Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[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?

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

Sure, but that's mythology. There's undoubtedly a certain mythology concerning UFOs, just as there are myths surrounding history, physics, biology, astronomy, etc. The myths surrounding those fields of study are not germane to the fields of study themselves. I mean, historians don't seriously go looking for George Washington's axe that chopped down the cherry tree, and physicists don't stick cats inside boxes with radioactive isotopes and bottles of poison gas, do they?

Conflating myths with reality is the realm of pseudoscience, and none of us wants anything to do with that, right?

We're not concentrating on mythology here. In this thread, we're talking specifically about UFOlogy, the study of real-world phenomena involving people seeing things in the sky that they cannot identify, OK? We're discussing that field of study and trying to determine via objective reasoning, whether it fits the definition of a pseudoscience. We've already agreed upon a suitable definition of "pseudoscience" and even made some progress toward agreeing upon an interpretation.

I'm trying to restart this discussion on an honest footing here.

 

[Marduk]

Ufology is mythology, part of pop culture and even in some cases, folklore. Its only pseudoscience when its presented as science, most of it isn't. What Ramjet does is clearly pseudoscience, but the subject itself isn't. Mythology at its basest form is a collection of anecdotes, so is ufology.

When you are looking for a catchall term, it does have to cover the entire subject.


wiki even states

The modern UFO mythology has three traceable roots: the late 19th century "mystery airships" reported in the newspapers of western United States, "foo fighters" reported by Allied airmen during World War II, and the Kenneth Arnold "flying saucer" sighting near Mt. Rainier, Washington on June 24, 1947.[1] UFO reports between "The Great Airship Wave" and the Arnold sighting were limited in number compared to the post-war period: notable cases include reports of "ghost fliers" in Europe and North America during the 1930s and the numerous reports of "ghost rockets" in Scandinavia (mostly Sweden) from May to December 1946

in the ancient world, strange lights in the sky (meteors, stars, planets etc) were regarded as the work of Gods, in the modern world we call the study of strange unidentified lights "ufology". Imo, its the same thing just told with a different cultural bias
other examples of modern mythology include, Bigfoot, Aliens, Bermuda triangle, etc

 

[Jocce]

I'm not sure how much difference it makes. Either it's pseudoscience or it's just people retelling fairy tales. I'm fine with either description *shrugs*

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

"Narrow view"?

I'll point out that unlike actually being a scientist, which is quite a clear cut thing to be able to identify with such things as: field of study, qualifications and strict adherence to scientific method, being a pseudo scientist is not so easy to strictly define as the methods they employ to subvert the scientific process are quite infinite. Furthermore, their qualifications and academic background can not so easily be used to determine their actual expertise in what ever subject they are engaging in (because there really is no qualification to be a UFOlogist, Ghost Hunter, Jesusologist, Doctor of Homeopathy etc).

Therefore it is correct to call UFOlogy a pseudo science as a blanket term so that people are aware they are less likely to come across any genuine science whilst reading all the claims made by UFOlogists.

This of course doesn't exclude the possibility that some ufologist somewhere is actually doing real science, but if someone is engaging in real science, it will stand head and shoulders above the swamp of nonsense it's sitting alongside and easily be recognised because of this.

The fact still remains that anyone using the scientific method to show how they have discounted all mundane possibilities resulting in "OMG - Aliens!" is indeed involving themselves with pseudo science.

So maybe what we need here is another null hypothesis, that can be applied on a case by case basis. I propose the null hypothesis should be:
"UFOlogy is a pseudo science"

Shall we see if we can falsify the null with some actual examples of UFOlogists doing UFOlogy?

 

[John Albert]

Ufology is mythology, part of pop culture and even in some cases, folklore. Its only pseudoscience when its presented as science, most of it isn't. What Ramjet does is clearly pseudoscience, but the subject itself isn't. Mythology at its basest form is a collection of anecdotes, so is ufology.

When you are looking for a catchall term, it does have to cover the entire subject.


wiki even states

The modern UFO mythology has three traceable roots: the late 19th century "mystery airships" reported in the newspapers of western United States, "foo fighters" reported by Allied airmen during World War II, and the Kenneth Arnold "flying saucer" sighting near Mt. Rainier, Washington on June 24, 1947.[1] UFO reports between "The Great Airship Wave" and the Arnold sighting were limited in number compared to the post-war period: notable cases include reports of "ghost fliers" in Europe and North America during the 1930s and the numerous reports of "ghost rockets" in Scandinavia (mostly Sweden) from May to December 1946

in the ancient world, strange lights in the sky (meteors, stars, planets etc) were regarded as the work of Gods, in the modern world we call the study of strange unidentified lights "ufology". Imo, its the same thing just told with a different cultural bias
other examples of modern mythology include, Bigfoot, Aliens, Bermuda triangle, etc

That's one way to look at it.

But ufology (the poster) seems to have a different view. He obviously thinks the phenomenon represents something real, that the study is legitimate and deserving of the application of science.

There's been a lot of misunderstanding in this discussion, which has resulted in frustration, which in turn has led to emotional reactions and consequently, feelings of animosity. I'm trying to cut through that animosity and lay down an objective basis of terminology so we can all discuss the subject without the constant bickering over semantics.

 

[Marduk]

That's one way to look at it.

But ufology seems to have a different view. He obviously thinks the phenomenon represents something real, that the study is legitimate and deserving of the application of science.

There's been a lot of misunderstanding in this discussion, which has resulted in frustration, which has led to emotional reactions and consequently, feelings of animosity. I'm trying to cut through that animosity and lay down an objective basis of terminology so we can all discuss the subject without the constant bickering over semantics.

youre not going to get anywhere in this thread until you get ufology to state what "Ufology" is.
It isn't science
It isn't on the whole pseudoscience
so what does Ufology think it is ?

