Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

Then please present some examples of fields you would consider to be pseudoscience and indicate where the practitioners "claim to adhere to the scientific method."

There is a misunderstanding above. For something to meet the definition of pseudoscience we agree that it must not only not be meeting accepted scientific standards, but also be presenting itself as science. There are two main ways to do this. The first is to outright claim it's science. For example by calling it, "The Science of Orgonomy" or "The Science of Homeopathy". If something claims to be a science unto itself, then it doesn't also need to claim to be adhering to the scientific method. It is sufficient "presentation" that it makes the claim up-front. Note that merely advocating the use of science is not the same as calling the subject itself science. So for example, the MUFON motto that advocates the scientific study of UFOs isn't the same as saying "Ufology itself is science". Anyone can advocate the use of genuine science ( as they should ).

If however a topic of study doesn't claim to be science, then it needs to present itself as would any other science, which would by definition mean by using the scientific method, and all the empirical evidence and experimentation under controlled conditions that go along with it, but in the case of pseudoscience, ultimately fail because some method and/or data aren't recognized as being legitimate under the standards of the scientific method ... for example where there is zero amount of active ingredient in a medicinal preparation and the results are attributed to the non-existent ingredient, as seems to be the case with some homeopathic solutions.

Now I would go even further to say that a third class of pseudoscience would be acceptable as well; that of theatrics, where for example we have someone ride into town with some unproven gizmo that is explained by technicians in lab coats using technobabble to have some amazing quality. There was a Korean massage bed fairly recently that featured heated ceramic jade impreganted rollers that was explained using scientific jargon describing how the infrared rays work with the gem impregnated rollers to produce some sort of amazing health affects for many ailments. Ultimately the company had to retract many claims because they were simply unproven. There have been numerous travelling sales shows featuring some gizmo or another.

But how is this all applied to ufology? Even when we leave out the aspect of ufology culture, there is still a very large portion of the subject matter and activities that involve informal ( non-scientific ) study, particularly in the area of historical compilations. Plus there are many informal books that provide informal opinions based on personal experiences. Neither of these activities calls itself science nor presents itself as science, but together they make up the largest body of work destined for the general public ( non-scientists ). Then add to those, a large number of informal websites that don't claim ufology is a science ( including mine ). Indeed I outright deny that ufology should be considered a science unto itself. Because of this situation a large portion of ufology ( thousands of titles ) simply don't apply to the definition of pseudoscience.

So again we are left to root out the instances within ufology as a whole where science is said to be being done, but can be shown to not be abiding with accepted scientific standards. In my view, such cases may legitimately be labeled as pseudoscience. But those instances don't suddenly mean that ufology as a whole is now a pseudoscience any more than instances of quackery make all medicine pseudoscience.

Lastly, it is important to consider context. If something claims to be doing science and is living up to the definition in methodology, but a scientist makes some informal comment about the work, perhaps simplified for the general public, it isn't fair to attack the work as pseudoscience. Ultimately I think that it's the work itself that must be judged ... not the person.

j.r.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

There is a misunderstanding above. For something to meet the definition of pseudoscience we agree that it must not only not be meeting accepted scientific standards, but also be presenting itself as science. There are two main ways to do this. The first is to outright claim it's science. For example by calling it, "The Science of Orgonomy" or "The Science of Homeopathy". If something claims to be a science unto itself, then it doesn't also need to claim to be adhering to the scientific method. It is sufficient "presentation" that it makes the claim up-front. Note that merely advocating the use of science is not the same as calling the subject itself science. So for example, the MUFON motto that advocates the scientific study of UFOs isn't the same as saying "Ufology itself is science". Anyone can advocate the use of genuine science ( as they should ).

If however a topic of study doesn't claim to be science, then it needs to present itself as would any other science, which would by definition mean by using the scientific method, and all the empirical evidence and experimentation under controlled conditions that go along with it, but in the case of pseudoscience, ultimately fail because some method and/or data aren't recognized as being legitimate under the standards of the scientific method ... for example where there is zero amount of active ingredient in a medicinal preparation and the results are attributed to the non-existent ingredient, as seems to be the case with some homeopathic solutions.

