Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Akhenaten]

There is no need to read that thread through.

That would depend on how keen you are to avoid recreating the debacle. Entertainment-wise I'd support the blissful ignorance approach, but you really might want to think carefully about it.

I've scanned it and I've looked at the original quote from Sagan. I probably watched the original airing of Cosmos when Sagan made the statement. No more needs to be understood than what I've stated.

Famous last words.

Except that they won't be. I look forward to quoting them again in a few months time after it's been demonstrated beyond all possible doubt how wrong they were.

If science is unbiased, then the evidence is neither ordinary nor extraordinary ... it speaks for itself; and if it isn't accepted, then it's personal bias that is preventing it. There's no more to it than that.

j.r.

That's what Rramjet said, but the 100+ page discussion that followed seems to have given the lie to his baseless assertion.

I appreciate your optimism in expecting a different outcome for your own arguments, but I'm afraid you're heading for Disappointment City.

 

[John Albert]

There is no need to read that thread through.

You're right. The first 4 or 5 pages should more than suffice.

After awhile, the entire thing devolves into the conversational equivalent of banging one's head against the inside of a swimming pool filled with water.

The same poster stands alone against the world, reiterating the same argument over and over, watching it get shot down in flames repeatedly and then returning on every new page to reiterate the same argument again as if it had never been refuted. Countless valid postulates and interpretations of the famous quotation are offered, and stoically ignored or dismissed by this poster on the flimsiest of reasoning. Of course, every word in the sentence is picked apart over 100+ pages with no hope of determination or closure. It's a tedious exercise in semantics.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Perhaps I should be the one to point out this time that the extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence thread isn't this one ... otherwise if it's going to be invoked here constantly, I have every right to point out that from a scientific perspective, extraordinary claims require the same evidence as anything else. Why? Because science is unbiased and the evidence speaks for itself. Only a biased person would think that the evidence has to be extraordinary before they'll believe it.

j.r.

You should have addressed this refutation rather than just repeating your incorrect assertion.

The poster above is incorrect. There is an entire thread where another poster had his handed to him and it was proven that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's only the creduloids who live in the fantasy land based on unfalsifiable anecdotes.

ECREE does still apply whether you like it or not, just as the null hypothesis continues to be true, and we'll continue to invoke it as necessary.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Regarding Above: "Reliable evidence is not necessarily of physical nature (like a flying saucer or an alien); it might as well come as imagery (from a reliable source and preferentially sharp, detailed) for example."

Apparently the poster above is then less skeptical than I am. I don't think videotaped images prove anything. They are just pictures. Perhaps a live feed of some kind might prove something, but only if it can be shown that the live feed is verifiable by independent civilians. But even then, all it amounts to are images on a monitor of some kind. Pixels of color and luminosity on a matrix. There's no physical proof. However I would be inclined to think it would be reasonable evidence ... but not much more reasonable than an Air Force pilot's account of his pursuit of a flying saucer in broad daylight.

Did you read the post at all that you're quoting?

So far as I'm concerned, real material objective physical evidence that can be studied using the scientific method is the best you can get. If you want to start accepting less based on what you think is reasonable, then things aren't so clear-cut anymore. That's the realm I live in constantly with ufology, and it's why, contrary to the skeptical opinion, that I think reliable eye-witnesses are the best evidence we have.

That's why the null hypothesis hasn't been falsified. Unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence is useless for validating extraordinary claims. For that you need extraordinary evidence.

Hoaxed videos are so easy to make now that I don't even bother keeping up with them. Also, because we are out of the loop where the military is concerned, we don't have access to unsanitized, unfiltered data, or access to equipment. So we're down to civilian accounts ... everyday people. Their reports are complicated further by the fact that modern technology has become so amazing that it's getting harder and harder to differentiate extraordinary sightings from what we could conceivably have created ourselves. But once in a while you'll get a really good account, and they're worth waiting for.

This is typical pseudoscientific creduloid believer wishful thinking. We don't have actual evidence so unfalsifiable anecdotes will have to suffice to justify our conclusion of "OMG PseudoAliens!" Since they aren't falsifiable, how do you determine which one are "really good"?

Regarding what the MUFON and UFO hunter people regard as objective physical evidence. Perhaps they do have something that can be studied empirically, but all that proves it that they have some odd metal fragments. It doesn't prove where they originated. I don't think they can draw the conclusion that it came from an alien craft.

