Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[beeksc1]

One mentioning of ufology reports that

At the University of Melbourne on Saturday, culture and communication student Martin Plowman will become the first Australian to get a doctorate of philosophy in ufology , the study of unidentified flying objects.

A PhD in ufology!?

When I think of -ology, I think of (associated it with) empirical evidence that has been demonstrated by that field. But the denoted meaning does not convey that.

The English suffix -ology or -logy denotes a field of study or academic discipline, and -ologist describes a person who studies that field.

A branch of learning ; a study of a particular subject.

Concerning unidentified objects, is there any demonstratable (repeatable) data that provides evidence for the existence of UFOs?

Is ufology a pseudo-science?

 

[Mojo]

A PhD in ufology!?

Note that, according to the article, he's a "culture and communication student". I suspect that he's been studying ufology as a cultural phenomenon, rather than UFOs themselves. But that wouldn't make such a good story.

 

[lionking]

Note that, according to the article, he's a "culture and communication student". I suspect that he's been studying ufology as a cultural phenomenon, rather than UFOs themselves. But that wouldn't make such a good story.

Spot on Mojo. Wrong again beeksc1.

 

[beeksc1]

Spot on Mojo. Wrong again beeksc1.

I do not mind being inaccurate some of the time (<0.05). But how am I wrong? I asked a question and you claim that I am wrong.

Please do attempt to attack the poster, address the content. Is the study of UFOs a pseudoscience?

 

[lionking]

It is not a study of UFOs, it's a study of Ufology. Pretty basic.

 

[Lothian]

One mentioning of ufology reports that

A PhD in ufology!?

When I think of -ology, I think of (associated it with) empirical evidence that has been demonstrated by that field. But the denoted meaning does not convey that.

Concerning unidentified objects, is there any demonstratable (repeatable) data that provides evidence for the existence of UFOs?

Is ufology a pseudo-science?

We should be able to study any thing that exists and UFOs clearly exist. However "I saw something but don't know what it was" is a fairly dull topic. It only really gets interesting when they stop becoming unidentified and start becoming identified as alien craft.

Studying the craft would be fascinating, however, they never seem to land and hang around long enough which would result in a very short course! Studying the believers is legitimate as is studying any deluded mind.

 

[Euromutt]

Is ufology a pseudo-science?

That depends entirely on what the discipline of "ufology" studies. As Mojo and lothian rightly allude, UFOs (in the sense of air/spacecraft of extraterrestrial origin) demonstrably exist as an abstract concept, and as a result one can study that abstract concept as a cultural phenomenon, regardless of whether UFOs actually exist as concrete objects.

An analogy might be drawn with religious studies; you can study the history and doctrines and practices of religion (which is what the subject of religious studies does) without regard to whether the objects of veneration of those religions (deities et al.) have any basis in reality.

In that regard, both ufology and religious studies might be regarded as branches of cultural anthropology, which is a legitimate (social) science. Admittedly, there are have been certain cultural anthropologists who have produced some bad work in their time, but the fact that certain practitioners in a field have performed bad science does not imply that the entrie field is pseudo-science.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I skimmed the first quote and thought his name was "Martian".

 

[ufology]

This page explains ufology and what it is or isn't:

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Ufology-01a.htm

NOTE: Phones and pads do not display the site well. Use a full featured browser if you can.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

This page explains ufology and what it is or isn't:

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Ufology-01a.htm

NOTE: Phones and pads do not display the site well. Use a full featured browser if you can.

j.r.

Yeah...

So your point is that it's not pseudoscience?

What are you bringing to the discussion that's new? If you have nothing new to bring up, you shouldn't have resurrected this long-ago dead thread.

 

[ufology]

Yeah...

So your point is that it's not pseudoscience?

What are you bringing to the discussion that's new? If you have nothing new to bring up, you shouldn't have resurrected this long-ago dead thread.

Escuse me but I am new here. I found the thread and was interested. That means other people who are new might find it too, and maybe they will find more value in my post than you did. So it really isn't appropriate for you to say what I should or shouldn't post unless I'm breaking the rules.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

Escuse me but I am new here. I found the thread and was interested. That means other people who are new might find it too, and maybe they will find more value in my post than you did. So it really isn't appropriate for you to say what I should or shouldn't post unless I'm breaking the rules.

j.r.

Sorry, I came across harsher than I meant to. I'm still wondering what your point in bringing this thread up again was, though. Is it that ufology is not pseudoscience? What is new in your argument?

 

[ufology]

Sorry, I came across harsher than I meant to. I'm still wondering what your point in bringing this thread up again was, though. Is it that ufology is not pseudoscience? What is new in your argument?

It's a discussion thread. I would think the only point that would be required is a genuine interest. Also, being a discussion thread, it isn't always necessary to make an argument. What I've done is make an observation. More observation and discussion and less arguing might actually do us some good. I didn't come here to make enemies with anyone. I'd like to see it go the other way if possible. Would you like to discuss the topic at all ... perhaps there is something new you know of, or a different way of looking at what has already been posted that would be of value?