Now I would go even further to say that a third class of pseudoscience would be acceptable as well; that of theatrics, where for example we have someone ride into town with some unproven gizmo that is explained by technicians in lab coats using technobabble to have some amazing quality. There was a Korean massage bed fairly recently that featured heated ceramic jade impreganted rollers and used scientific jargon explaining how the infrared rays work with the gem impregnated rollers to produce some sort of amazing health affects for many ailments. Ultimately the company had to retract many claims because they were simply unproven. There have been numerous travelling sales shows featuring some gizmo or another.

But how is this all applied to ufology? Even when we leave out the aspect of ufology culture, there is still a very large portion of the subject matter and activities that involve informal ( non-scientific ) study, particularly in the area of historical compilations. Plus there are many informal books that provide informal opinions based on personal experiences. Neither of these activities calls itself science nor presents itself as science, but together they make up the largest body of work destined for the general public ( non-scientists ). Then add to those, a large number of informal websites that don't claim ufology is a science ( including mine ). Indeed I outright deny that ufology should be considered a science unto itself. Because of this situation a large portion of ufology ( thousands of titles ) simply don't apply to the definition of pseudoscience.

So again we are left to root out the instances within ufology as a whole where science is said to be being done, but can be shown to not be abiding with accepted scientific standards. In my view, such cases may legitimately be labeled as pseudoscience. But those instances don't suddenly mean that ufology as a whole is now a pseudoscience any more than instances of quackery make all medicine pseudoscience.

Lastly, it is important to consider context. If something claims to be doing science and is living up to the definition in methodology, but a scientist makes some informal comment about the work, perhaps simplified for the general public, it isn't fair to attack the work as pseudoscience. Ultimately I think that it's the work itself that must be judged ... not the person.

j.r.

swing and miss by ufology by not answering a question. I think this post has cemented any lingering doubt in my mind that Ufology isn't a pseudoscience.

Look no one here says Ufology is a science we are saying it's a pseudoscience DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE? or do I have to type with shift down for the rest of this sentence?

When someone says they use the scientific methodology on something like Ufology, they are doing pseudoscience.

 

[carlitos]

Then please present some examples of fields you would consider to be pseudoscience and indicate where the practitioners "claim to adhere to the scientific method."

[a lot of words]

We all noticed that you didn't answer the question. Did you think we wouldn't?

 

[ufology]

swing and miss by ufology by not answering a question. I think this post has cemented any lingering doubt in my mind that Ufology isn't a pseudoscience.

Look no one here says Ufology is a science we are saying it's a pseudoscience DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE? or do I have to type with shift down for the rest of this sentence?

When someone says they use the scientific methodology on something like Ufology, they are doing pseudoscience.

The above poster only sees that the question wasn't answered, not that the question was irrellevant because it was based on a misunderstanding of what had been posted earlier, and that the answer I gave not only straightened that out, but provided examples. This is why people should really take the time to understand what is going on before making wise cracks.

The evidence that they don't understand what is going on is readily apparent in this statement, "When someone says they use the scientific methodology on something like Ufology, they are doing pseudoscience." In actual fact this supposition isn't true at all. If genuine science is being used, then it doesn't matter what it's being used on ... it's still science.

j.r.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

The above poster only sees that the question wasn't answered, not that the question was irrellevant beacuse it was based on a misunderstanding of what had been posted earlier, and that the answer I gave not only straightened that out, but provided examples. This is why people should really take the time to understand what is going on before making wise cracks.
The evidence that they don't understand what is going on is readily apparent in this statement, "When someone says they use the scientific methodology on something like Ufology, they are doing pseudoscience." In actual fact this supposition isn't true at all. If genuine science is being used then it doesn't matter waht it's being used on.

j.r.

This above poster only replies to what he wants to see in other peoples posts. I never said they are using the scientific methodology for ufology I said

When someone says they use the scientific methodology on something like Ufology, they are doing pseudoscience.

Which is a lot different to what you believe I typed.

Are Ghost hunters doing science because they say they are? Or Homeopaths? Or Feng Shui experts? So what makes ufology different from that? Just because they don't out and say they are the science of UFOs doesn't mean it's not a pseudoscience or are you going to use some RR logic on me start arguing semantics instead of answering the question? No word soups please.


