Is UFOlogy a Scientific Endeavor or Pseudoscience?

[russ_watters]

I never said anything like that. Having a name for something that we don’t understand does not make an event easily explainable. It means we have a name.

Just to make sure I'm clear on something: "earthlights" are an assumed to be natural, but still largely unexplained phenomena, right? If a database had a section titled "Likely Earthlights" you'd put such sightings there instead of in the "Unknown" or "Possibly ET sections, right?

Why are you randomly assigning definitions? This is a simple evasion of the facts IMO.

Its ok for a UFOologist to arbitrarily define his field, but not me? Wait, forget that - let me ask you this: would the scientists you described identify themselves as "UFOologists"? In fact, you choose not to use that label, but used "meteorologists" and "seismologists" instead. WHY? Why is it ok for you to say someone is a "seismologist" and then not ok for me to say that person is not a "UFOologist"? You just said he was a seismologist!

This again depends on your artificial limits and random assessment of the facts.

Ivan, I've been trying to set up a scientific way of addressing the question of ETUFOs. If you think I have failed, please tell me what critereon YOU would use. I hate it when people argue against the ideas of others without saying how they would do it differently.

Who is asking anyone to bet a lifetime of work?

?? Physicists don't typically spend 5 years studying physics only to decide its a waste of time and take up psycholgy, do they? If "UFOology" is a real field of science (and maybe we could continue that question in the other thread on defining it), people will someday go to school and study it for 8 years, then spend the next 40 years pursuing it. That's how every other field in science works.

First of all this is an engineering question. Commercialization! Give me a break. This again is a loaded question. What has string theory, LQG, or even GR produced? So what if the universe is accelerating.

Arrrrrg! Engineers!

Certainly Blue Book was a study designed to be practical. But that's not unreasonable, since ET, if he's here, does have immediate practical implications. Because of that, the question of whether research should be practical, though interesting, is irrelevant here.

The French study proves that UFOs deserve to be studied and it strongly suggests that ET may really be here.

Without knowing anything at all about the organization that produced that study (I'll read up on it), I can say that the only thing their conclusion "strongly suggests" to me is that they have an adjenda and didn't approach the question scientifically. I guess its possible that its a translation issue, but are you saying the wording of the conclusion and the contradiction in it didn't make you giggle even a little bit?

Well it says right in the quote that this is in lieu of any other theory that can take into account all available evidence.

Right, Sherlock Holmes again. Please tell me if you consider the process of elimination to be enough (or in this case, even, all we have to go on) to form a 95% certain scientific conclusion.

Obviously Sturrock thinks so and he’s in the rare position of having an informed opinion. I’m sure Hynek would also agree.

Wait, you misunderstood my question: I meant do any such papers exist? Those guys think study is needed, but clearly some people are studying it right now - have any of them produced anything that a scientific journal has considered compelling enough to publish?

Interesting that you define science according to the subject and not the scientific rigor applied.

You misunderstand: the subject is psuedoscience because it is not being approached scientifically. We've had this discussion before re: cold fusion. It became crackpottery when P&F made it crackpottery. And like cold fusion, the participants in "UFOology" are free, at any time, to start pursuing it scientifically - and if they do, maybe the community will give them a second glance.

Do you think Sturrock might actually be scientific in his approach?

Approach to what? Is he doing research or calling for research?

In short, your bias sets a double standard. You assume without proof that this research can yield nothing of value in spite of the fact that it has. When I point out where this has happened, you demand that this is not UFO research. To insist on ET and then demand that we can never prove he is here, and that nothing of value is likely to result is to impose an artificial safe zone that ignores the facts. This doesn’t sound very objective to me.

I consider my bias to be a bias toward the scientific method and I see your bias as a bias toward a desire to see the ET question answered in the affirmative. P&F let their "I want to believe" bias control the path of their research and they turned legitimate science into crackpottery.

It sounds to me like a rationalization to avoid the credible scientific discussion that the evidence deserves.

As I have said now, several times, the "UFOology" community is more than welcome to become a coherent body that holds credible scientific discussion at any time. I suspect the few who would approach it scientifically know that they wouldn't be able to control the vast majority who wouldn't - the insane would run the asylum. But that's their problem, not mine.

In spite of your selected quote from Condon about bluebook, this is what the Air Force has to say about it.

Sorry, it was a quick google, and I figured you'd feel a UFO site would be a reasonable source

So is it your position that the USAF doesn't know what they're talking about?

Huh? They still canceled the project, didn't they? The quote you just provided says, in essence, 'let other people deal with it if they care - we don't.' I agree wholeheartedly.

Also, again, it is important to realize that contributing members of the Condon Committee did not agree with Condon's assessment. So we see legitimate scientific debate about UFOs even from your source. Or does science depend on the opinion of only one person?

