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.

 

Ufology is a scientific field of study

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Of course Ufology is a scientific field of study and should be offered as a class in colleges.

Ufology is the study of an observed phenomena called Unidentified Flying Objects. Nobody denies that U.F.O.'s exist, there's just different theories as to what these UFO's are.

This makes it a legitimate field of study.

You have the E.T. Hypothesis, government cover up or some kind of atmospheric explanation.

A Physicist can talk about invisible parallel universes that have never been seen or measured and he/she is called a genius. When you talk about U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects) that have been seen and measured on radar then they say your on the "fringe."

Give me a break!




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


However much we want to pretend, Ufology is not a science. To put it simply, science is...


...any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice. In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.


Within that definition we can already see the differences between Ufology and the (for lack of a better term) proper sciences. There are the vestiges of science, such as observation and the creation of a hypothesis. But there many differences. For instance, there are no testable predictions or repeatable tests or peer review process.

Your comparison between a physicist discussing parallel universes and a Ufologist show many UFO fans do not understand the differences. The physicist does not just make-up the theory off the top of his head and it is accepted by his peers. He makes a prediction based off observable phenomenon, devises a way for this prediction to be tested or barring that, producing a mathematical equation that (in theory) proves the hypothesis, that is studied, repeated and reviewed by his peers in a review process. Ufology does not or cannot do this.

(Understand that I am a layman and do understand I have described the above in very simple terms)

Ufology could become an interdisciplinary field, if so-called Ufologists would play within the established rules of science.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
UFO's will be used in a new school subject in the UK.

Pupils to be taught 'how to think' in GCSE-style course

But I don't think it can be thought as science; the subject is more like religion.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Interesting. I would like to see a 101 ufology course too. Though I disagree with the subject being a science. In all fairness (I'm mostly a believer btw) ufology is pseudoscience. There are elements of science and the related, but the subject is so illusive, involves possibly multiple or more than one conspiracy. Had the community been rid of the charlatans from day one I would have stated it to be a science, but the new-age cultists and money grabbers make it very difficult to be taken seriously. For those who are not well-versed or researched the subject properly, it would seem like just a bunch of hoaxes and mis-identifications.

So personally, I find two aspects to the subject; a serious one, and a fringe one. Take your pick.


Regards,



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 



You just described Ufology.

Ufology can be tested through the mathematical process. Have you heard of Drake's equation? Have you heard of Seti or Dyson Spheres?

What about trace evidence?

Over the past 38 years, specialized research into Close Encounters of the Second Kind has resulted in a wealth of reports in every major country of the world. CPTR files contain 3,189 trace/landing cases from 91 countries. I believe physical traces present us with the most direct approach to resolving the mystery of UFOs.

www.ufophysical.com...

I don't see trace evidence for Parallel universes. I don't see radar reports on Parallel universes.

I have never seen a Parallel Universe but I have seen three U.F.O.'s.

Ufology has been peer-reviewed. Everything from crop circirles to extraterrestrial civilizations.

DR ELTJO HASELHOFF is one of the few people on planet Earth to have had a paper published on crop circles in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (‘Physiologa Plantarum’). His paper asserts that the long-recognised connection of crop circles to balls of light may be even stronger than many think. Here, in layman’s terms, Dr Haselhoff outlines the important findings of his paper.

www.swirlednews.com...

Here's more peer reviewed papers on the topic of Ufology.

www.tjresearch.info...

Here's a paper about Plasma life forms.

The universe is filled with massive clouds of dust. From past studies, scientists have learned that this cosmic dust can, in the presence of plasma, creates formations known as plasma crystals. An international team of researchers published a study in the Aug.14, 2007, issue of the New Journal of Physics that indicates that these crystals may be more sophisticated than anyone realized. In simulations involving cosmic dust, the researchers witnessed the formation of plasma crystals displaying some of the elementary characteristics of life -- DNA-like structure, autonomous behavior, reproduction and evolution.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Here's one more.

No study of the galaxy should neglect the question "How many advanced civilizations are there?" Fortunately, an astronomer in Scotland, Duncan Forgan, has worked out how the various theories about the origin of planets, the development of life and the growth of civilizations can be compared.

Abstract: The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) has been heavily influenced by solutions to the Drake Equation, which returns an integer value for the number of communicating civilisations resident in the Milky Way, and by the Fermi Paradox, glibly stated as: "If they are there, where are they?". Both rely on using average values of key parameters, such as the mean signal lifetime of a communicating civilisation. A more accurate answer must take into account the distribution of stellar, planetary and biological attributes in the galaxy, as well as the stochastic nature of evolution itself. This paper outlines a method of Monte Carlo realisation which does this, and hence allows an estimation of the distribution of key parameters in SETI, as well as allowing a quantification of their errors (and the level of ignorance therein). Furthermore, it provides a means for competing theories of life and intelligence to be compared quantitatively.

