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.

 

Pseudo-Science of Anti-Ufology

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
A new Article by Stanton Friedman discusses the problem we face in UFOlogy with
Debunkers calling themselves scientists barking out false and unproven facts and people taking their word as gospel without researching for themselves.



SUMMARY

For more than 60 years the primary approach by the media and scientific communities to the subject of UFOs and Flying Saucers has been based on pseudo-science. Proclamations and attacks, often given the appearance of being scientific, have been launched at every aspect of the phenomena. Despite an enormous array of real evidence and data, we have been treated to false claims, false reasoning, bias and ignorance. The basic rules of pseudo-science have been followed, including especially that there are no good reasons to present solid scientific information, that absence of evidence in the hands of the writers and proclaimers is proof of absence of such evidence, that everything claimed by a debunker must be true, that everything claimed by a believer is false, that one must denigrate “believers” and “buffs”, but accept all attacks as legitimate.

NEED TO LOOK AT EVIDENCE

Most graduate students are taught to begin a new research project with a literature search. See what has already been published before doing ones own work. No sense reinventing the wheel and certainly don’t make claims that can be destroyed by those more familiar with relevant past publications. Yet one of the most common and distressing aspects of the pseudo-scientific anti-Ufological literature is the failure of the pseudo-scientists to do their homework before putting their mouths or computers in gear. I am referring to evidence about large scale studies of sightings, landings, abductions, multiple witness radar visual cases, saucer crashes, government cover-ups, etc. As somebody very much concerned with advanced nuclear and space technology, I have been appalled by the silly pseudo-scientific statements that have been made about space travel, high acceleration travel and interstellar travel. As the original civilian investigator of the Roswell Incident, and a long-term investigator of the abduction of Betty and Barney Hill, I am equally appalled at the unscientific arguments made against these two bell-weather cases. The common features of these attacks include:

A. A failure to look at the literature that is available about all of these.

B. An unwillingness to recognize that the “specific details of how something is to be done” are very much more important than broad general notions about the laws of physics.

C. An enormous arrogance in thinking that if certain things were true or certain technologies were real, these all-wise pseudo-scientists would know about them. They don’t, so the notions must not be true. None of this is to say that there hasn’t been a lot of pro-UFO garbage published as well. But Ufologists tend to be critical of their own kind. The pseudo-scientific anti-Ufologists never seem to want to critique another debunker no matter how false the claims. They repeat the claims rather than pointing out the fallacies.


Here is a link to the Full Article.

The problem is they are going to continue to make these unfounded statements until we step up and call them on it each and every time it happens, and if we don't, how many people are going to get the wrong idea out of sheer blind trust in someone with a title?




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Where do we start? Where do we go from there? How can we actually get the word out, not only to people on this site, but to ordinary people who don't have a view on this subject one way or the other?

My thought has always been simply posting on this site is preaching to the choir. But how can we really get the word out to others?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I would have to say to Stan, he who lives in glass houses should not throw stones.

He shares the stage of blame for why modern Ufology is in the sad state that it is in. Great, yeah he can write an article. I would have to say that most of the regular posters (the op in this case included) could have written the same article. It is not rocket science, we all know what needs to be done, we just don't have the ability to do it because, really, there is NO SUCH THING AS UFOLOGY. That is the sad, but true fact. There is no central study, no real organization, it is a free-for-all of well meaning folks, nutcases, well meaning nutcases, charlatans, ignorant joes with moderate interest, deluded individuals who see patterns in everything.....you get the idea.

Until Ufology actually becomes UFOLOGY, then there is no hope. Stan knows this, but if there was real organization he also knows his status and level would not be near as high as his swelled head thinks it should be. Stan would get eaten alive by a well organized machine.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
When ufology was half its current age, I won an international science prize for this essay (Stanton never forgave me for preventing his essay from winning). Has anything changed for the better in the ensuing decades?

The failure of the 'science' of Ufology
www.debunker.com...



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock87
 


We have to suck it up and be brave and start talking about the facts of this subject more often. We are all guilty of being quiet about our studies occassionally. It is time we stop being quiet and stop worrying about facing ridicule and start making people more aware and sharing the facts with them.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Question is would a college or university hire a professor to teach UFO-OLOGY?