Please stop trying to pigeonhole me like that. I have said a number of times that I base my criterea on what I think the scientific community would consider correct. And despite asking you a number of times, you have yet to comment on if you think my assessment of the scientific community's position is correct. Little pot-shots like that don't help your position though: if the general scientific community agreed with you, "UFOology" would play a larger part in the mainstream scientific community. That it doesn't implies to me that their position is closer to mine than yours.

 

[russ_watters]

I think I need to reiterate the purpose of this thread. I am trying to frame scientific critereon for the investigation of UFOs. Clearly you disagree, Ivan, but do you disagree that my critereon are scientific or do you disagree with my assertion that scientific critereon should be applied? Either way, could you outline for me what your critereon are. Specifically, under what critereon can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that ET is here - and then, obviously, has that critereon been met? And as a follow-up, do you think your critereon match what the scientific community would consider reasonable (yes, I realize I am asking for speculation). And if not, what critereon do you think the scientific community would demand?

Calling for more study is an easy cop out: you must assess the probibility of success before you can reasonably decide if more study is warranted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Whewwww...I will be back. I have only had the time for hit and run PF lately.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It will take me a little time get caught up but I will start here for now.

I think I need to reiterate the purpose of this thread. I am trying to frame scientific critereon for the investigation of UFOs. Clearly you disagree, Ivan, but do you disagree that my critereon are scientific or do you disagree with my assertion that scientific critereon should be applied? Either way, could you outline for me what your critereon are. Specifically, under what critereon can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that ET is here - and then, obviously, has that critereon been met? And as a follow-up, do you think your critereon match what the scientific community would consider reasonable (yes, I realize I am asking for speculation). And if not, what critereon do you think the scientific community would demand?

Calling for more study is an easy cop out: you must assess the probibility of success before you can reasonably decide if more study is warranted.

Its really not that hard to understand. Event X allegedly happened. Depending on the significance of the data available, and depending on the number of witnesses, and depending on what people report, some number of investigators, some being complete amateurs, and others having various degrees - such as Bruce Maccabee with his Ph.D in optical physics - go out and collect as much information and evidence as possible. From there the information is reviewed, analyzed, debunked or not, and potentially plausible explanations may be presented. Often, with photographic or video evidence, one of the biggest jobs is to answer the question: Was this faked?

If after some years of scrutiny by skeptics, debunkers and true believers, and other less biased investigators, the event may stand the test of time - no evidence of a hoax or other prosaic explanations are found. At this point the information needs to be interpreted. By now several years or even decades may have passed. In fact, if we consider the McMinnville sighting in the 50's, only now can we be reasonably certain that the photos weren't hoaxed. So it may be a very long time before we even know where within the framework of the subject this event may lie.

Often the problem is that if the evidence credible, no one can imagine any explanation other than ET. In other words, often the real objection of debunkers and skeptics is that they can't imagine a non-ET explanation; so the evidence can't be good. This is really were things get stuck – it can't be real so it ain't. Often this only represents a lack of imagination, or an unwillingness to take on genuine new intellectual challenges, or simple fear of the unknown. This is why so many people fear serious discussion of UFOs – if the witnesses are to be believed, it might be ET. I don’t know if it is ET but I’m not going to run away because it might be.

So the problem here is one of classification. We don’t know what earthlights may be - if they exist which it seems that they do. We don’t know what ball lightning is but it does exist. We don’t know if other forms of plasma phenomena may exist that could account for various families of UFO reports, but it might. Over time the picture does become a bit clearer but we certainly aren’t done. Thanks to the many UFO investigators, we now know that people are seeing some things that can’t be explained. To assign a specific explanation for unidentified phenomena just to make everyone feel better is hardly good science. Unexplained [unidentified] is the correct classification – UFO.

As time passes and more good information accumulates, and as more and more people are looking and thinking and debunking, and not, a consensus will eventually emerge. Maybe the study of earthlights will help this to happen and maybe it will only hurt. In other words, we may never find earthlights to account for some of the best evidence for UFOs. In that case also a consensus will emerge. Did Col. Halt in the Rendlesham case see earthlights or not? Once we have explained earthlights we should know if that’s possible; or if other explanations are needed..

As for this question

Just to make sure I'm clear on something: "earthlights" are an assumed to be natural, but still largely unexplained phenomena, right? If a database had a section titled "Likely Earthlights" you'd put such sightings there instead of in the "Unknown" or "Possibly ET sections, right?

When possible I already do. In fact I started and linked this thread to the Rendlesham Forest UFO event and the Iran UFO in order to draw attention to the possibility of an earthly explanation; in spite of the eyewitness testimony that seeming rules this out.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=7371

As for proof of ET – could this be possible to prove? Not for some people; after all, some people still think the Earth is flat, but I think most will know if the weight of the evidence can no longer be ignored.