ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
The above is a misrepresentation. I've never made any claim on behalf of astrology. If you want to look into it for yourselves, here is a relevant link purportedly studying the issue from an objective standpoint:
http://www.astrology-and-science.com/hpage.htm
The link below calls astrology a science up-front, so you can begin applying the definition of pseudoscience from there if you want.
http://www.scienceofastrology.com/
j.r.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
No thanks.
I already know astrology is a pseudoscience, just like ufology, even if using your definitions it isn't.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Exactly the same can be said of a great many woo beliefs, such as spiritualism, alternative medicine, young earth creationism, and intelligent design. did you have a point?
So is Simon Singh a mathematician, alternative medical practitioner and astrophysicist, or is he a writer of popular science books?
And your appeal to the wider popularity of ufology in modern culture isn't an appeal to popularity?
And in direct answer to your statement, an appeal to popularity is only a fallacy if it is used in the form, "a lot of people believe this, therefore it must be true". An argument from authority is only a fallacy if it takes the form, "This person or institute is an expert, therefore they must be right". The statement you were responding to was of the form, "the overwhelming consensus among experts and authoritative sources is this, and you must therefore produce good reason to convince others that you are right." This is neither an argument from popularity, nor an argument from authority. It is not a fallacy of any kind. In order to overturn the general concensus of the vast majority of authoritative opinion you must provide strong evidence.
You have failed to do any such thing.
No. If your redefinition of the term pseudoscience renders it useless by barring almost all others fields from having the term applied to them (as it actually does) then you have failed to refute the charge that your field is pseudoscience. All you have done is redefine a word out of existence without altering the underlying sense of the word that previously existed.
All you have done is repeat, ad nauseam, a series of claims that I have refuted in detail in a post that you simply refuse to address in any meaningful way.
To deny that any pseudoscience had ever taken pace in ufology would be a completely untenable position, so it's not surprising that you admit that. The question isn't whether or not there have been instances of pseudoscience in ufology, but just how much there has been.
Your desire to get the debate to end is clear. The reason why you want it to end is also clear.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
Actually ufology and astrology are quite different. But when you already know everything like AdMan there, I suppose there isn't much point in reading other people's opinions.
j.r.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
I suppose when they are just the same illogical and bizarre argument repeated over and over again, then you may be right--it's pointless.
But OK--so why is the whole wide field of "ufology" (using your definition) so different from "astrology" or any other pseudoscience (again, using your definitions for the sake of argument)?
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
ufology said:
Anyway, I did a little googling on definitions of "UFOlogy," but I didn't find anything pertaining to all that stuff you were saying about subculture, books, films, advertising, humor and whatnot.
I did manage to dig up a few workable definitions though. Here they are:
Wikipedia:
Dictionary.com:
Merrian-Webster:
OxfordAdvancedLearnersDictionary.com:
The Free Dictionary:
YourDictionary.com
Encarta:
Wordsmyth:
Definition-of.net:
AskDefine.com:
Dictionary.reverso.net:
Yahoo! Education:
OxfordDictionaries.com:
UrbanDictionary:
AllWords.com:
Well, how about that? There seems to be a near consensus that "The study of UFOs" is the proper definition of the word "UFOlogy." A few of the sources specifically mention ET visitation, but I'm feeling generous today so let's just give UFOlogy the benefit of the doubt on that one. Maybe not all UFOlogists believe in the ETH, right?
I was just thinking how strange it is, that none of all the sources I read even bothered to mention the vast and colorful pop culture miasma that you ascribed to UFOlogy in your post above. Seems like a pretty big oversight on their part, doesn't it? Can you believe not a single one of all those dictionaries and encyclopedias happened to get the definition correct? These are all current definitions as well, found on the Internet just a few mere minutes ago. How could they all be so wrong?!?
Hey, you don't suppose maybe this discrepancy might indicate something wrong with you and your definition, eh ufology? I mean, you're an honest guy, aren't you? You would never do anything sneaky like try to pull a fast one over on us by shoehorning your own personal definition into the discussion for some deceitful purpose, would you? You do realize it would be dishonest and wrong to trick people like that, don't you? Of course you do. Perish the thought! I apologize for even questioning your honesty in the matter.