I did read your word soup of a post before and even if I directly questioned your ideas, I would feel that it would just open up yet another one of your word soup dodge of a post.

 

[John Albert]

There are two main ways to do this. The first is to outright claim it's science. For example by calling it, "The Science of Orgonomy" or "The Science of Homeopathy". If something claims to be a science unto itself, then it doesn't also need to claim to be adhering to the scientific method. It is sufficient "presentation" that it makes the claim up-front.

You mean like this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

By your own reasoning, these examples prove UFOlogy is pseudoscience.

Note that merely advocating the use of science is not the same as calling the subject itself science. So for example, the MUFON motto that advocates the scientific study of UFOs isn't the same as saying "Ufology itself is science". Anyone can advocate the use of genuine science ( as they should ).

But we've all seen that MUFON do a little more than "advocate" the use of genuine science. They make plain assertions to being a scientific organization:

While it is true that rumor, speculation and tabloid sensationalism surround the UFO subject, it is with the collection, analysis and verification, as far as possible, of sober reports like the above that MUFON and other responsible UFO organizations are most concerned. The phenomenon can and should be approched dispassionately and scientifically from a variety of angles, perceptual, psychological and sociological, to name but a few. If objects from another planet are indeed visiting ours, what form of propulsion system and other technologies are employed? What kinds of biological lifeforms might be onboard? What God or gods will they worship? And how will UFO occupants - now or in the future, immediate or remote - perceive humans: as mental, emotional and spiritual equals or as vastly subpar inferiors? Should the skeptics prove right, in a "worst-case" scenario, and UFOs turn out out to be nothing more than a convoluted space age myth of our own making, surely our perceptions of the UFO phenomenon will tell us much about the contents and inner working, the built-in "plumbing" of the human mind and perhaps consciousness itself? In either event - including other scenarios and potential explanations as yet unformulated - many unanswered questions remain. It can hardly be against human nature, or the scientific method in principle, to ask and to seek answers to those questions. We welcome your assistance!

Source

The first highlighted sentence plainly describes the use of the scientific method with regard to UFO research.

In 1982, when members from several UFO organizations called for greater cooperation between organizations, the 1982 MUFON UFO Symposium in Toronto became the ideal vehicle to bring the leaders of the various UFO organizations together to discuss the issue. MUFON hosted a one-day meeting following the symposium where 50 people met in a brainstorming session to chart the direction for a proposed federation for North American UFO groups. The theme of the meeting was: “Cooperation, Sharing, and Establishing Ufology as a Science Through Professionalism in Investigation and Research.” The meeting resulted in the formation of a steering committee comprised of representatives attending the summit conference to meet, develop an organization structure, address the goals and objectives, and communicate this information to participating groups.

http://www.mufon.com/MUFONHistory.html

Again we see the claim of UFOlogy being established as a science.

What is MUFON's relationship to the U.S. Government?

MUFON has federal tax-exempt status as a scientific research organization.

Source

It appears that most UFO research groups (especially MUFON, the oldest and by far the largest one) do indeed invoke the claim of "science" to describe their work. Ufologists make just as many claims to science as any other pseudoscientists, and probably even more than most.

If however a topic of study doesn't claim to be science, then it needs to present itself as would any other science, which would by definition mean by using the scientific method, and all the empirical evidence and experimentation under controlled conditions that go along with it, but in the case of pseudoscience, ultimately fail because some method and/or data aren't recognized as being legitimate under the standards of the scientific method ... for example where there is zero amount of active ingredient in a medicinal preparation and the results are attributed to the non-existent ingredient, as seems to be the case with some homeopathic solutions.

You mean, for instance, like pretending to make predictions based only on anecdotes, and failing to use a falsifiable null hypothesis?

UFOlogy fits that definition, too.

But how is this all applied to ufology? Even when we leave out the aspect of ufology culture, there is still a very large portion of the subject matter and activities that involve informal ( non-scientific ) study

"Formal" or "informal" is irrelevant. There's nothing in the definition of pseudoscience about an area of study needing to be "formal" to be pseudoscientific.

