Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

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?

The topic of the thread is, "Is ufology a pseudoscience". Discussing other topics is not the same as discussing the definition of pseudoscience. And even if I could prove that some other field were pseudoscience, it wouldn't prove anything about whether or not ufology is. Why the fixation for creating an illogical off topic debate instead of addressing the topic at hand with on topic examples and on-topic logic?

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The topic of the thread is, "Is ufology a pseudoscience". Discussing other topics is not the same as discussing the definition of pseudoscience. And even if I could prove that some other field were pseudoscience, it wouldn't prove anything about whether or not ufology is. Why the fixation for creating an illogical off topic debate instead of addressing the topic at hand with on topic examples and on-topic logic?

j.r.

Perhaps you missed this:

It is NOT off-topic to discuss the definition of "pseudoscience" in a thread dealing with "pseudoscience".

By the same token, it is off-topic to engage in endless bickering re if such a discussion is off-topic - knock if off.

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

Looks like you'll never face the substantive questions.

 

[ufology]

Perhaps you missed this:


Looks like you'll never face the substantive questions.

Your post seems to make no sense. Please explain how discussing whether or not some other topic is pseudoscience or not will determine whether or not ufology is or isn't?

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your post seems to make no sense. Please explain how discussing whether or not some other topic is pseudoscience or not will determine whether or not ufology is or isn't?

j.r.

Explaining the sense to you hasn't been very productive so far.

 

[Audible Click]

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.

I did exactly as you suggested and I'll have to say you didn't convince me. Your "case", as it is presented, is not "superior" and any hand waving you do seems to be connected with evasion and obfuscation on your part. You see, I'd really like to believe in star-craft and visitors from another planet but your argument just fails.

 

[ufology]

I did exactly as you suggested and I'll have to say you didn't convince me. Your "case", as it is presented, is not "superior" and any hand waving you do seems to be connected with evasion and obfuscation on your part. You see, I'd really like to believe in star-craft and visitors from another planet but your argument just fails.

Then perhaps you could explain where you think the logic is wrong, supply relevant counter examples and so on. Let's start with the definitions which all in some way shape or form require that the subject in question be presented as scientific but fails to conform to accepted scientific standards. Below are five such independent definitions, including two from the skeptical/rational side ( to eliminate any possible suggestion of bias on my part ).


Wikipedia: 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.

NOTE: After the definition above, the Wikipedia article goes on to say, in a small section, that ufology has been characterized as pseudoscience. However the source Raimo Tuomela ( a philosopher ), actually only characterizes "ufology ( in part )", which is essentialy the same as saying, in a somewhat misleading manner that ufology as a whole is not pseudoscience ( which is what I've been correctly saying all along ). The other is Gregory Feist ( a psychologist ) whose definitions of science include ideas like this,"The first distinction is between "implicit" and "explicit" science. Implicit thought is nonconscious and for the most part nonverbal. It consists of assumptions we make about the world, and these assumptions are not well thought through or even recognized by the individual. So I argue that implicit or folk theory is a valid topic of investigation for psychology of science.

Because these fuzzy edged sources were used to argue that ufology has been characterized as pseudoscience by these 2 people, doesn't mean that it is. They are merely opinions after the initial definition and have rebutted there, here and elsewhere.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Pseudoscience is 1. As a count noun: A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.

Pseudoscience is 2. As a mass noun: spurious or pretended science; study or research that is claimed as scientific but is not generally accepted as such. Chiefly derogatory.

NOTE: The definition of "spurious" from Encarta is "being different than what it claims to be". This logically implies that the Oxford definition means that it ( whatever subject matter ) must be a "claimed or pretended" science ...

Encarta: Pseudoscience is a theory or method doubtfully or mistakenly held to be scientific

Skeptic's Dictionary: A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.​

NOTE: The Skeptic's Dictionary identifies a historical instance of pseudoscience within the field ( Orgone Energy ), but correctly does not include ufology as a whole field among other examples in the article ( after the definition itself ).​

Rational Wiki: Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science.

The other skeptics here claim I've cherry picked and limited the definitions themselves. Their claims are proven incorrect above through the use of not only independent examples, but also by the Skeptic's Dictionary and Rational Wiki, both of which are sympathetic to the skeptical cause. Do we agree or not and if not why? Please provide your reasons.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Then perhaps you could explain where you think the logic is wrong, supply relevant counter examples and so on.

That's a good idea. Do you have any examples of other pursuits that fit your various definitions of pseudoscience, so that we can determine if your logic is sound in wanting to exempt ufology from them?

It's looking increasingly as though you don't believe there are any, and that can't be right.

And don't repeat your little mantra that it's off topic - the pretty red writing says it isn't, so it's Melbourne to a rusty rabbit trap that the question isn't going to go away.

Or are you too busy just at the moment working on a response to Wollery?

