Ufology & Pseudoscience

[jjflash]

http://skepticblog.org/2011/08/03/not-for-skeptics-indeed-the-mufon-mob/

Not for skeptics, indeed! The MUFON meeting
by Donald Prothero, Aug 03 2011

[...]

That may be a comforting thought to the UFO fanatics, blaming our skepticism on fear that they might be right. But the answer is much simpler: to be taken seriously by scientists, they can’t just imitate the scientific method, they must actually follow the scientific method.

[...]

1. Stick to testable evidence and scientific hypotheses.

[...]

2. Toss out nearly all the evidence from personal experience and “eyewitnesses“.

[...]

3. Focus on tangible physical evidence that might stand the test of scientific scrutiny. Of course, no such evidence exists, so they fall back on ad hoc rationalizations about why various conspiracies of governments or powerful individuals or scientists have suppressed and destroyed the evidence.

4. If you want to be taken seriously by scientists, subject your best evidence to peer review for publication in reputable journals. However, since they have no solid evidence, they fall back on the usual strategy of creationists, cryptozoologists, and other pseudoscientists: hide from the scientific community and preach to the converted, then blame their situation on scientific persecution—even though they never bother to submit their ideas in the first place.

Of course, I don’t expect them to follow any of this advice, since these belief systems are deeply ingrained and give them a quasi-religious sense of comfort and meaning in their lives. In such circumstances, no amount of evidence or rational explanations for their beliefs will make a difference.
​

I'm just sayin'...

 

[tyder001]

With the above facts from jjflash which are well articulated I have a question. Would "ufology" be better off if it's adherents stopped trying to pound their way into the scientific establishment and simply adopted a "we beleive" based on our evidence? By that I mean keep doing your conference and keep writing your books and keep hoping that the "aliens" will make contact. But, don't demand that crop circles and eye witness accounts are the same as the scientific method. Doesn't mean you didn't see something, just means you don't try to make it into a science alongside biology or physics or other diciplines. Anyway, the above is not a statement by me of what I want or demand. Just a random thought while reading this thread.

 

[Randall]

With the above facts from jjflash which are well articulated I have a question. Would "ufology" be better off if it's adherents stopped trying to pound their way into the scientific establishment and simply adopted a "we beleive" based on our evidence? By that I mean keep doing your conference and keep writing your books and keep hoping that the "aliens" will make contact. But, don't demand that crop circles and eye witness accounts are the same as the scientific method. Doesn't mean you didn't see something, just means you don't try to make it into a science alongside biology or physics or other diciplines. Anyway, the above is not a statement by me of what I want or demand. Just a random thought while reading this thread.

Hey Tyder & JJ ... Both excellent posts ... here's the way were handling it at USI.

• Ufology is not defined as a science unto itself, but as a general field of interest that revolves around the topic of the UFO phenomenon.
• Science is advocated within ufology as a tool for examining whatever evidence can be processed by a valid scientific method.
• When science cannot be applied to ufology, then we advocate the use of critical thinking.

So the above as it applies to the specific question, "Would ufology be better off if it's adherents stopped trying to pound their way into the scientific establishment?" I would have to say abosolutely yes. It's an ill conceived notion in the first place. The whole thrust of a scientific effort would be to identify something that can't be directly investigated, and if it could be, it would no longer be unidentified, and therefore the "science of ufology" would become an oxymoron.

However by leaving ufology as the general field of interest, we can always preserve historical unexplained cased as aspects of ufology. We can look at ufology in the context of mythology, art and culture. It will continue to survive as a field of interest whether science proves that some UFOs of are alien craft or not.

So let's leave the real science to the real scientists and seek out their expertise only when it is needed and we actually have something they can do legitimate science with.

j.r.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

To avoid further attacks by skeptics, the ufology community needs to recognize and accept that ufology can never be a science unto itself and to stop promoting it as such.

I agree, "UFOlogy," as you have defined it: "collections of events and opinions assembled into book form for the public at large" is an outmoded, failed approach that will never be considered as truly scientific by the scientific community. However, I believe there are no problems--only solutions and I suggest a scientific, hard-data monitoring approach (conforming to the rigors of the scientific method) can be utilized to produce quality, hard, scientific data. This approach could be considered an emerging proto-scientific/ufological step toward toward scientific acceptance and may be our only hope to silence the naysayers.

e.g., if the San Luis Valley Camera Project Team is successful in its attempt to install and monitor a coordinated 24/7, seven camera surveillance net of the USA's top per-capita UFO "hotspot," the resulting potential triangulated visual data (along w/ supplemental magnetometer, gravitometer, radar, accoustic and FLIR data) in theory, will produce data that will be unequivocal and unassailable by even the most rabid debunkers. In short: there is no substitute for hard, scientific data which has been completely lacking in public "ufology" these past 65 years....