 

[23_Tauri]

The above poster only sees that the question wasn't answered, not that the question was irrellevant because it was based on a misunderstanding of what had been posted earlier, and that the answer I gave not only straightened that out, but provided examples. This is why people should really take the time to understand what is going on before making wise cracks.

The evidence that they don't understand what is going on is readily apparent in this statement, "When someone says they use the scientific methodology on something like Ufology, they are doing pseudoscience." In actual fact this supposition isn't true at all. If genuine science is being used, then it doesn't matter what it's being used on ... it's still science.

j.r.

ufology, do you consider that your speculation that your UFO moved from standstill to 25kps only to disappear up the Rockies was because it benefitted from anti-gravity technology to be pseudoscience? Because for me, this is pseudoscience in action. You are postulating some unsubstantiated, 'science based' (I used that term loosely) claim in order to demonstrate that what you think you witnessed was what really happened (an object moving at 25kps).

This, my friend, is pseudoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above still doesn't hit the mark. I'm fine with the part, "pseudoscience is something presented as scientific but doesn't adhere to the proper practice of science." and that "Presented as scientific" means it contains the trappings of science ..." but, it's this "in other words" part that I have the problem with, to continue the quote; "in other words, purporting to present evidence and/or scientific-sounding "theory", without adhering to the actual practice of science."

Nobody else but you is having that problem. It must be just your opinion and you are admittedly biased.

What would be more accurate would be to say, "in other words, claiming to adhere to the scientific method without adhering to accepted scientific standards." Why? Because merely expressing informal opinions with "scientific-sounding" theory isn't good enough. We can all do that. It isn't pseudoscience until you call your "scientific-sounding" theory actual science.

No, that is also your opinion and is incorrect. UFOlogy uses the trapping of science to try to legitimitize itself because what it is actually doing is pseudoscience. UFOlogy is the study of UFOs (as alien spaceships), already having its conclusion and trying to shoehorn anything it can to be evidence of that conclusion. That is pseudoscience.

So what happens if you don't outright call it science? How far does it have to go before it becomes pseudoscience? This is perhaps the real crux of the issue.

Well, no. It isn't at all the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is that UFOlogy uses the trappings of science to validate its foregone conclusion that UFOs are alien spaceships.

I contend that one needs to do more than just study it informally or share opinions. For example saying, "I think UFOs are real" isn't pseudoscience. Neither would writing an informal study on the topic of UFOs in which such informal opinions are expressed and backed up with information and statistics from historical cases. Even genuine science can be used to back up informal opinions. For example, if an astronomer rules out the planet Venus as a possible explanation for a sighting, then it's perfectly valid to say, " An astronomer determined Venus was not in the location the object was reported, therefore the object was not Venus". However I think we cross the line if we say, "Astronomers determined the object was not Venus, therefore it was an alien spacecraft."

j.r.

Your contentions are silly and without merit. UFOlogy is the study of UFOs as alien spaceships. Already having their conclusion, UFOlogy tries to use the trappings of science to prove its conclusion. It has failed for the last 60 years. The null hypothesis remains unscathed and UFOlogy remains a pseudoscience.

 

[Correa Neto]

And what about people talking about links between UFOs and energy vortexes, time and faster-than-light travels, magnetic fields, radiation, paralell universes, wormholes, portals, convergent evolution, plasma, holograms, etc.?

Pseudoscience, right?

Or nothing but outright fiction or crackpottery?

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is a misunderstanding above. For something to meet the definition of pseudoscience we agree that it must not only not be meeting accepted scientific standards, but also be presenting itself as science.

UFOlogy does not meet accepted scientific standards. UFOlogy uses unfalsifiable anecdotes as evidence for extraordinary claims. The antithesis of proper science. As the examples that other posters have given show, UFOlogy presents itself as a science.

We also now agree then that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

There are two main ways to do this. The first is to outright claim it's science. For example by calling it, "The Science of Orgonomy" or "The Science of Homeopathy". If something claims to be a science unto itself, then it doesn't also need to claim to be adhering to the scientific method. It is sufficient "presentation" that it makes the claim up-front. Note that merely advocating the use of science is not the same as calling the subject itself science. So for example, the MUFON motto that advocates the scientific study of UFOs isn't the same as saying "Ufology itself is science". Anyone can advocate the use of genuine science ( as they should ).