No pre-recs required and I would attend it just to check it out would be kind of fun.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Friedman's article is a poor and childish opinion piece trying to be a scholarly paper. His argument is built on straw man arguments, a lack of specifics, quotes decades old and immature insults (for example calling SETI -- Silly Effort to Investigate or every scientist who ever made a mistake a "pseudo-scientist." One must assume Friedman must believe he has never made a mistake). Though it's purpose is to shame mainstream scientists in to taking the UFO phenomenon more seriously, it is so unprofessional that it can only have the opposite effect.

I have not been here long, but I've noticed a disturbing trend, that being interest in UFOs is more about personal validation than finding the truth. It seems many here are not interested in proving the existence of alien-life, but instead shaming and proving skeptics wrong. There is a difference.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Stanton friedman is a joke,like another poster said.He is one of the culprits as to why people think it is not a serious subject matter.I can't believe he actually has the nerve to write something like this.The faster people shun this man and call him out for what he is will be a small step in regaining credibility for serious research into ufo's.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Solomons]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


I am not familiar with the man. I pay more attention to the evidence than the people arguing it most of the time. That is what is most important to me personally. I will NOT S H U N someone offhand without cause just because people say I should do so. Should I happen across more of his work and find it counter productive to UFOlogy I will at that point log him into my mental rolladex in the same category as Profit Yahweh and Jaime Maussan.

Until then.. I have no opinion of the man, other than he made a good point in this article.




[edit on 30-5-2009 by NephraTari]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
The UFO Town Meeting! This show will deal with the UFO enigma andwhat the truth is. I will have on my show guests such as Dennis Balthaser, Stanton Friedman, and others pro and con that will show how the UFO Enigma has effected us in the world today!

Stanton at the ready. They give some background, nuclear physicist if
I recall.

The Original Air Date: 9/5/2008 12:00 PM
The UFO Town Meeting! is at the page bottom.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


NephraTari -interesting post, I certainly think some UFO debunkers have a 'psychological need' to debunk cases - irrespective of any facts that might get in the way.
I've also noticed that many are loathe to address certain incidents -instead preferring to just concentrate on the vague 'easy to explain away ' ones.

I suspect the mindset of the UFO cynic is far more dogmatic then pragamtic - perhaps they've got more in common with 'people who beleive everything is a UFO' than they like to think.
Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Whilst there may be the odd person who claims knowledge that later gets disproven on the sceptical end of the spectrum - the vast majority of ignorance is weighted on the believers end.

I've read far too many posts here and elsewhere that claim proof in the most minutia of detail and stand by steadfast for any 'annoying sceptic' to come along and attempt to disprove it.

It breaks my spirit a little more every day when I read ignorant believers and their attempts to hold onto beliefs that can't be substantiated.

Maybe Orgone energy exists and William Reich has it right all along.

Perhaps Carl Baugh was right and the Earth is only 4000 years old.

It's possible that web-bots can predict the future through poetic license gibberish extrapolated from popular internet terms.

But since these things aren't repeatable, verifiable or quantifiable they are not science.

Like UFOlogy.

-m0r



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
Whilst there may be the odd person who claims knowledge that later gets disproven on the sceptical end of the spectrum - the vast majority of ignorance is weighted on the believers end.


Have to politely disagree there - the average man in the street who
gives the (conditioned?) response that 'UFOs are just a lot of silly nonsense' often has absolutely no idea that some truly perplexing UFO cases actualy exist.

Call it wilfull ignorance if you want but I find it interesting that some of the more noisy armchair debunkers on these boards will not even concede that the Condon Report could well have arrived at the opposite conclusion had they been a little more objective and not so agenda based.


The prestigious American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Professional society of the aerospace industry, stated:

"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from its content, namely that a phenomenon with such a high rate of unexplained cases (about 30%) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
When ufology was half its current age, I won an international science prize for this essay (Stanton never forgave me for preventing his essay from winning). Has anything changed for the better in the ensuing decades?


Jim, if we put our egos aside for one moment then hopefully we can engage in meaningfull discussion.

Hell even if you ignore all else but the police reports then its apparent something strange is going on.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Karl 12, in your responses to Oberg and M0r1arty had nothing to do with their comments. You take them both out of context to make your point; in the case of Oberg, you pull off the amazing feat of quoting him in full and still taking him out of context.

