Ufology & Pseudoscience

[Voyager]

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?

No matter what approach is used you will have to deal with critics and debunkers. I question the efficacy of using a remote controlled and/or automated system. Proximity is an issue. If the target object is outside the range of the sensing devices being used; it would not be possible to take measurements with scientific instruments. I don't have the specifications and parameters for the instruments being deployed, but it is something that needs to be taken into consideration, You might get lucky and have a close approach by the target object. I'm not privy to all the details, we will just have to wait and see what develops.

 

[Randall]

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?

Oh man ... not the whole null hypothesis issue again. If you've beeen monitoring any of my input over on the JREF you'll already know my position. If not, then this is the short version. Based on what the null hypothesis was designed for and how it's principles are applied as outlined in the Wikipedia article, the null hypothesis is ill suited to the study of UFOs. Specifically it is a statistical methodology for testing the probability that a given premise is likely to be correct, and it's applied under relatively controlled conditions, particularly in testing medicines in control groups. Obviously UFOs don't cooperate well enough to facilitate testing under anything approaching controlled conditions. However if one gets stuck with a skeptic who won't let it go, then cite the Battelle Memorial Institute study which was an independent statistical study of over 3000 cases, the results of which showed that objects that the USAF called "unknowns", are a virtual certainty, and for something to remain unknown after such detailed study automatically makes it non-mundane thereby falsifying their particular null hypothesis.

 

[TheManInBlack]

Oh man ... not the whole null hypothesis issue again. If you've beeen monitoring any of my input over on the JREF you'll already know my position. If not, then this is the short version. Based on what the null hypothesis was designed for and how it's principles are applied as outlined in the Wikipedia article, the null hypothesis is ill suited to the study of UFOs. Specifically it is a statistical methodology for testing the probability that a given premise is likely to be correct, and it's applied under relatively controlled conditions, particularly in testing medicines in control groups. Obviously UFOs don't cooperate well enough to facilitate testing under anything approaching controlled conditions. However if one gets stuck with a skeptic who won't let it go, then cite the Battelle Memorial Institute study which was an independent statistical study of over 3000 cases, the results of which showed that objects that the USAF called "unknowns", are a virtual certainty, and for something to remain unknown after such detailed study automatically makes it non-mundane thereby falsifying their particular null hypothesis.

What they're talking about is something similar to a null hypothesis, though not technically one, and it is a valid concept as it relates to the burden of proof. The burden is on the UFO proponent to provide evidence for a new and extraordinary phenomenon* and not the skeptic to disprove it - that is, unless the skeptic opts to debunk (i.e. attempts to disprove) some report and makes positive statements (for example, "It was Venus"). In that case, the skeptic has made a positive claim and therefore also bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that what the witnesses saw was probably Venus.

* This only if he's arguing the sighting is something not just unknown, but something outside the paradigm of current science.

 

[trainedobserver]

I have mentioned John Greer's The UFO Phenomenon: Fact, Fantasy and Disinformation. I think it is one of the better UFO books I have read. While I'm sure not everyone would agree with everything he says, I am pretty sure everyone here would appreciate his discussion of science as applied to the UFO subject.

How can the numerous UFO reports throughout history have a single cause? How could all U.A.P. be one thing?How could there be one explanation?

Some explainations of course seem much more likely than others. Using the table below, to me it appears the majority of them fall under II.B, I.B.2 and 1.A.1.a.1, with a much smaller number possibly within I.A.2 or II.A.3. Unfortunately, as John Greer points out, none of these are an actually falsifiable hypothesis and therefore not really what you would call, scientific. If I remember correctly he proposes a a falsifiable hypothesis in his conclusion that says UFO reports will decrease over time. I don't think that has been the case, but I don't recall all the specifics. I'll have to dig around for my copy and refresh my memory.

To me, there is no other possible valid means in which to study ANYTHING other than some application of the scientific method. In all cases you must ask a question, construct a hypothesis, and construct an experiment that will disprove you:

• Ask a Question
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Construct an Experiment that will prove your hypothesis false if successful.
• Analyze Data
• Adjust Hypothesis
• Repeat

If that isn't working for a Ufology then we either aren't asking the right questions or we aren't constructing valid experiments. It in no way indicates that the scientific method is inappropriate for the study of UFOs.