That's where you are incorrect in your attempt at redefinition. Although examples have been given of UFOlogy calling itself a science, that isn't a prerequisite for being a pseudoscience. Advocating the use of science to achieve your pseudoscientific ends is pseudoscience. No amount of you trying to whitewash that will change it. UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

If however a topic of study doesn't claim to be science, then it needs to present itself as would any other science, which would by definition mean by using the scientific method, and all the empirical evidence and experimentation under controlled conditions that go along with it, but in the case of pseudoscience, ultimately fail because some method and/or data aren't recognized as being legitimate under the standards of the scientific method ... for example where there is zero amount of active ingredient in a medicinal preparation and the results are attributed to the non-existent ingredient, as seems to be the case with some homeopathic solutions.

You are incorrect again with your attempts at redefinition. Although numerous examples have been given of UFOlogy presenting itself as a science, that isn't a prerequisite for being a pseudoscience. UFOlogy has not accomplished anything in the last 60 years. That makes it a pseudoscience.

Now I would go even further to say that a third class of pseudoscience would be acceptable as well; that of theatrics, where for example we have someone ride into town with some unproven gizmo that is explained by technicians in lab coats using technobabble to have some amazing quality. There was a Korean massage bed fairly recently that featured heated ceramic jade impreganted rollers that was explained using scientific jargon describing how the infrared rays work with the gem impregnated rollers to produce some sort of amazing health affects for many ailments. Ultimately the company had to retract many claims because they were simply unproven. There have been numerous travelling sales shows featuring some gizmo or another.

Using your redefinition of the word, nothing would be a pseudoscience. Unless you are also practicing hypocrisy.

But how is this all applied to ufology? Even when we leave out the aspect of ufology culture, there is still a very large portion of the subject matter and activities that involve informal ( non-scientific ) study, particularly in the area of historical compilations. Plus there are many informal books that provide informal opinions based on personal experiences. Neither of these activities calls itself science nor presents itself as science, but together they make up the largest body of work destined for the general public ( non-scientists ). Then add to those, a large number of informal websites that don't claim ufology is a science ( including mine ). Indeed I outright deny that ufology should be considered a science unto itself. Because of this situation a large portion of ufology ( thousands of titles ) simply don't apply to the definition of pseudoscience.

But because UFOlogy is the study of UFOs (as alien spaceships) and uses a bastardized version of the scientific method, UFOlogy is a pseudoscience. It begins with its conclusion that UFOs are alien spaceships and then tries to sound sciencey in shoehorning evidence to fit that conclusion.

So again we are left to root out the instances within ufology as a whole where science is said to be being done, but can be shown to not be abiding with accepted scientific standards. In my view, such cases may legitimately be labeled as pseudoscience. But those instances don't suddenly mean that ufology as a whole is now a pseudoscience any more than instances of quackery make all medicine pseudoscience.

All the instances where UFOlogy starts with its conclusion would be pseudoscience. Now, if you were to start with a falsifiable null hypothesis such as:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

you might start to shed the mantle of pseudoscience. Any chance of that happening ever? Or do you think UFOlogy will stick with its unfalsifiable null hypothesis of:

"Some UFOs are of alien origin"​

That makes it a pseudoscience. Your choice.

Lastly, it is important to consider context. If something claims to be doing science and is living up to the definition in methodology, but a scientist makes some informal comment about the work, perhaps simplified for the general public, it isn't fair to attack the work as pseudoscience. Ultimately I think that it's the work itself that must be judged ... not the person.

j.r.

The work of UFOlogy is the study of UFOs (as alien spaceships). It begins with its conclusion and tries to shoehorn evidence to fit that conclusion. That makes it a pseudoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above poster only sees that the question wasn't answered, not that the question was irrellevant because it was based on a misunderstanding of what had been posted earlier, and that the answer I gave not only straightened that out, but provided examples. This is why people should really take the time to understand what is going on before making wise cracks.

The question wasn't irrelevant. You didn't like the question and so avoided answering it. You simply don't want to understand that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience because you are so heavily engaged in it. You need to slow down and read what is being said so that you'll understand. If you need help, just ask. Try to look at the examples given and understand them in the context of your redefinition of words and special pleading fallacies.

