeptics, so if there's any hand waving from me it's because it's deserved.

j.r.

Translation - "I'm right because I say I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is a poopyhead."


Actually, if there's any handwaving from you it's because you haven't got any good answers to the numerous flaws that have been pointed out in your arguments. if you had good answers you wouldn't need to handwave.

 

[Stray Cat]

The above poster doesn't think that quoting 4 ( four ) independent definitions, including the Skeptic's Dictionary is providing a coherent answer ... doesn't see that the actual state of modern ufology has been compared to that definition and it doesn't fit ... yet says I'm the one who's "tap dancing" ... then goes on to provide no constuctive input of their own while asserting that I'm the one who "needs help". Perhaps I should ask ... what help exactly do you think I need?

j.r.

Regarding your use of the Sceptic's Dictionary, you never addressed my post here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7472057&postcount=2066

 

[RoboTimbo]

Anyone who actually reads the thread with a fair minded approach can see that my case is far superior than that of the skeptics pseudoscientific, so if there's any hand waving from me it's because it's deserved I got nothin'.

j.r.

ftfy

Note that I'm not going to take the time to correct all of your posts so you're going to have to start posting correctly to begin with.

Which area of interest have you thought of that matches your redefinition of the word pseudoscience? We'd all like to see that your arguments aren't hypocritical and I'm sure you'd like to prove that also.


ETA: Also, if you could honestly address wollery's post with a point-by-point refutation rather than the above mentioned hand-waving, that would gain you back someof the credibility that you've squandered away. Here is a link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7410422#post7410422

You've ignored it for 20 pages, hoping it would go away.

 

[wollery]

ftfy

Note that I'm not going to take the time to correct all of your posts so you're going to have to start posting correctly to begin with.

Which area of interest have you thought of that matches your redefinition of the word pseudoscience? We'd all like to see that your arguments aren't hypocritical and I'm sure you'd like to prove that also.


ETA: Also, if you could honestly address wollery's post with a point-by-point refutation rather than the above mentioned hand-waving, that would gain you back someof the credibility that you've squandered away. Here is a link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7411644#post7411644

You've ignored it for 20 pages, hoping it would go away.

I think you mean this post - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7410422#post7410422.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think you mean this post - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7410422#post7410422.

I did mean that one and fixed the link in my post. I suppose there's no harm in him answering both.

 

[ufology]

Regarding your use of the Sceptic's Dictionary, you never addressed my post here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7472057&postcount=2066

Ironic you would call me a cherry picker when your post leaves out the definition of pseudoscience and the fact that the article doesn't list ufology on the whole as a pseudoscience, but names a particular part of it ( orgone energy ), which is a far more reasonable way to approach the issue, and is what I've been advocating here all along.

Regarding your quote, I have no problem with what the article says constitutes "scientific theories". If someone is going to, as the article's definition of pseudoscience says, put forth a set of ideas as scientific when they are not scientific, then you can start using all those examples as a guide to whether or not it constitutes pseudoscience. Otherwise it's just storeis or opinions or informal study or composition.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Ironic you would call me a cherry picker when your post leaves out the definition of pseudoscience

That's a bit dishonest, the bit you talk about was clearly re-quoted form your post and it was clear that I was talking about the paragraph directly under the quote you gave.

and the fact that the article doesn't list ufology on the whole as a pseudoscience, but names a particular part of it ( orgone energy ), which is a far more reasonable way to approach the issue, and is what I've been advocating here all along.

The article doesn't make a list of proposed pseudo sciences at all, it takes a few illustrative examples mostly focusing on 'creationism'. That doesn't mean that the editor of the sceptic's dictionary only considers creationism to be the only fully pseudo scientific subject.
Again cherry picking which parts you wish to strictly enforce and hand waving away everything within the context of the article.

Regarding your quote, I have no problem with what the article says constitutes "scientific theories". If someone is going to, as the article's definition of pseudoscience says, put forth a set of ideas as scientific when they are not scientific, then you can start using all those examples as a guide to whether or not it constitutes pseudoscience. Otherwise it's just storeis or opinions or informal study or composition.

If only you would supply some specific examples of UFOlogy that you consider to be not pseudo scientific so we could perhaps compare them to the paragraph I quoted.

I doubt you'll do this though because it will be quite easy to point out the 'sciency' bits that fly in the face in the face of the scientific method.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If only you would supply some specific examples of UFOlogy that you consider to be not pseudo scientific so we could perhaps compare them to the paragraph I quoted.

Also, ufology, if you could give us an area of interest that you consider to be a pseudoscience so that we can see that your redefinition of the word is valid. A mod has given you the go-ahead that it wouldn't be off topic and that seemed to be your only concern.

 

[ufology]

Also, ufology, if you could give us an area of interest that you consider to be a pseudoscience so that we can see that your redefinition of the word is valid. A mod has given you the go-ahead that it wouldn't be off topic and that seemed to be your only concern.

Again, I've not "redefined" anything, go abck and check the references. If you want to use a case within ufology, go ahead and use the Skeptic's Dictionary example of "Orgone Energy". Just bear in mind that Orgone Energy isn't ufology as a whole, but a histiorical example. Since the skeptics call it pseudoscience, they are the ones who should make the case that it is in fact pseudoscience. Personally I'd say it's probably more a case of quack medicine.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again, I've not "redefined" anything, go abck and check the references. If you want to use a case within ufology, go ahead and use the Skeptic's Dictionary example of "Orgone Energy". Just bear in mind that Orgone Energy isn't ufology as a whole, but a histiorical example. Since the skeptics call it pseudoscience, they are the ones who should make the case that it is in fact pseudoscience. Personally I'd say it's probably more a case of quack medicine.

j.r.

Are you saying that you've redefined the word pseudoscience so that now nothing fits the definition? That definitely smacks of pseudoscience.

 

[carlitos]

Again, I've not "redefined" anything, go abck and check the references.

Fine.

Also, ufology, if you could give us an area of interest that you consider to be a pseudoscience so that we can see that your definition of the word is valid.

Please. Pretty please, with sugar on top.

 

[carlitos]

I'll just leave these here, since it's been a while. There is really no need to over-complicate these definitions.

u·fol·o·gy/yo͞oˈfäləjē/
Noun: The study of UFOs.

pseu·do·sci·ence/ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/
Noun: A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.​

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, it isn't likely at this late date that you'll ever make an attempt to rebut wollery's post.

Do you think you'll ever be able to honestly give us an area of interest that you consider to be a pseudoscience?