It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is UFOlogy a science or a belief system?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I'm new to this forum and when I read the many intersting posts here I notice two ways of looking at the whole question of UFO/ETs. On the one hand you have what I would call a more scientific approach. Looking at facts and their sources with a critical eye. On the other hand I see many people hinting at more of a belief system that in their mind seems to transcends science and is more about personal experience and beliefs. As a skeptic I personally have concerns about the second approach but to each his/her own I guess.

Also, I read things like Bob Lazar's statements about Area 51 being used as factual evidence when I know he has been basically discredited by Ufologists like Stanton Friedman.

So I ask you, is Ufology a science or a belief system?




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Delta 38

So I ask you, is Ufology a science or a belief system?


For some it's science, a belief system, or nonsense, for others me included, it is reality.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
IMO, it is according to your state of mind or how you view life experiences.
If you look at life scientifically, skeptically, then perhaps it would be a science.
If you see life as an adventure, and spiritually, then it is a belief system.
As the last poster suggests to quite a few of us it is the only REALITY.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Ufology can be a science. Most of what you'll read here is pseudoscience (that is, something that sounds scientific but is really flawed crap) or personal belief.

Science requires repeatable phenomena (not necessarilly in a lab, just something that occurs more than once. UFOs do that). It also must follow the scientific method (this is where most people falter). There is a small number of ufologists that actually do it right. The main problem is that most people have a set idea of what theya re (ie alien spacecraft), and view everything they see in that light.

So, in other words, what you're likely to read from individual people is not science. What you'll read from professional organizations looking into the matter is (which is why the only conclusion you can have is that UFO's exist, and cannot make any statements as to what they are).



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Wow!! Great Question!!

I have heard it said that U.F.O.'s offer an alternative for those unable to accept organized religon, but then again U.F.O.'s have been picked up on radar, when was the last time anybody spotted Jesus on radar?

By the way isn't skepticism a belief system in and of itself? The belief that unless you can hold it in your hand it's not real, and even if you can it's suspect.

Just my opinion.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I think the 'believing' part is just a natural defense against the forces which do not seem to want this subject studied. Normally in Science you might have people who disagree with your conclusions but they do not get in the way with such passion.

So it takes a step of faith to accept that there is something to study, but after that most try and look with logic and objectivity. Even the most ardent UFO person will admit that they have been taken in a time or two.

There is also a huge natural resistance to these ideas, they scare people plain and simple. That also has to be overcome by anyone who wants to look at the subject seriously.



A.T
(-)



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Web definition

is the term describing the study of the UFO (unidentified flying object) phenomena, including "claims"(being the key word) that some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles manned by aliens.





[edit on 4-5-2005 by logic_tank]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
There is enough publicly available evidence for the subject to be considered a science. Though at the moment I would prefer to describe UFOlogy as criminal investigation hampered by provable government coverup. Proving the reality of UFOs would make even bigger liars out of our governments. Once the subject has the evidence confiscation and governmental public denial of its reality removed from it, it can become a science.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Frith]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   
there is ? i have seen videos of ligths in the sky. can you give me a link to a clip of one landing and the aliens getting out ?

Though so.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by logic_tank
there is ? i have seen videos of ligths in the sky. can you give me a link to a clip of one landing and the aliens getting out ?

There is.....what? Evidence for the existence of UFOs? Sure. But first I would like to go about getting rid of the government coverup of the subject first because all the really good evidence keeps getting locked away. There are several government documented cases that can prove this. Most especially the declassified papers and audio from the 1965 Edwards Air Force Base UFO incident. Though other cases like the 1980 Rendlesham event, the 2000 Illinois Triangle event, and the 1957 RB-47 UFO encounter make our governments out to be liars as well.

As for the physical evidence you require now. There is a bunch of physical trace samples from UFO landings. Plus witness testimony. Note that I do not consider these things proof. Just evidence. I do consider the government documented cases of UFO incidents as proof of the coverup though. I would prefer to get the coverup out of the way first before taking on the more serious issue of exactly what we're dealing with concerning the reality of UFOs.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Frith]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frith

As for the physical evidence you require now.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Frith]


you make physical evidence sound like a dirty word. After all its what REAL science based on.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by logic_tank
you make physical evidence sound like a dirty word. After all its what REAL science based on.

I guess I can't communicate with you. I typed in my previous reply that there are physical trace samples of UFO landings, but that the majority of such physical evidence is most likely confiscated in a provable, yes I state provable, government coverup. UFOlogy at the moment is a criminal investigation, not a science as I made mention in my original post here. Bits and pieces of information and evidence that combines to form a damning case against the people who continue to hide its reality.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   
That part is true. Im not trying to hassle ATS members. I just need a little more proof then the next guy or girl.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
That part is true. Im not trying to hassle ATS members. I just need a little more proof then the next guy or girl.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Is UFOlogy science or a belief system?

Science - Definition 1a:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.(1)

Given this definition, ufology can be clearly classified as a science.

If you believe the prominent skeptics (Philip Klass et. al.) UFO's do not exist therefore there is no "real" phenomena to observe,describe,investigate, or explain.

Which area of science ufology falls under, however, is a hotly debated subject.


The subject of ET/UFO phenomenon, IMHO, is not based on any "Theism" per se so it is not a belief system.


(1) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   


Is UFOlogy a science or a belief system?


It's nothing more than a word...it's how it's approached that governs whether it is a "belief" or a "science".



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The answer is both. The same could be said for evolution.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Ufology, if studied properly, is a science, in my opinion. The trouble is that most ufologists do not approach this topic scientifically. I think there are many who treat it as a belief system, just as some people treat NWO or psychic phenomena as a belief system. Such topics may certainly be studied scientifically, and should be studied, in my opinion, but most people who are involved with ufology or my other examples, for the most part, don't appear to me to be very credible or knowledgable. There are exceptions to this, of course.

To quote from Esoterica's earlier post, who must have read my mind (
) "Ufology can be a science. Most of what you'll read here is pseudoscience (that is, something that sounds scientific but is really flawed crap) or personal belief." pretty much sums up my thoughts, as well.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
A 'belief System' typically explains ones position in the Universe. So while I accept that the topic could serve as the basis for a belief system I think you will find that is a very small fraction of the people involved.

Science at it's very core is an honest attempt to learn. So to me that is the line that divides people, are you trying to learn more about the subject or just to convince people that what you believe is correct. So many times attempts to convince are based on false information that it just makes the waters so muddy.

Few people have any serious Science training, most are doing the best they can to be objective and to sort truth from falsehood.

Try finding that in a Belief System.


A.T
(-)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join