According to Forgan's paper, the number of advanced, intelligent civilizations in our galaxy is 361, 31,573 or 37,964.

www.technovelgy.com...

I can go on and on.

So yes, by your definition Ufology should be a scientific field of study.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
If it is, I think it would be a branch of physics.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


I have to disagree with you on one point.

Ufology is not a matter of belief but observed fact. Nobody that I have debated has denied that Unidentified Flying Objects exists. The debate is over what they are.

So Ufology is a field of study based on an observed phenomena called UFO's or unidentified flying objects.

The ET hypothesis is a theory within Ufology among other theories.

It's just like Parallel universes is a theory within the field of Theoretical Pysics but Parallel Universes has less evidence than the ET Hypothesis.

Like I said these Parallel universes have never been observed or measured, U.F.O.'s have.

The U.N. has never passed a resolution about making contact with these Parallel universes and some scientist say we can never make contact with them.

They have passed a resolution about contact with E.T.

U.N. General Assembly Now Has Resolution To Establish United Nations Decade Of Contact & Diplomatic Relations With E.T.s

For the first time in almost 27 years, the United Nations General Assembly will be debating the issue of establishing diplomatic relations with advanced Extraterrestrial Civilizations that may now be visiting Earth.

On December 16, 2005, a Resolution to establish a United Nations Decade of Contact was formally transmitted to the incoming President of the General Assembly

Almost to the day twenty-seven years ago, on December 18, 1978, the United Nations General Assembly voted to approve decision 33/426, inviting U.N. Member States "to take appropriate steps to coordinate on a national level scientific research and investigation into extraterrestrial life, including unidentified flying objects, and to inform the Secretary-General of the observations, research and evaluation of such activities."

www.ufodigest.com...

Let me say, that the math and theory behind Parallel universes should be examined and debated but so should theories within Ufology.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Ufology can be tested through the mathematical process. Have you heard of Drake's equation? Have you heard of SETI or Dyson Spheres?


What you are describing is a Astrobiology, not Ufology. Whereas Astrobiology is the search for life beyond the Earth, Ufology would concern itself with the study of unidentified objects. What you have done is appropriate another field, a formal field and redefined them, inappropriately, as Ufology.

And the Drake Equation is not a scientific theorem. It was designed as a thought experiment. But that is neither here nor there; I would ask Drs. Drake and Shostak or Freeman Dyson if what they are doing is Ufology.

What do you think their answer will be?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What about trace evidence?


What about it? All you have done is tell us there is evidence. Evidence alone does not a science make.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Ufology has been peer-reviewed. Everything from crop circirles to extraterrestrial civilizations.


A handful of papers being peer-reviewed does not equate to a formal peer-reviewed process nor does a few peep reviewed papers make for a formal science.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Here's more peer reviewed papers on the topic of Ufology.

www.tjresearch.info...


Again, you have appropriated something from another field, Astrobiology and declared it Ufology.




Originally posted by Matrix Rising
So yes, by your definition Ufology should be a scientific field of study.


No, because what you are describing, your case for Ufology, is actually Astrobiology.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I would hardly call it a science. Even though I've seen UFOs myself, I don't find anything scientific about ufology. It's full of charlatans, pretenders, liars, hoaxers, new agers, blind believers, and often they all have a vested interest through book/seminar sales.

There's nothing to measure, there's no science. Even though I've seen them, I am very sceptical of reports of sightings, possibly even more so than others.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
to be honest i disagree with ufology being a science.because it cant be tested and examined in a lab.i dont think ufology is a religion either.to believe in what??aliens as gods or somethin???no way. a branch of physics??probably closer yeah.but not spot on. but what we can study from it or delve more is the fact that if we suppose that some day aliens will come we must study the politics and how to deal with them.i believe exopolitics is for that reason altho i could be wrong. lets imagine the aliens came and said hey earth i ll take the moon and mars and start diggin for metals and minerals.i dont think we would like that.i for one wouldnt like it.yeah sure the moon is no ones but i rather that we mined it than aliens. what ufology can give as is a great chance to form a policy on how to deal with aliens when they come.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I myself think that the whole UFO phenomena/possibility of ET's SHOULD be studied MORE by scientists and the like.

For a subject that is so much larger than life (to the the absolute least), it's very much blown off and/or ridiculed.

Now why is that?





posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


No, I have not redefined them. If you read my post I said Ufology should be taught in colleges because Ufology is the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.

Do you deny that Unidentified Flying Objects exists?

So yes, it's a legitimate field of study and that can't be denied. What happens is some people try to equate Ufology with extraterrestrials.

The ET hypothesis is just one theory within Ufology.

Just because other fields of study looks at UFO's doesn't mean Ufology, the study of Unidentified Flying Objects is not a legitimate scientific field of study.