 

[tyder001]

However, playing the devils advocate here. If the camera project is inconclusive or can be explained by mundane explanations where does ufology go then? Admit there is nothing there? I don't think that would be logical but it would have to cause a re-thinking of the whole thing wouldn't it? I will never be an uber skeptic but I am skeptical of most sightings. I do think that the ole venus explanation gets old but it may be time for the researchers to step up. Especially with the modern technology we have today.

---------- Post added at 12:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 AM ----------

I know it frustrates many here but the fact is if it's a nuts and bolts ship flying through the air then somebody, somewhere should get a clear shot (picture) of it.

To me the most likely explanation if a clear picture can't be found is either a military operation or an interdimensional explanation or a pop culture mass hallutionation of some kind. The nuts and bolts folks have to stop relying on fuzzy lights and pieces of metal and indentions in the ground. They prove nothing.

 

[jjflash]

Good posts, all.

My primary beef with the UFO community is the lack of willingness to agree on standards of evidence. As I see it, this should not even be an issue, as the scientific community provides a time tested model.

To add insult to injury (and as suggested by Prothero, the author of the article I quoted), MUFON is among the worst perpetrators of pseudoscience, while hypocritically claiming to be dedicated to scientific research, no less. If we agree on definitions of terms such as speculation, conclusion, opinion and fact, we can indeed discuss any topic and all ideas are fair game. It is the scamming frauds that make their unsupported proclamations - and that MUFON consistently irresponsibly promotes - that are the bad news.

Science surely has not yet found all things bright and beautiful and all that stuff. Surely there is more to learn - more that will be wondrous... but if we allow people to just make fools of us, then shame on us all.

 

[Randall]

I agree, "UFOlogy," as you have defined it: "collections of events and opinions assembled into book form for the public at large" is an outmoded, failed approach that will never be considered as truly scientific by the scientific community. However, I believe there are no problems--only solutions and I suggest a scientific, hard-data monitoring approach (conforming to the rigors of the scientific method) can be utilized to produce quality, hard, scientific data. This approach could be considered an emerging proto-scientific/ufological step toward toward scientific acceptance and may be our only hope to silence the naysayers.

e.g., if the San Luis Valley Camera Project Team is successful in its attempt to install and monitor a coordinated 24/7, seven camera surveillance net of the USA's top per-capita UFO "hotspot," the resulting potential triangulated visual data (along w/ supplemental magnetometer, gravitometer, radar, accoustic and FLIR data) in theory, will produce data that will be unequivocal and unassailable by even the most rabid debunkers. In short: there is no substitute for hard, scientific data which has been completely lacking in public "ufology" these past 65 years....

Hey there Chris ... Your esteemed presence and commentary is much appreciated ...

I'm going to pose some counterpoint, but please keep in mind that the intent isn't to establish an argument, but to reframe the problem. I think we are actually on the same page, and by looking at it a from a different angle, it's not so dim as you're suggesting.

To start off, the quote you included above isn't so much a definition of ufology but an observation of what has constituted a large part of ufology in the past, and will continue to make up a large part of it in the future. The group I'm with ( USI ) defines ufology this way, "Ufology is a title used in reference to the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs."

Clearly the array of subject matter and activities make up ufology is too wide to be lumped solely in with science. Therefore ufology on the whole cannot be considered a science unto itself, and by extension, because inherently non-scientific activities ( history, journalism and culture ) aren't subject to the definition of pseudoscience, the field as a whole cannot be lumped into the pseudoscience basket. A unified consensus on this point will limit the maneuvering room of the naysayers and prevent them from slapping the label of pseudoscience on the whole field ( or at least prevent them from honestly doing so ).

So where does this leave ufology with respect to science ( and pseudoscience )? First of all, instances of pseudoscience can be dealt with on a case by case basis, and this will make them easier to manage from within the field. Secondly genuine science can still be performed within the field; it just won't be the "science of ufology". For example, if an astronomer were to rule out a particular object from something that your San Luis Valley Camera Project might catch ( kudos to that BTW ), they wouldn't be using ufology to rule it out, they'd be using astronomy.