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

OK. The topic of this thread is whether ufology is a pseudoscience (as defined by 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.").

I say ufology most definitely is a pseudoscience. Arguments to the contrary?

 

[ufology]

OK. The topic of this thread is whether ufology is a pseudoscience (as defined by 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.").

I say ufology most definitely is a pseudoscience. Arguments to the contrary?

I'd like to be able to argue strictly for the contrary, but the picture isn't really that black or white, and the pursuit of truth would not be honored if we were to confine ourselves strictly to a pro or con stance. If you'll permit me to elaborate a little, I'll begin with a loose analogy. Ufology is sort of like birdwatching, it is an activity that can involve elements of science, but isn't really hard core ornithology, but we don't call birdwatching pseudoscience.

However if a birdwatcher has a sighting of some rare ( perhaps previously unknown or extinct ) bird, he or she may record the details and try to get a picture and maybe some trace evidence and take that to an ornithologist. When that happens, and the scientist is looking at the evidence, I think it is fair to say that science is taking place.

Similarly, if a ufologist brings a sighting report along with some material to a genuine science lab, it is equally fair to say that the analysis being performed by those scientists is science.

Where it starts to get murky, and why I am on this forum, is when you have people who don't work the field in this manner start making claims that it is all science based on some pop-science buzz words ( e.g. quantum this and multi-dimensional that ), but haven't really got a clue what they are talking about. That is when the reverse of science happens and ufology become associated with pseudoscience.

Therefore what we actually have are the two extremes, science and pseudoscience, with ufology as the subject matter in between, which makes ufology itself neither science nor pseudoscience.

My aim in joining this forum is to have discussions based on rational thinking that may help to reveal the truth, not promote some pop-culture agenda. I would like to build bridges with skeptics to expose the frauds and hoaxers and marginalize the pseudoscience off into the fringe element.

This doesn't mean that we can't discuss UFOs casually using science and philosophy as a baseline. We don't need to be PhDs and we don't need the Pope's blessing. But we do need to make a real effort to understand the reasons that we use to support our ideas ... and I believe skeptics can help. I welcome yours if you should be so inclined.

j.r.

 

[Foster Zygote]

From the above link:

"The intent of ufology is to establish the true nature of UFOs..."

This is a problem. In science, one follows the evidence where it leads. To have a predetermined conclusion and work toward it is pseudoscientific.

 

[fromdownunder]

From the above link:

"The intent of ufology is to establish the true nature of UFOs..."

This is a problem. In science, one follows the evidence where it leads. To have a predetermined conclusion and work toward it is pseudoscientific.

I disagree. Why are you assuming that there is a pre determined conclusion? If I see a UFO, I can use the scientific method to establish that is is a mundane everday object, be it a blimp, a weather balloon, Venus, a Helicoptor or even a plane that I could not recognise.

So I check flight paths, I check where the satellites are in the sky, I check where Venus is in the sky and everything else pertaining to what I saw.

If I eliminate everything mundane (it could even be a bunch of Helium Balloons gone astray which cannot be established) I have a UFO. I do not have little green men, I have an Unidentified Flying Object, which is all a UFO is.

That sort of thing has been done dozens of times on this very Board, and thwe scientific evidence never points to little green men.

Norm

 

[sophia8]

From the link in the OP:

His interest in UFOs stemmed from boredom as a child while in hospital. His parents gave him a book on UFOs to distract him. "It captured my imagination."

His interest waned and he went on to study physics. But while looking for a topic for his PhD, his interest was reignited when visiting another student's house, where he noticed a bookcase full of books on UFOs.

"Having a look at it, I realised this was a whole world unto itself," he said. "It had rules, and ideas and history and it hadn't been looked at much so my enthusiasm came back and I thought this is a story that I want to look at."

So he's tackling ufology and the ufos-are-aliens believers simply as a cultural phenomenon. End of story.
Nothing to see here, move along....

 

[Resume]

Yes.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ufology, an advise.
Please try not to follow the standard fringe subject proponent routine. Please bear in mind that:
The debaters you'll meet here have indeed looked at the evidence; we are anything but ignorant on the subject, so the path "you disagree because you don't study the evidence" will not lead to where you wish to go.
If you are going to present he same old UFO cases, please remember the debaters here most likely have already looked at them and found them lacking substance.
Appeals like "having an open mind", wild speculations and special pledges for UFO evidence will also lead you to a dead end.

IMHO, a solid dialogue on UFOlogy will depend on the proponent acknowledging UFOlogy's methods are flawed and considering what could be done to handle this issue. If you -or anyone else- wish to rescue it form the pseudoscience pit, adopting the scientific method is the way to go. This, of course will mean you run the risk of having to dump most UFO evidence and seriously considering the possibility that aliens are not behind the UFO phenomena.

Are you willing to do that?