In the case of the USAF it appears their question was/is, "Are they a threat?" Their conclusion apparently being "No" or "No threat we can counter."

Here is the hypothesis breakdown from the book again. I think John M. Greer would make a great guest on the Paracast, and he can certainly talk about much more than UFOs.

UFOs are either ...1
I. Material objects, and are either …
A. Artificial, and are either …
1. Made by human beings ….
a. On the earth …
1. At the present time--anthropogenic hypothesis.
2. In the far future--time travel hypthesis.
b. Or somewhere else--intraterrestrial hypothesis.
2. Or made by nonhuman beings …
a. On the earth--cryptoterrestrial hypothesis.
b. Or somewhere else--extraterrestrial hypothesis.
B. Or natural, and are either …
1. Living things--zoological hypothesis.
2. Nonliving natural phenomena--geophysical hypothesis.
II. Or apparitions, and are either …
A. Objectively real, and are either...
1. Best understood via Christian theology--demonic hypothesis.
2. Or best understood via alternative faiths--ascended masters hypothesis.
3. Or best understood outside either option--ultra-terrestrial hypothesis.
B. Or only subjectively real, and are either …
1. Produced by the nervous system--neurological hypothesis.
2. Or produced by perceptual and psychological factors--null hypothesis.

1. Table 2, pg 151, The UFO Phenomena: Fact, Fantasy, and Disinformation. John Micheal Greer, 2009.

 

[Randall]

Train,

The scientific method is ill suited to the study of UFOs because of a lack of repeatable testing of empirical measurable evidence under controlled conditions. These are essential facets of the scientific method. Perhaps in an established science where certain factors are self evident, like meteorology, the rules can be bent a bit, but with UFOs we're not talking about something like clouds or wind or lightning ... things we know exist with absolute certainty. We're talking about things that are alien to our understanding and civilization, and if we try to pretend we are doing actual science without having the essential requirements in place, we will be open to criticism and charges of pseudoscience. To avoid such charges we can either discuss the topic in an informal fashion or apply the process of critical thinking. Informal discussion is what takes place here and is what most authors engage in when they write about the subject. Critical thinking falls between hard science and informal discussion and is a process not unlike what you have described above to evaluate how likely something is to be true. It may include evidence gained from legitimate scientific inquiry as well as anything else that is supported by logic and reason. Lastly, when genuine science can be applied to the study of UFOs, it should be done by independent scientists trained in their respective fields. Enlisting the help of genuine scientists will not only eliminate any perception of bias, it will help to foster respect for ufology as a field of interest.

 

[mike]

Apollo 14 plus 41: The unexpected benefit of Edgar Mitchell - Phoenix ufo | Examiner.com

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Never happen to much BS from the tinfoil hat brigade which make the Science Community wary of those who suggest they have all the answers rather no one has the answers just theories. Rather just listening to Don's Darkmatters , Gene & Chris Paracast Shows while having Irish whiskey

 

[Thabtos]

Train,

The scientific method is ill suited to the study of UFOs because of a lack of repeatable testing of empirical measurable evidence under controlled conditions.

A hypothetical-deductive model isn't ill-suited to studying UFO's.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[14]

 

[Randall]

A hypothetical-deductive model isn't ill-suited to studying UFO's.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[14]

Thabtos,

Interesting approach. It seems to fall in there between Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method and runs into some of the same issues as the Scientific Method. In both cases ( HDM & SM ) the meaningful testing of predictions requires controlled conditions and empirical measurable evidence, something the UFO phenomenon does not readily volunteer for. About as close as we can come to deducing a prediction is to suggest the probability of an incident at some time and place based on the analysis of historical records. But this doesn't come close to the kind of predictions that are made using formulas in controlled laboratory conditions, or even conditions where we have a regular repetition of phenomena, such as in astronomy. It is still barely better than pure conjecture, even if the prediction is correct once in a while. Where Critical Thinking can help fill the gap begins at step 2 in your outline. Instead of deducing a prediction, deduce the most likely explanation by continued distillation of the available evidence until the fewest possibilities remain. If in the meantime an opportunity arises to make a prediction that can be tested ... by all means do so and add the results to the overall body of information and continue the process. And if at some point empirical evidence should present itself ... great ... get some real scientists to examine it.