By taking the above approach, we'd be finding ways to use scientific expertise, not compete with it. Scientists already have enough problems competing for resources among themselves. The last thing they need is another group wanting in to feed off their trough. The space program isn't all that's suffering. SETI also had major funding cutbacks. These are really smart people who would be far more valuable to ufology as a resource than as competitors or adversaries.

Returning to the starting point of this post, I admit that "collections of events and opinions assembled into book form for the public at large", can get tiresome from an investigative point of view, but they are still one of the best ways to inspire new interest in the field. I recently realized just how important this is when I was reviewing one of the classic cases. Instead of just skimming through it, I took the extra time to really visualize it like the kind of reader who can get a Spielberg quality mind movie going ... like someone with a fresh outlook. Take a moment to imagine ... suddenly there you are in a USAF F-86 sabre jet going into a dive from 40,000 feet straight into pursuit of a flying saucer in broad daylight ... then you do the only thing you can do ...

To me these accounts will never be obsolete or outmoded ... they will always be classics, and it's essential that they be preserved and retold to new generations. On this level, I suspect that you actually agree, and are really saying, "OK but how many times are we going to regurgitate the same old stuff in the name of UFO research?" And to this, I wholeheartedly agree that some new high quality material would sure be nice, and once again have nothing but praise for your efforts with the San Luis Valley Camera Project. It's real field work and in my mind that puts it at the heart of genuine ufology. There is simply no argument that what you are doing there is the real thing.

On a related note, you've probably heard of the Hessdalen Project ( http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml ). It is a very similar project to the San Luis Valley Camera Project, but started in Norway during 1983. I went into this over on the JREF ( James Randi ) forum, and they totally trashed it as pseudoscience ... and the Hessdalen Project scientists are real scientists. So don't be sure that you'll make any headway with the naysayers. To avoid having your project get slammed as pseudoscience, you'll need to be very careful about the context the data is collected, assembled and presented.

j.r.

 

[tyder001]

because inherently non-scientific activities ( history, journalism and culture ) aren't subject to the definition of pseudoscience, the field as a whole cannot be lumped into the pseudoscience basket.


Maybe the best single quote in this thread. I think there are times when the argument is highjacked by well meaning folks who forget that the human experience is not defined by a test tube. Still, if you are going to call something you do science then you need to be able to back it up. So, writing a book and relating an experience doesn't have to be called pseudo anything. It is what it is. Anyway, good post to get the subject back to point.

 

[Randall]

because inherently non-scientific activities ( history, journalism and culture ) aren't subject to the definition of pseudoscience, the field as a whole cannot be lumped into the pseudoscience basket.


Maybe the best single quote in this thread. I think there are times when the argument is highjacked by well meaning folks who forget that the human experience is not defined by a test tube. [highlight]Still, if you are going to call something you do science then you need to be able to back it up.[/highlight] So, writing a book and relating an experience doesn't have to be called pseudo anything. It is what it is. Anyway, good post to get the subject back to point.

Absolutely. The highlighted part in your quote really sums it up well. And if it's not science, don't call it science or present it as something that would be confused as science by the way it's formatted. Call it a personal investigation or an account of some incident(s) or experience(s), and if genuine science makes up part of the work, include it it in the proper context e.g. "The astronomer's report ( Appendix B ) rules out the planet Venus for this particular object." but avoid stuff like "Because the astronomer said it wasn't Venus is must have been an alien craft".

j.r.

 

[Randall]

Do you all think excluding eyewitness testimony is a good idea? Even though I had seen anomalous ufos, I think it is a good idea, if you want to be -scientific- about ufology. But the problem I find with repeatable examinable things, is ufos are not at our beck and call so as to put them under microscopes, as-it-were.

Hey there Simone ...

Regarding the exclusion of all eyewitness testimony. This would be a bad idea. For example, data from eyewitness testimony can be studied scientifically in the context of statistics to determine various demographics related to UFO reports. Of course when it come to the direct study of UFOs themselves, that is another story. It isn't possible to setup controlled experiments in the tradition of the scientific method. But this is where the process of critical thinking comes in.