Oberg was commenting on the sad state of Ufology; his comment had nothing to do with whether or not something strange had happened sometime in history. You engage in the worst sort of tactic used by believers. When challenged by a skeptic, you load a rhetoric shotgun with UFO-sighting bird-pellets and fire away. If the skeptic cannot explain any one of those cases, you declare that it proves UFOs are piloted by aliens. You fail to understand that failing to provide an alternative explanation does not make your explanation right by default. Just because someone else is wrong does not make you right.

Your responses to Oberg and M0r1arty prove M0r1arty's comment, which you had to ignore to make your point:


I've read far too many posts here and elsewhere that claim proof in the most minutia of detail and stand by steadfast for any 'annoying sceptic' to come along and attempt to disprove it.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
This is the first time I have stared and flagged a UFO thread. I do not understand the phenomena. I know it exists. I know both my mother and wife have seen them yet I have not. I believe that if their are UFOs then their darn well could be freaky little visitors abducting the heck out of humanity messing with folks for what ever bizarre reason the justify it with.

By and large it is not a topic I spend alot of time on. I accept and move on because I doubt I can understand it much or do anything about it... nor do I see it having a significant role in my life . That said I understand it is some peoples passion and for what its worth I hope you get full disclosure in your life time.

I liked this thread in particular because it addresses the pseudo skeptic and BUNK SCIENCE.

Like Egyptology. Now there is a field of science that makes as much sense to me as Frenchology. Even my Mozilla spell checker recognizes Egyptology but not Frenchology. The anti ufo folks are in the same run in vein in my mind.

Photos, film, EVEN blue book had a few things in it marked unexplainable.

Why should those that don't believe in Extraterrestrial Life be so adamant convincing others of their view point?

Pseudo-skeptics.... Kinda like the real thing only with more ignorance.

Deny their ignorance yall.

Good luck with disclosure .



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


DoomsdayRex - fuzzy logic and giddy assumptions notwithstanding I'm sure Jim Oberg is mature and secure enough to speak for himself.
For what its worth I'm not that particularly impressed by any of your opinions either but it would be nice if you actualy addressed some of the points raised (nowhere did I state UFOs were piloted by aliens - I suspect thats just you being melodramatic and attempting to muddy the water).

Heres the definition of a UFO/OVNI for future reference:


"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.


As for the state of Ufology -I think ,if anything, the state of 'UFO debunkery' is in crisis as there are more and more genuine unknowns being reported each year:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I also find it revealing that armchair cynics abjectly refuse to address the USO subject:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you've not seen it before,theres an interesting link here about the failure of science to investigate the UFO subject:


Science and the Failure To Investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (pdf):
www.freedomofinfo.org...


Theres also some interesting commments made here about government reports and genuine unknowns:
fr.answers.yahoo.com...

As for Dr Condon - it could very well be the case that the man had his 'recommendations and conclusions' well prepared before he even got started.
Many people (including my good self) beleive his report to be nothing more than a complete and utter whitewash.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
I liked this thread in particular because it addresses the pseudo skeptic and BUNK SCIENCE.


Titorite-theres an interesting thread here about pseudoscepticism and the techniques employed:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Cheers.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


I think the reason for this is one of two things.

1. They know its real and are on a mission to make sure people not become aware of the reality of the nature of most UFO's.

OR

2. They are not interested in the truth because deep down they already believe but do not want to admit it, even to themselves because they are afraid if they admit that it is possible.. they have to consider what that might mean and perhaps their own ideas scare them.

Personally for the most part I do not feel we have much to fear from those currently visiting. This has been going on from time immemorial. There are cave paintings and petroglyphs and passed down stories of how they have visited us and helped us all throughout our history. Saving some when global catastrophe's have occured in earth's past. How do you think we survived the Ice Age and other such catastrophic changes?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I just had a thought about ancient UFOs and the need for some people to
be leaders.

Like the more angels you say you have talked to might make
you a head man to the spiritually active.

The more spinning wheels one saw the bigger the following.
As this was noted to draw a crowd and picked up on every
generation had these visions.

The best anyone has seen of unknown craft were the Phoo/Foo and
Belgian Triangle as the only well detailed in structure for a TV series
and all the rest are puffs of light seen on youtube that might as well
be the Phoo/Foos again.

Such Foos obviously grown in numbers bases on fleet sightnings
in Mexico and now in The Bronx NY NYC.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join