 

[boomerang]

Train,
The scientific method is ill suited to the study of UFOs because of a lack of repeatable testing of empirical measurable evidence under controlled conditions.

This is near the heart of the matter.

Are there classes of phenomena that are real-- not "visionary or fictitious"-- but cannot be studied and verified as tangible by the scientific method? The ufo phenomenon may be one such example. It continues to elude rational analysis. And yet it refuses to lapse into the realm of the imaginary by leaving just enough "evidence" to live at the interface of mind and matter. What impresses me most is the level of control over our reality required to do this.

 

[Randall]

This is near the heart of the matter.

Are there classes of phenomena that are real-- not "visionary or fictitious"-- but cannot be studied and verified as tangible by the scientific method? The ufo phenomenon may be one such example. It continues to elude rational analysis. And yet it refuses to lapse into the realm of the imaginary by leaving just enough "evidence" to live at the interface of mind and matter. What impresses me most is the level of control over our reality required to do this.

A very interesting comment. I've been reviewing some of John Mack's work lately and he delivers some very similar thoughts on the phenomenon. But what if what seems to be a level of control is actually a byproduct of their technology and not necessarily intentional ... the Persinger EM effect for example. If that's the case then they aren't controlling everything and are still dependent on and/or limited by the workings of their technology.

 

[boomerang]

[quote="ufology, post: 124388, member: 2682"But what if what seems to be a level of control is actually a byproduct of their technology and not necessarily intentional ... the Persinger EM effect for example. If that's the case then they aren't controlling everything and are still dependent on and/or limited by the workings of their technology.[/quote]

Well, the phenomenon seems to intrude into our reality in such a way that it is undeniably seen or experienced. But historically, it also seems to deny itself, often in scenarios that play out over weeks, months, and even years. The trace evidence left behind is always either initially marginal, or becomes so by virtue of subsequent events. A possible example is Roswell, where we have on video record a number of very credible witnesses who have seen and touched incredible things that have apparently since vanished. The late Congressman Steven Schiff found that records of all communications coming out of the Roswell air base from certain crucial years (1947 ?) have been totally "destroyed". Was the untimely demise of Mr. Schiff himself part of the Roswell paradigm, or simply within bounds of coincidence? Coincidence probably. And Roswell may have been a very unusual kind of human 'black ops'. But nothing related to the phenomenon is as it seems to be.

Cash Landrum is another enduring mystery. Medical records of the witnesses' injuries should constitute a kind of hard evidence amenable to scientific analysis. Alas, those too seem to have vanished. Although as is typical, we have on video record testimony by one of their doctors of strange symptoms and afflictions.

Sorry to ramble on. I guess my point is that something of sentient purpose seems to be at work here. Of course, this perception could be part of the overall illusion as well.

 

[trainedobserver]

The scientific method is ill suited to the study of UFOs because of a lack of repeatable testing of empirical measurable evidence under controlled conditions....

That is incorrect. There is no other viable and reliable method of obtaining knowledge than the scientific method. If you are looking for real knowledge that is.

To avoid such charges we can either discuss the topic in an informal fashion or apply the process of critical thinking. Informal discussion is what takes place here and is what most authors engage in when they write about the subject.

I think you are correct there. What we engage in here is speculation. I've never thought otherwise. What the UFO community engages in by and large is speculation. Some wilder than others. A few apparently do real field work and are attempting to apply the scientific method in attempt to obtain actual knowledge. I would submit to you that Ray Stanford and Chris O'brien are making such attempts with their efforts. I think Chris's camera project qualifies as a attempt to use science and the scientific method to bear on the problem. Vallee certainly used the scientific method in his analysis of UFO data in ANATOMY OF A PHENOMENON Unidentified Objects in Space - 1965.