Critical thinking is used both inside and outside the scientific method to logically deduce the most reasonable course of action or hypothesis based on any information that can be applied to the problem.

So outside the scientific method eyewitness testimony can be very valuable ... in fact it can be as valuable and reliable as the scientific method itself. How is this possible? One thing that scientific skeptics fail to mention is the concept of margin of error. They present science as being infallible while at the same time claiming that all eyewitness testimony is useless. The problem with this assumption is that it assumes science has a zero percent margin of error, and eyewitness testimony has a 100% margin of error. In actual fact, neither is true.

Human perception has well defined parameters based on scientific study, and the margin of error for human perception in healthy unimpaired individuals has been well established. That is why we can test people's vision and make corrective lenses, or determine how fast normal reflexes are ... and many other things. In highly trained individuals such as Air Force pilots, these parameters are tested very precisely and the margin of error is known for a variety of physical and mental conditions.

Science also has well defined parameters, but isn't perfect. There have been many errors in the past. Something as simple as a metric conversion error caused one of our Mars probes to crash. Another screw up put the Hubble Space Telescope mirror out of focus. Over a 10 year period over 700 incidents of errors and outright fraud were found in the medical field alone. Scientists make mistakes and science has it's bias, politics and frauds, and even when all that is all ruled out, it is a simple fact that every scientific experiment has a margin of error based on accuracy and precision combined with inherent randomness.

Scientific results are therefore not absolute. They are in reality, based on the probability that something similar will happen each time an experiment is repeated. In some cases the margin of error can be quite high and that is why we have things like quality control procedures in medicine and other manufacturing.

So the only practical difference between eyewitness testimony and the scientific method is that the margin of error in scientific experiments can be reduced to a minimum ( but never zero ), while the margin of error in eyewitness testimony may be higher ... but still far from useless.

So long as the margin of error in eyewitness testimony is lower than 100%, we can use critical thinking to distill out the useful parts and compare it with other incidents. After a while it is entirely possible that a meaningful pattern may emerge. This type of research is not unlike assembling a single fingerprint from multiple fragments from multiple crime scenes ... it can be done.

j.r.

 

[Randall]

Speaking to the ever growing segment of ufology that is ufology culture, I just watched a fun little flick called Paul.

j.r.

 

[Randall]

Imbrogno Resurfaces in Canada:

Looks like maybe the Imbrogno thread was shut down a little prematurely. According to xzonepodcast.com, Phil Imbrogno was interviewed on the topic of UFOs by Rob McConnell on January 10, 2012. Here are a few quotes:

Imbrogno: Part of my job was analyzing the way rocket fuels combust.

--------------------

Imbrogno: Many times a good deal of the people who are into UFOs don't want to beIieve UFOs are IFOs. They want to continue to believe in the phenomenon.
McConnell: Why?
Imbrogno: It's almost like a religion with the UFO people. It's like saying God doesn't exist or something." But you gotta remember that every sighting, everything in the sky doesn't have a, a ... uh ... uh ... a unknown explanation. They're not unknown, some things can be identified. because let's face it the governments of the world, the world powers have a great technology, and they're experimenting with a lot of missiles, they're experimenting with a lot of aircraft in certain areas and some of these are seen and people think they're UFOs because they really want to believe in UFOs so they discount any explanation.
McConnell: It sounds like a cult.
Imbrogno: Well it is like a cult. You know I've been involved with UFO research for a very long time, and I can tell you that from the early 70s going into the mid 70s, going into the 80s and 90s, UFO groups have become almost like religious cults. I mean I don't speak at UFO conventions anymore because when you get up there it's almost like, you know, if you don't say exactly whatever which audience wants to hear they start yelling and throwing tomatoes at you. You know yelling blasphemy. You know ... and so on. And you're big thing is, you're not talking scientific. I mean there's nothing scientific about the investigation of UFOs.

--------------------

Do we take his word for it that he was a rocket fuel analyst now too? I wonder what job that was?

But apart from just wondering what I'm supposed to believe from Imbrogno anymore, here's what really ticks me off above. He's someone who clearly knows better, yet he's trashing ufology and comparing it to religions and cults. His statements are patently false and play right into the hands of uninformed skeptics. The only thing approaching a UFO cult that I'm aware of is the Raelean Movement and they're a recognized religion in Canada and have little to do with ufology. In fact they refuse to be interviewed by ufologists.