 

[Akhenaten]

Your post seems to make no sense. Please explain how discussing whether or not some other topic is pseudoscience or not will determine whether or not ufology is or isn't?

j.r.

Exactly the same question that you've been asked dozens of times has suddenly gone from being vehemently declared as off topic to being incomprehensible?

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[John Albert]

Okay, ufology, if it makes you feel better, let's just forget about the accusation of "redefinition" as it applies to the word "pseudoscience."

Thus far, the root problem we've been having in achieving a common understanding has revolved around definitions of terms. Establishing mutually-agreeable terms is crucial to any discussion, so I want to get us all on the same page with a definition of "pseudoscience." Sound fair?

I'm willing to concede that, as you've repeatedly pointed out, you haven't actually rewritten the definition. What you've really done is to adopt a more strict and literal interpretation of that definition than we're used to around here, one that ignores all descriptive traits and disregards any examples presented anywhere that include UFOlogy among them. I admit I may be at least partially at fault for any misunderstanding, and I apologize for any accusations I've made based on my misunderstanding.

So to get the discussion back on track, the literal definition of "pseudoscience" you are working from 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.

Correct?

Do you feel this is a fair assessment of your position?

If not, then please help me correct the definition so we can move forward.

If, on the other hand, we can all agree that the word "pseudoscience" means:

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

...then please give us an example of a field of study or research that actually fits your interpretation of that definition, along with the reasons why it fits your interpretation of that definition.

As others have already stated, the reason for asking this question is to establish that your interpretation of that definition is valid and workable for describing actual fields of study or practice, and isn't just some contrived bastardization of the definition.

You've already been given the go-ahead by Locknar that it isn't off-topic, so you won't suffer any infractions for answering that question.

So, how about it: What practice or field of study would fit your interpretation of the word, "pseudoscience?"

 

[Audible Click]

Then perhaps you could explain where you think the logic is wrong, supply relevant counter examples and so on. Let's start with the definitions which all in some way shape or form require that the subject in question be presented as scientific but fails to conform to accepted scientific standards. Below are five such independent definitions, including two from the skeptical/rational side ( to eliminate any possible suggestion of bias on my part ).


Wikipedia: 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.

NOTE: After the definition above, the Wikipedia article goes on to say, in a small section, that ufology has been characterized as pseudoscience. However the source Raimo Tuomela ( a philosopher ), actually only characterizes "ufology ( in part )", which is essentialy the same as saying, in a somewhat misleading manner that ufology as a whole is not pseudoscience ( which is what I've been correctly saying all along ). The other is Gregory Feist ( a psychologist ) whose definitions of science include ideas like this,"The first distinction is between "implicit" and "explicit" science. Implicit thought is nonconscious and for the most part nonverbal. It consists of assumptions we make about the world, and these assumptions are not well thought through or even recognized by the individual. So I argue that implicit or folk theory is a valid topic of investigation for psychology of science.

Because these fuzzy edged sources were used to argue that ufology has been characterized as pseudoscience by these 2 people, doesn't mean that it is. They are merely opinions after the initial definition and have rebutted there, here and elsewhere.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Pseudoscience is 1. As a count noun: A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.

Pseudoscience is 2. As a mass noun: spurious or pretended science; study or research that is claimed as scientific but is not generally accepted as such. Chiefly derogatory.

NOTE: The definition of "spurious" from Encarta is "being different than what it claims to be". This logically implies that the Oxford definition means that it ( whatever subject matter ) must be a "claimed or pretended" science ...

Encarta: Pseudoscience is a theory or method doubtfully or mistakenly held to be scientific

Skeptic's Dictionary: A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.​

NOTE: The Skeptic's Dictionary identifies a historical instance of pseudoscience within the field ( Orgone Energy ), but correctly does not include ufology as a whole field among other examples in the article ( after the definition itself ).​

Rational Wiki: Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science.

The other skeptics here claim I've cherry picked and limited the definitions themselves. Their claims are proven incorrect above through the use of not only independent examples, but also by the Skeptic's Dictionary and Rational Wiki, both of which are sympathetic to the skeptical cause. Do we agree or not and if not why? Please provide your reasons.

j.r.

I find it odd that you would want me to do something that, so far, you've avoided doing.

 

[John Albert]

One major point of contention seems to be how to determine what "presented as science" means.

By definition, for something to be considered a "pseudoscience," the material must be presented with the intention of making it appear scientific. But how do we determine that? Does the information have to be explicitly labeled as such, with the word "science" in the title? Must it be presented in the form of charts, graphs and numerical figures? Or is it enough for it to be ostensibly presented as a factual description of the workings of the objective, material Universe?