Lastly, when genuine science can be applied to the study of UFOs, it should be done by independent scientists trained in their respective fields. Enlisting the help of genuine scientists will not only eliminate any perception of bias, it will help to foster respect for ufology as a field of interest.

So very true. Independent researchers such as Ray and Chris HAVE to submit their data to professional scientists trained in the respective fields or its usefulness is questionable.

 

[Sentry]

The recurring presence of hoaxes through the history of UFOs must make the study of the phenomena even more difficult. It must be more satisfying to study an area where something either is or isn't, and you don't have the risk of hoaxes contaminating the work.

 

[trainedobserver]

The recurring presence of hoaxes through the history of UFOs must make the study of the phenomena even more difficult. It must be more satisfying to study an area where something either is or isn't, and you don't have the risk of hoaxes contaminating the work.

It happens everywhere and in everything. Anthropology has its hoaxes as well as physics.

 

[Randall]

Train,

I think there is a bit of a communication gap going on regarding the scientific study of UFOs. I'm not saying that the scientific method isn't a good way of extracting the truth about things. In fact, it's the best we have, but only when it can be properly applied, and that requires empirical measurable evidence that can be tested under controlled conditions. Because UFOs aren't likely to volunteer either the evidence or subject themselves to testing, if we restrict ourselves to the scientific method alone, we'll either get nothing done or we'll have to make compromises that will land us in the field of pseudoscience. Therefore we need to employ other ways of studying the information we have. One way is called Critical Thinking and more recently the Hypothetical-Deductive model has been proposed. When we compare these methods with respect to how well each can be applied to ufology, it is quite clear that given the evidence and conditions we have to work with, the scientific method is at present the most ill suited. I hope this helps to clear things up.

 

[trainedobserver]

UFO,

We can sit around and think about things all we like, but unless we have empirical evidence to support our thinking we do not acquire knowledge.

Objects that fly in the air do lend themselves to scientific study if you have the right instruments and techniques to capture data about them. That is what is lacking.

 

[Randall]

UFO,
We can sit around and think about things all we like, but unless we have empirical evidence to support our thinking we do not acquire knowledge.
Objects that fly in the air do lend themselves to scientific study if you have the right instruments and techniques to capture data about them. That is what is lacking.

Glad we cleared that up. We'd all like to see some valid scientific progress where ufology is concerned. In the meantime we can still acquire knowledge through study and reasoning and extrapolation. Scientifically proving every claim doesn't have to take place for us to make progress. It is entirely possible that we can make progress without it. If and when we can provide verification of that progress, then we can begin making scientific claims. In the meantime we still need to watch the sky, try to explain the sightings, interview the witnesses, consider the cases we have at our disposal, and try to have some fun along the way. By doing this I truly believe some knowledge of some kind is sure to manifest itself ... somehow ... some way.

 

[tyder001]

Indeed, we should use the science (knowledge, diciplines) that we have. But, there are ways of knowing such as experiencing something that may not be reducible to our "current" understanding of reality. Now, does that mean we should abandon reason and consult witch doctors or crystals? Heavens NO! But, we may be dealing with something that we don't have the "current" tools for. Now I agree with Trained in that if it flies across the sky and does areial acrobatics then yes, we should be able to measure that. But, we may need another way of accessing knowledge as far as abductions or the "claims" of alien contact. I don't really know. To be honest I'm not even sure there is something going on beyond this planet. I have seen things myself that I can't idenify but I don't project aliens or gods or demons onto it. I also, would more than likely say it was simply a military operation (many are I betcha.) But, there are sightings from the ancient past that just don't lend themselves to the U.S. military. Maybe I'm watching to many documentaries on the Science Channel these days. It really is a neat channel. But, our scientific knowledge, like our technololgy, is growing by leaps and bounds. But, we are still infants in the greater universe.

 

[tyder001]

I also wonder if the abduction and u.f.o. phenomenon are two different things. But, I do have to admit that most of the abduction material that I read is proceeded or at least connected to u.f.o.'s by the experiencers so how do we really seperate it? Or should we?