If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, we can just put that little unpleasantness behind us and move ahead with our nice, reliable definition of UFOlogy:
UFOlogy: the study of unidentified flying objects.
I like this definition. It's simple, unbiased, unambiguous, and just real easy to get your head around. There's almost no possibility of confusion at all with this definition.
OK, so now that we have working definitions of both "ufology" and "pseudoscience," let's discuss how we might recognize when something is being "presented as scientific."
Last edited:
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
I'm not here to discuss astrology. But I'll start you off with the first reason ...
1. The link I posted to The Science Of Astrology clearly presents itself as a science up front in its title and therefore meets the first part of the essential criteria by which pseudoscience is defined. By contrast, I have consistently said that ufology is not a science nor should it be promoted as a science unto itself. I've also pointed out that merely advocating the use of science is not the same as calling the field a science unto itself e.g. Advocating the use of science to study UFOs as in the MUFON motto is not the same as calling ufology on the whole a science.
There are other differences as well ... but like I said, I'm not here to discuss astrology. The single example above is sufficient to show that the assertion is false that my rationale nullifies the application of pseudoscience in other fields. I've done the same with the science of orgonomy. Here's another one that calls phrenology a science:
http://www.vedicwisdom.com/veda.html
Enough now with the misleading allegations and false assertions. I've consistently shown with demonstrations like this that my position is fair and reasoned.
j.r.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Good. I think we'll all appreciate you adopting a more honest approach.
You might start with addressing wollery's latest post since you've run away from his other one.
Here's a link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7476922#post7476922
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
All the definitions for ufology provided by Mr. Albert's post only refer to ufology studies, however ufology studies isn't all there is to ufology. Ufology history and ufology culture are facts, they exist separate from my mere opinion and I've provided examples. All the popular appeals to incomplete definitions, regardless of how many there are or where they come from, won't change that.
However ... I must commend Mr. Albert for the effort because it shows genuine participation backed up by references, and I respect that even if I don't agree with the conclusion. Beacuse of that, I'm willing to set the particular issue of ufology culture aside for now and focus on the core subject matter that Mr. Albert would like to discuss ... that of ufology studies.
I contend that ufology studies can be and most often are informal and do not always present themselves as science, particularly the large portion of publications destined for the mass market ( non-scientists ). I also contend that some ufology studies may very well be valid science, while others may fall into the pseudoscience area, like orgonomy, which is a historical component of ufology studies. So even within the definition of ufology as the study of UFOs in general, we see a wide enough variation of context and subject matter to exclude it ( in it's entirety ) from being fairly applied to the definition of pseudoscience that we have agreed upon. Again this leaves us to evaluate the scientific studies on a case by case basis. This position has been advocated by certain skeptcs who have used phrasing like ufology is "in part" pseudoscience.
Unfortunately, saying ufology is "in part" pseudoscience, is no different from saying medicine is "in part" quackery. It's accurate while at the same time misleading. Simply because there are quacks in medicine doesn't make all medicine quackery. Similarly, because examples of pseudoscience exist within ufology studies, does not make all ufology studies ... and certainly not ufology in general, a pseudoscience.
j.r.
Last edited:
I would say that folks who link their official, sciencey-looking "ufology" website only to see that it's full of stories about out-of-body experience as a child and "Men in Black" driving limited-production stretch cadillacs through the desert are practicing pseudoscience. It's kind of like porn - I know it when I see it.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
Nice job. Here's another, "Ufology: the study of UFOs, especially the investigation of recorded sightings of them." from Bing definitions.
I guess that means the UFOlogist should change his/her name.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
Thanks Jeff ... I take it that we can consider the investigation of recorded sightings to be sightings that have taken place at some past point in ufology history, and therefore that they can be studied in a historical context.
j.r.
Last edited:
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Was that intended to come across as a desperate attempt to grasp at straws?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Why would the lexicographers call it scientific? They know it's all just just pretend.
Here's some historical context: No captured ETs, no spacecraft, no nothin'. That's a fact
I think ufology's position is something like Beatlemania
Ufology is Pseudosciencemania! Not a pseudoscience, but an incredible simulation!
Ufology is Pseudosciencemania! Not a pseudoscience, but an incredible simulation!
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681