It's also well known among us "UFO people" that most of the objects in UFO reports turn out to be something natural or manmade. In fact it's one of the first things we learn. So this nonsense that we all see UFOs because we really want to see them is just crap. The reality is that ufologists are better informed than the average person to assess possible misidentifications and other natural or manmade objects or phenomena.

Then what's this "nothing scientific about the investigation of UFOs" wisecrack? Imbrogno supposedly worked with astronomer and founder of CUFOS, the distinguished J. Allen Hynek. UFO investigations may not always be as scientific as they should or could be, but Hynek did his best to work within the spirit of science, and the MUFON field manual, for all of MUFONs shortcomings does the same. Every ufologist I know fully supports the use of science within ufology when it can be properly applied.

And lastly, is the real reason he doesn't attend UFO conferences anymore because of all the bad attendees with their rotten tomatoes? Or maybe it has more to do with that thread that Gene closed down on why he withdrew from the paranormal.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Do I take it then that this alleged host never bothered to ask Imbrogno to explain the questions about his background? Maybe when he says he was involved in rockets, he was actually setting off firecrackers.

 

[Randall]

Do I take it then that this alleged host never bothered to ask Imbrogno to explain the questions about his background? Maybe when he says he was involved in rockets, he was actually setting off firecrackers.

The interviewer is Rob McConnell of the X-Zone. He's also a USI member from way back. But we haven't exchanged emails in ages. If he knew about Imbrogno's issues with his credentials, he wasn't letting on. I should probably send him an email to get some feedback. Here is the show download page. Imbrogno just goes on during the interview to trash ufology in general ( except his own efforts of course ).

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I hope you don't mind if I take a rain check on that.

 

[Voyager]

The interviewer is Rob McConnell of the X-Zone. He's also a USI member from way back. But we haven't exchanged emails in ages. If he knew about Imbrogno's issues with his credentials, he wasn't letting on. I should probably send him an email to get some feedback. Here is the show download page. Imbrogno just goes on during the interview to trash ufology in general ( except his own efforts of course ).

Quite obviously Imbrogno is a pathological liar. He never contributed anything of value anyway. It baffles my mind: Here we have the most astounding discovery to ever confront the human race; it is dismissed as though it doesn't exist. The beings must be scratching their heads in bewilderment wondering why people haven't figured out that they are here.

 

[tyder001]

I listen to the XZone on occasion and I can tell you that Mcconnel does indeed call people to task. I don't know why he didn't here. Although, I have had a few shows downloaded from Itunes lately that were acutally older than the listed date. Maybe this show was taped before the dishonesty on Imbrogno's part was known. I have listened to this host absolutely cream some of the new agey types so this is hard to understand. Unless, it is older than the listed date. Otherwise, the host missed this one big time.

 

[Randall]

I hope you don't mind if I take a rain check on that.

Would I mind? I can't make up my mind on how to respond, so take your pick:

1. I would never be so cruel as to strap you or anybody into a chair with headphones and force them to listen to Imbrogno.
2. I was actually telling you so you you could avoid it.
3. No you must listen to it or else ... uh what ... I dunno ... people will be more impressed than less impressed?

 

[boomerang]

Finally, an explanation for the decline of our manned space program. Without Imbrogno on the job, our fuels no longer efficiently combust.

 

[TheManInBlack]

On a related note, you've probably heard of the Hessdalen Project ( Project Hessdalen - Homepage ). It is a very similar project to the San Luis Valley Camera Project, but started in Norway during 1983. I went into this over on the JREF ( James Randi ) forum, and they totally trashed it as pseudoscience ... and the Hessdalen Project scientists are real scientists. So don't be sure that you'll make any headway with the naysayers. To avoid having your project get slammed as pseudoscience, you'll need to be very careful about the context the data is collected, assembled and presented.

The funny thing is that in one of your recent exchanges with them in the UFO thread, they were quite happy to offer up an example of textbook pseudoscience themselves. This was their "null hypothesis":

All UFOs are of mundane origin.


But for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be (a) definite and not vague, and (b) falsifiable. Clearly this hypothesis fails (a), as they offer up no specific definition of what "mundane" is supposed to mean here. Surely we can agree that Venus and weather balloons are mundane and alien spacecraft anomalous, but in which category would cutting edge top-secret military aircraft fall? What about plasma balls? Or extraterrestrial weather balloons?