 

[Marduk]

The Astronomy society of the Pacific, lists ufology as a pseudoscience
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html
The Iowa academy of sciences lists ufology as a pseudoscience
http://www.iacad.org/download/positionstatements/ias_statement_psudoscience.pdf
The Skeptic: encyclopedia of Pseudoscience lists ufology as a pseudoscience
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gr...lt&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=ufo&f=false
the National science foundation lists ufology as a pseudoscience
http://www.kases.org/nsf.htm

The testimony of these institutions alone prove ufology is a psedoscience

 

[pakeha]

....
Until a ufologist says he or she has scientific proof of a particular non-ambiguous conclusion that isn't actually based on solid science, it's just an opinion. And that opinion can be based on whatever information is out there, including valid scientific studies.

In other words just because a ufologist uses valid science in support of an opinion, doesn't mean any pseudoscience is taking place. The definition of pseudoscience has to be applied to the scientific claim itself ( e.g. a scientific report ). Furthermore, even if someone does make some particular claim that fits the definition of pseudosciennce, it doesn't mean the whole field is suddenly pseudoscience.

As a practical example for discussion, I proposed that we look at some of the scientific work done by the Hessdalen Research Project ( link below ).

http://www.itacomm.net/ph/Reb3.pdf

I have not seen any comments on this article. Perhaps because nobody here understands the science being applied. They are debating the possible cause of a light caught on video by the project surveillance camera using various formulas involving luminosity and power.

j.r.

Is this a joke?
From the report's conclusion

Conclusions
Both photometry and spectroscopy agree in pointing at a vehicle headlamps explanation of the light sighted and photographed at Hessdalen in August 2002 (as well as during 2001 EMBLA mission, at least). As already remarked by Leone (2003b, p. 21), “since the whole optical evidence reported by the EMBLA 2002 physics report regards such a specific light, it is legitimate to conclude that the headlamps hypothesis fits all the optical data collected during the August 2002 mission”.

As you see, the scientific method is used to debunk the claim.
End of.
Are you actually telling us you think the fact that science is used to debunk UFO sightings makes Ufology a science?

 

[ufology]

Okay, ufology, if it makes you feel better, let's just forget about the accusation of "redefinition" as it applies to the word "pseudoscience."

So finally, after I posted 5 ( five ) independent definitions, four of which I've been using all along you conceed that I haven't redefined anything. Wow.

Thus far, the root problem we've been having in achieving a mutual understanding of this issue has revolved around definitions of terms. Establishing mutually-agreeable terms is crucial to any discussion, so I want to make sure we're all on the same page with this definition. Sound fair?

I don't think the crew here plays fair, so I don't expect this to be fair either.

I'm willing to concede that, as you've repeatedly pointed out, you haven't actually rewritten the definition. What you've really done is to adopt a more strict and literal interpretation of that definition than we're used to around here, that ignores all descriptive traits and disregards any examples presented anywhere that include UFOlogy among them.

The literal definition of "pseudoscience" you are working from is:

Correct?
Do you feel this is a fair assessment of your position? If not, then please help me correct this definition so we can move forward.

No it's not correct. I'm not so strict as you claim. I've pointed out numerous times that "presentation" includes "descriptive traits" like formatting consistent with a scientific treatise and the trappings of science in an obvious effort to convey the idea that real science is what's being done, but not to be so broad as to consider obvious informal studies and opinions that use a few charts or whatever as being the same as presenting something as science. So for example some dude with a box of flashing lights and a lab coat displaying charts and graphs about the health benefits of zulu-rays ( or whatever ), would be sufficient, unless of course it was in the context of comedic satire. Anything that uses scientific methodology to give the outward appearance of science when in reality the data isn't genuine or there is some other flaw in accepted scientifc standards would also be acceptable.

If, on the other hand, we can all agree on the above definition that the word "pseudoscience" means "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," then please give us an example of a field of study or research that actually fits your interpretation of that definition.

In order to establish that your interpretation of that definition is valid and workable for describing actual fields of study or practice, please provide at least one example of a "pseudoscience," and the reasons why it fits your interpretation of that definition.

You've already been given the go-ahead by Locknar and assured you won't suffer any infractions for answering that question, so how about it?

What practice or field of study would fit your interpretation of the word, "pseudoscience?"

OK, let's use the example in the Skeptic's Dictionary of Orgone Energy it's even a part of ufology history. The article calls it pseudoscience, but I consider it to be more of a quack medicine. Here's the link:

http://www.orgone.org/aaintro00.htm

It says quite plainly: "Wilhelm Reich was the scientist who discovered orgone energy and developed the science of Orgonomy"

I contend that here we have an accepted example among most scientists of an example of pseudoscience that fits the definition. With respect to ufology, it fits within a subset of the overall subject matter that is historical in context. Most ufologists including myself do not subsrcibe to the "Science of Orgonomy". Which again brings me to my point ... logically, just because something else is a pseudoscience doesn't make ufology a pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[pakeha]

What WOULD make Ufology a pseudo-science, in your opinion?