No, you are now taking it out of context. Along with the odd metal fragment, they get an unfalsifiable anecdote.

Regarding the supposition that, "No skeptic will actually 'deny that alien craft exist'." I wouldn't be so sure all skeptics won't deny that alien craft exist. Perhaps the poster really means "No true skeptic". In this regard I'm most impressed with Robo's constant insistence on the "null hypothesis". He has stated that from his perspective, UFOs ( alien craft visiting Earth ) could exist, but that their existence still needs to be proven. So he's reserved judgement pending "falsification" of his "null hypothesis". It's not the way I look at the issue, but at least his point of view is logically coherent.

No need to genuflect. It isn't my null hypothesis, it's reality's, so of course it isn't the way you look at the issue. That's why your way is pseudoscientific.

Q: Are Ufologists doing pseudoscience when they are 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.?
A: It depends on whether or not they are talking informally with respect to the topics ( like we are now ), or whether they are presenting it as some sort of bona fide science, as in, "It's a scientific fact that UFOs come from a parallel universe." Otherwise it's just talk and I wouldn't call it crackpottery. It's all interesting and we're all entitled to explore topics we find interesting in an informal way without being persecuted, at least to the extent that we aren't hurting anyone else.

j.r.

No, it doesn't matter whether they are talking informally or making a specific announcement that they are doing science. Why do you continue to spout that nonsense that they must announce, "The following pronouncement is scientific..." before you allow the pseudoscientific label to be put on it?

My doctor doesn't come into the exam room and declare, "Now I'm going to do medicine." What an idiotic concept. Give it up.

 

[23_Tauri]

My doctor doesn't come into the exam room and declare, "Now I'm going to do medicine." What an idiotic concept. Give it up.

He doesn't? Clearly he's not proper doctor. Get a new one, immediately.

 

[John Albert]

My doctor doesn't come into the exam room and declare, "Now I'm going to do medicine." What an idiotic concept. Give it up.

He doesn't? Clearly he's not proper doctor. Get a new one, immediately.

They have to do that, otherwise it isn't official, AMA-sanctioned medicine. It's a law, kind of like how undercover cops are required to tell a drug dealer they're cops if the dealer asks.

That's why the standard, universal "Declaration of Science" oath is always uttered at the start of all legitimately official science experiments. Surely you learned all about that in school? If your science teacher never gave the oath before the commencement of science class, I'm pretty sure you have legitimate basis to sue him—and the principal, and the entire school board—for malpractice.

 

[Akhenaten]

Accredted blimpologists are required to sound a goose call every 3 minutes when engaging in official blimpological business.

 

[John Albert]

Accredted blimpologists are required to sound a goose call every 3 minutes when engaging in official blimpological business.

The state of science education these days is truly appalling. How will our children maintain competitiveness in the global marketplace, if they slide through school without ever learning the solemn tradition of the 3-minute honk-off?

 

[23_Tauri]

They have to do that, otherwise it isn't official, AMA-sanctioned medicine. It's a law, kind of like how undercover cops are required to tell a drug dealer they're cops if the dealer asks.

That's why the standard, universal "Declaration of Science" oath is always uttered at the start of all legitimately official science experiments. Surely you learned all about that in school? If your science teacher never gave the oath before the commencement of science class, I'm pretty sure you have legitimate basis to sue him—and the principal, and the entire school board—for malpractice.

Abracadabra!

That one?

 

[Daylightstar]

... It's a law, kind of like how undercover cops are required to tell a drug dealer they're cops if the dealer asks.
....

Aren't they supposed to tell the dealer they are undercover cops? I mean, you know, they are undercover after all, so as to maintain their undercover status.

 

[TjW]

Accredted blimpologists are required to sound a goose call every 3 minutes when engaging in official blimpological business.

I was under the impression you had to goose a sound call girl every 3 minutes. At least that's the policy at Blimpologist Union Local 12.

 

[Aepervius]

He doesn't? Clearly he's not proper doctor. Get a new one, immediately.

Sometimes you really want to ask him if he does medicine

 

[R.A.F.]