The evidence that they don't understand what is going on is readily apparent in this statement, "When someone says they use the scientific methodology on something like Ufology, they are doing pseudoscience." In actual fact this supposition isn't true at all. If genuine science is being used, then it doesn't matter what it's being used on ... it's still science.

j.r.

Yes, everyone sees that you are using the "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. If you are doing science, then you are doing science. If you aren't doing science then you can't be called a pseudoscience. That's why it doesn't work the way you've been trying to get it to. You don't have to claim to be doing science, even though you've been given numerous examples of UFOlogy doing exactly that.

So, what other areas of interest would your meet your redefintion of the word pseudoscience?

 

[Akhenaten]

So what happens if you don't outright call it science? How far does it have to go before it becomes pseudoscience? This is perhaps the real crux of the issue.

Calling it [insert belief sytem]ology does it for me.

I contend that one needs to do more than just study it informally or share opinions. For example saying, "I think UFOs are real" isn't pseudoscience.

No, it's called 'stating the bleeding obvious'. Conflating UFOs with flying saucers is the thin end of the pseudoscientific wedge though.

Neither would writing an informal study on the topic of UFOs in which such informal opinions are expressed and backed up with information and statistics from historical cases.

Sounds like pseudoscience, but without seeing this 'study' it's impossible to say.

Even genuine science can be used to back up informal opinions. For example, if an astronomer rules out the planet Venus as a possible explanation for a sighting, then it's perfectly valid to say, " An astronomer determined Venus was not in the location the object was reported, therefore the object was not Venus".

That's not pseudoscience. Sadly (for your case) it's not ufology either.

However I think we cross the line if we say, "Astronomers determined the object was not Venus, therefore it was an alien spacecraft."

j.r.

We don't do that, do we?

We know people who do though.

 

[RoboTimbo]

However I think we cross the line if we say, "Astronomers determined the object was not Venus, therefore it was an alien spacecraft."

j.r.

I said I believe the object was alien to human civilization, and that where it came from I don't know, but given what we know about the Earth, an extraterrestrial explanation is reasonable.

j.r.

Indeed. Starting with your conclusion is pseudoscience.

 

[ufology]

Indeed. Starting with your conclusion is pseudoscience.

The above is incorrect. One can have an opinion on anything they want without it being pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[Correa Neto]

Sure.

Opinions can also be bilt over delusions, madness, mistakes, errors, faith, foolishness, stupidity...

 

[ufology]

Sure.
Opinions can also be bilt over delusions, madness, mistakes, errors, faith, foolishness, stupidity...

Sure ... they can also be well informed and true to reality.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is incorrect. One can have an opinion on anything they want without it being pseudoscience.

j.r.

Attaching it to an -ology makes it pseudoscience. You still can't whitewash it and get away from the fact that UFOlogy is the study of UFOs (as alien spacehips). It begins with its conclusion that UFOs are alien spaceships.

How can that not be a pseudoscience?

 

[Correa Neto]

OK, now all you have to do is to demonstrate "some UFOs = alien crafts" is a well informed and true to reality opinion.

No pseudoscience, no delusions, no madness, no mistakes, no errors, no faith, no foolishness, no stupidity... Oh, no anecdotes, please.

Can you do it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sure ... they can also be well informed and true to reality.

j.r.

But if they are ill-informed and depend on unfalsifiable anecdotes and believe in a "larger reality" it is pseudoscience. Like UFOlogy.

 

[ufology]

OK, now all you have to do is to demonstrate "some UFOs = alien crafts" is a well informed and true to reality opinion.

No pseudoscience, no delusions, no madness, no mistakes, no errors, no faith, no foolishness, no stupidity... Oh, no anecdotes, please.

Can you do it?

This isn't the right thread to be discussing the evidence in. But I'll tell you right now anyway that I don't have objective physical empirical evidence that can be put to the test under the scientific method. I don't think anyone ( at least in the public domain does ). So if that's the only evidence you find reasonable to believe, then you'll have to keep denying that alien craft exist. Which is fine. End of converstaion.

j.r.