 

[ufology]

The Astronomy society of the Pacific, lists ufology as a pseudoscience
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html
The Iowa academy of sciences lists ufology as a pseudoscience
http://www.iacad.org/download/positionstatements/ias_statement_psudoscience.pdf
The Skeptic: encyclopedia of Pseudoscience lists ufology as a pseudoscience
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gr4snwg7iaEC&pg=PP14&lpg=PP14&dq=%22skeptic+encyclopedia+of++pseudoscience%22&source=bl&ots=bCwDaMDyVn&sig=VY_BJuRBZW1de54Hj6Y7L3h4Qv0&hl=en&ei=jlNxStPINpSAswOL8Y3aCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=ufo&f=false
the National science foundation lists ufology as a pseudoscience
http://www.kases.org/nsf.htm

The testimony of these institutions alone prove ufology is a psedoscience

None of the above pay any meaningful attention to ufology on the whole or give actual examples that would qualify the field of ufology as a pseudoscience. They are no more than poorly devised proclaimations based on a narrow view, bias and opinion.

• The National Science Foundation is just quotong a SCICOP opinion.
• The link to the Skeptic Encyclopedia doesn't use the word "ufology" as a field so the context is misplaced
• The link to the Iowa Academy doesn't have "ufology" as a field but refers to "belief in UFO visitors" only, which is vague, unsupported and out of context.
• The Astro Society doesn't use the word "ufology" as a field either, but refers to the concept of "UFO's as alien spaceships."

This thread, as bad as it is, has more going for it than all the links in the above post combined. And I believe Mr. Albert and I are at last making some progress.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

personally I have always thought that ufology is a modern mythology
what would you call it ?

 

[ufology]

Is this a joke? From the report's conclusion
As you see, the scientific method is used to debunk the claim.
End of.
Are you actually telling us you think the fact that science is used to debunk UFO sightings makes Ufology a science?

The poster above has come late into this it seems.

Q. Are you actually telling us you think the fact that science is used to debunk UFO sightings makes Ufology a science?

A. No. My position is that ufology is not a science unto itself and that it's ill conceived to think that it should be. When genuine science is being done within ufology it's something like astronomy or physics or whatever. Ufology as a field of interest shouldn't even be considered as a potential candidate for science because a large part of modern ufology falls outside any definition of science ( e.g. ufology history, culture, informal books ... etc.). Therefore ufology on the whole also doesn't fit the definition of pseudoscience. Only certain examples within the overall field of interest might be called pseudoscience, and one of the examples I suggested that the skeptics might want to review was the paper from the Hessdalen Project, because it is part of ufology and claims to be scientific ... is it? You tell me.

http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

As long as we're doing definitions, let's address this "UFOlogy" definition issue once and for all.

The general parlance definition of UFOlogy is: "the study of UFOs." Most dictionary sources list that as the definition, and it's pretty concise. Therefore, that will be the definition of UFOlogy that we will use for the purposes of this discussion. OK?

Nowhere in that definition is there any mention of entertainment, movies, TV shows, novels, comedy skits, cartoons, science fiction conventions, cosplay, or any other pop culture frivolities involving aliens or flying saucers. UFOlogy is a field of study that researches UFOs, period. To engage any personal, expanded definition of "UFOlogy" that includes anything outside the specific study of UFOs will from now on be regarded as a fallacy of redefinition. Fair is fair, right?

 

[Marduk]

As long as we're doing definitions, let's address this "UFOlogy" definition issue once and for all.

The general parlance definition of UFOlogy is: "the study of UFOs." Most dictionary sources list that as the definition, and it's pretty concise. Therefore, that will be the definition of UFOlogy that we will use for the purposes of this discussion. OK?

Nowhere in that definition is there any mention of entertainment, movies, TV shows, novels, comedy skits, cartoons, science fiction conventions, cosplay, or any other pop culture frivolities involving aliens or flying saucers. UFOlogy is a field of study that researches UFOs, period. To engage any broader definition of "UFOlogy" that includes anything outside the specific study of UFOs will from now on be regarded as a fallacy of redefinition. Fair is fair, right?

As long as we're doing definitions, let's address this "mythlogy" definition issue once and for all.

The general parlance definition of mythlogy is: "the study of myths." Most dictionary sources list that as the definition, and it's pretty concise. Therefore, that will be the definition of mythlogy that we will use for the purposes of this discussion. OK?

Everywhere in that definition there are mentions of ancient entertainment, theatre, plays, novels, art, folklore, beliefs, religion, sacred texts, costumes. Mythology is a field of study that researches myths, period. To engage any broader definition of "mythology" that includes anything outside the specific study of myths will from now on be regarded as a fallacy of redefinition. Fair is fair, right?


works for me