...real material objective physical evidence that can be studied using the scientific method is the best you can get. If you want to start accepting less based on what you think is reasonable, then things aren't so clear-cut anymore. That's the realm I live in constantly with ufology, and it's why, contrary to the skeptical opinion, that I think reliable eye-witnesses are the best evidence we have.

See, ya go along there...talking all science"y", then ya go and make a totally ridiculous statement relating to how "reliable" eye-witness testimony "is".

There is simply no evidence for what you say. If you disagree, then present your contrary evidence.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I'm constantly amazed at just how far apart people's views really are, even when they think that they are on the same page with everyone else.

j.r.

I'm amazed you can't even type out a proper response. You said nothing here unless you think that "oh they don't type all the same maybe I can get them to attack each other's points of view rather then attacking me"

What everyone else here thinks that personal bias is stopping evidence of UFOs coming in?
Everyone else thinks that we should all at all evidence equally?


All right anyone else here disagree with what I stated?

That's wrong on so many levels. Science isn't unbiased only the best evidence will let an idea to become a hypothesis which in turn became a theory. I somehow don't think it's personal bias that's standing in the way of anecdotal evidence being accepted as evidence of UFOs being alien crafts.

I suggest you read the replies to Rramjets position that evidence is evidence. I find if you have an open mind you may have your position swayed.

One more thing Ufology I don't care if I'm on the 'same page' as rest of posters here we are not a mind hive like Ufology is where if you have a slight disagreement with another group you're a disinfo agent or much worst.

 

[John Albert]

What everyone else here thinks that personal bias is stopping evidence of UFOs coming in?

I certainly don't think that.

I have never seen any reason to believe that "personal bias" has ever stopped evidence of UFOs from coming in. A lack of evidence does not constitute evidence of anything. That entire approach is typical pseudoscientific conspiracism.

Everyone else thinks that we should all at all evidence equally?

I'm sorry, but the above sentence is so grammatically incorrect that I don't even understand what it's supposed to mean.

If you meant to say: "Everyone else thinks that we should all look at all evidence equally?" then I would have to disagree again and say that all evidence is not equal. Some evidence warrants more merit than other evidence, by virtue of its veracity and testability.

One more thing Ufology I don't care if I'm on the 'same page' as rest of posters here we are not a mind hive like Ufology is where if you have a slight disagreement with another group you're a disinfo agent or much worst.

Yep. We may disagree with one another sometimes, but at least we can talk our disagreements through rationally instead of ignoring each other's arguments and resorting to special pleadings and personal redefinitions of terms.

 

[Pixel42]

See, ya go along there...talking all science"y", then ya go and make a totally ridiculous statement relating to how "reliable" eye-witness testimony "is".

What he actually said was that, in the realm of ufology, eye-witness testimony was the best evidence they had. That is of course true, despite decades of looking for something better. Most people would be able to draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[John Albert]

What he actually said was that, in the realm of ufology, eye-witness testimony was the best evidence they had. That is of course true, despite decades of looking for something better. Most people would be able to draw the obvious conclusion.

Yep. Instead of seeing a red flag with a big letter "P" and recognizing it for what it is, he responds by making special pleadings to ignore it.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I'm sorry, but the above sentence is so grammatically incorrect that I don't even understand what it's supposed to mean.

If you meant to say: "Everyone else thinks that we should all look at all evidence equally?" then I would have to disagree again and say that all evidence is not equal. Some evidence warrants more merit than other evidence, by virtue of its veracity and testability.

I didn't read that sentence and that's what I meant.

Yep. We may disagree with one another sometimes, but at least we can talk our disagreements through rationally instead of ignoring each other's arguments and resorting to special pleadings and personal redefinitions of terms.

pretty much.

 

[23_Tauri]

What he actually said was that, in the realm of ufology, eye-witness testimony was the best evidence they had. That is of course true, despite decades of looking for something better. Most people would be able to draw the obvious conclusion.

Mmm... indeed. And shall we add to the list of phenomena for which there is only eye-witness testimony (the best there is, in the circumstances )?

Ghosts, fairies, big foot, the second coming of Christ, invisible pink unicorns, and the fish that the bloke down the pub caught that was this (holds arms out really wide) big.

 

[kblood]

I guess this is the thread to ask if there ever came any trustworthy explanation of the spiral in the sky in Norway a few years ago? The official story was a Russian missile test was it not?