 

[John Albert]

youre not going to get anywhere in this thread until you get ufology to state what "Ufology" is.

Well, that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to establish some common, generally agreed-upon definitions so we can talk about ideas instead of wasting tens of pages mincing words:

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?

See?

 

[ufology]

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?

I've made a compelling case that since the 1950s, elements of ufology have become deeply embedded in modern culture and that the field has grown significantly. Today, ufology culture, history, journalism, informal & formal studies, including genuine science are all part of the overall field of interest. Ignoring these facts by limiting the definition of ufology to narrow dictionary definitions would be irresponsible.

However I do recognize that what you are wanting to focus on is a particular subset of ufology, that is sometimes referred to as "Scientific Ufology", which falls under the "Ufology Studies" heading. Normally I'd have no problem with that, but this thread isn't titled "Scientific Ufology", but just ufology, which implies ufology in general ... which as I've demonstrated repeatedly has evolved into something far too general to discuss in scientific terms alone. So sorry, but on this thread, the use of the word "ufology" in the title without any specifics or qualifiers can only be interpreted as everything ufology. Please don't blame me. I didn't create the thread title.

That is why I've proposed that we simply agree that ufology in general isn't a pseudoscience and start another one called "Pseudoscience in Ufology", or "Is Scientific Ufology Pseudoscience". Such titles would allow the pseudoscience definition to be squarely applied to specific practices and case studies ( as it should be ).

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

answer the question ufology

what general term covers all of Ufology ?

 

[ufology]

answer the question ufology

what general term covers all of Ufology ?

A. Cool

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

A. Cool

j.r.

try again

answer the question ufology

what general term covers all of Ufology ?

 

[ufology]

try again

answer the question ufology

what general term covers all of Ufology ?

A. Way Cool

 

[John Albert]

I've made a compelling case...

Come on man, let's be honest here. First of all, whether or not your case is "compelling" is not an opinion for you to decide. Of course you find it compelling; it's your case! Promoting such a judgment about your own ideas is presumptuous and arrogant.

since the 1950s, elements of ufology have become deeply embedded in modern culture and that the field has grown significantly. Today, ufology culture, history, journalism, informal & formal studies, including genuine science are all part of the overall field of interest.

That may all be true, but does it prove that all those ancillary activities constitute the actual study of UFOs?

Of course not.

UFOlogy is "The study of UFOs."

We use the standard dictionary definition of "pseudoscience," and the standard dictionary definition of "UFOlogy." That's how it works.

Ignoring these facts by limiting the definition of ufology to narrow dictionary definitions would be irresponsible.

I'm sorry, but no, it's not irresponsible to use the dictionary definition. It's right, proper, and fair.

We are talking about a word, "UFOlogy," with a common definition. As others and I have pointed out before, we as individuals don't get to define words however we choose. Word definitions are determined by consensus of the population of speakers. Guess what? You're outnumbered about 1,500,000,000 to 1. This round goes to the English-speaking world.

We use the standard definition.

"UFOlogy" is "The study of UFOs."

 

[Marduk]

A. Way Cool

so either you don't know, or you're now being deliberately dishonest with your rhetoric.
which is it ?
1, don't know
2, dishonest ?

or you could answer a simple question you have deliberately avoided three times already
answer the question ufology

what general term covers all of Ufology ?

 

[wollery]

A few years ago a man called Simon Singh wrote a fantastic book called Fermat's Last Theorem, all about a mathematical problem that had eluded mathematicians for hundreds of years and had finally (apparently) been solved.

According to ufology's definition Simon Singh is a mathematician, after all, he published a book about mathematics.

Of course, he also wrote a book about the Big Bang, and another a book about alternative medicine.

So in addition to being a mathematician, apparently he's also an astrophysicist, a homeopath, an acupuncturist, a chiropractor . . . . . .

 

[Aepervius]

I've made a compelling case that since the 1950s, elements of ufology have become deeply embedded in modern culture
SNIP

I can make a compelling case that since the 1900s, the same could be said for spiritualism, crystal stuff, magnetism, and other woo. All without evidence whatsoever.

You want to compare ufology to spiritualism or even exorcism ? Fine by my book. But be prepared to be taken as seriously as somebody wanting to make a seance or use ouija.

 

[Aepervius]

A few years ago a man called Simon Singh wrote a fantastic book called Fermat's Last Theorem, all about a mathematical problem that had eluded mathematicians for hundreds of years and had finally (apparently) been solved.

According to ufology's definition Simon Singh is a mathematician, after all, he published a book about mathematics.

Of course, he also wrote a book about the Big Bang, and another a book about alternative medicine.

So in addition to being a mathematician, apparently he's also an astrophysicist, a homeopath, an acupuncturist, a chiropractor . . . . . .

And since he wrote a few article about being attacked in justice by the homeopathic association, he is probably a barrister too.

 

[Akhenaten]

And since he wrote a few article about being attacked in justice by the homeopathic association, he is probably a barrister too.

Not to mention once going for a jaunt in a hot air balloon, which makes him an honorary blimpologist.

 

[pakeha]

The poster above has come late into this it seems.

Wrong again.
I've been following the thread, just not posting.

Answers like this

...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 convince readers you're evading the topic.

And yes, I read

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

My comment on debunking stands.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've made a compelling case that since the 1950s, elements of ufology have become deeply embedded in modern culture and that the field has grown significantly.

No, you haven't. You've repeatedly asserted it until you believe it. Nobody else is using your redefinition of the word "UFOlogy". UFOlogy is the study of UFOs.