There's biology papers that try to tie quantum mechanics into Micro Biology. Does that mean one of these fields of study should be cancelled out? No

This boils down to belief systems. As soon as people hear Ufology they get blinded by belief.

Ufology doesn't mean Extraterrestrial, it means the study of an observed phenomena called Unidentified Flying Objects.

Again, I think it shows a blind belief when you can't seperate Ufology from Extraterrestrials.

The ET hypothesis is just one theory within Ufology. Is this that hard to understand.

The only way that I can be wrong if you are making the claim that Unidentified Flying Objects don't exist. Nobody I have debated within scientific circles or non scientific circles have denied the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects therefore making it a legitimate field of study.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
A simple definition of Ufology from Dictionary.com.

Ufology  /yuˈfɒlədʒi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [yoo-fol-uh-jee] Show IPA

–noun
the study of unidentified flying objects.

dictionary.reference.com...

It's really simple.

Unidentified Flying Objects are an observed Phenomena from Presidents to Police officers and therefore is a legitimite field of study.

Unless you are such a dogmatic skeptic or debunker that you will deny the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects then you are deluded by belief.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Well, as others on this thread have already pointed out, UFOlogy is at best a psuedo-science.

There are elements of it that are testable but generally not repeatable. Unfortunately though the subject as a whole is convoluted in way too much speculation and hearsay than actual hard science.

I would love more than anything to see it handled seriously in proper academic circles. I've emailed well-known scientists and spoken to physics/astronomy professors at my own school about why it isn't - and although they all tend to give me polite consolatory answers about there "not being enough evidence", the general sense I get from all of them is "listen, it's taboo, and I ain't touching that #### with a ten foot pole."

It's lame, but it is what it is.

So really until an absolutely jaw-dropping piece of undeniable evidence falls into their collective laps - the onus is on us amateur UFOlogists to make this subject as respectable as possible.

Which is why we're also screwed.

Because for every J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallee there are 10 times as many Michael Cohens and Blossom Goodchilds. For every Internos and Armap there are 100...well I'm not gonna name names...but basically anyone who starts a thread "ZOMG 100% Proof of Aliens!!! If you Disagree your a Looser!!" (sic) or all the 4376872961 people who flag every thread every week that claims Disclosure is coming - next week!

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to be a total cynic because there still are a LOT of people here on ATS and elsewhere who do absolutely phenomenal work in making this topic as credible and scientific as possible.

But in terms of gaining proper respect in the mainstream community all the real science is constantly drowned out in the sea of tin-foil. It's sad too because I think for the most part everyone here - the "skeptics" and the "believers" alike want the same thing: for people to accept this subject as one of legitimate credibility and importance.

But there are some who get how that's accomplished and way way too many that don't.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
We have a bit of a semantics argument here.

The detractors are not saying that Ufology does not deserve to be a topic of study or research as a phenomenon in college courses.

What i believe they are saying is that Ufology can not yet be considered a legitimate scientific discipline. The missing variable is empirical evidence that CAN be made available for examination and testing by many researchers without bias or restriction.

This is not the same as saying such evidence does not exist. It is merely expressing that unless and until whatever evidence may exist is shared among all interested parties from any number of disciplines (biology, metallurgy, engineering, chemistry, physics, etc.), then we have no way to VALIDATE the evidence independently and subsequently publishing the results.

You see, it is similar to claims of ghosts, abominable snowmen, Atlantis, and a wide range of other interesting, and quite possibly true para-normal phenomena. If you can't bring in the evidence to a lab or to an independent panel of experts to validate your claim, then it only exists for you, the observer, your fellow observers if any, and others who may choose to believe you - on FAITH. That maybe a worthy and noble undertaking - but it is NOT science.

All sorts of para-normal phenomenon are studied on college campuses are studied, and yes, I personally agree that the UFO phenomenon should ALSO be studied - much more than it is today.

But you are likely to find such courses in the liberal arts departments of universities and NOT in the "Hard Science" labs among the astronomers, physicists and others of similar persuasion.

Why? because you can not conduct experiments on "beliefs" and the novelty of a few fuzzy photographs wears off rather quickly.

There is also the issue of funding. Most university departments, particularly in the sciences are highly dependent on their survival for funding. This funding, perhaps unfairly, is highly competitive and is only awarded following a rigorous and painstaking proposal and approval process that would almost certainly never even consider Ufology a contender. In fact, my guess is that any academician that even suggests to his superior that he wishes to seek funding for UFO research would by ridiculed at best and may even risk tenure or worse (again, yes, it may be unfair - but it IS reality).

So, OP - legitimate as your argument may be to include Ufology as a field of study - it can not as yet be considered a "scientific" field of study because those most qualified to do the studying - scientists (choose your flavor), have not and will not express interest in conducting such studies as long as there is so scant evidence or data to study and so long as it may jeopardize their own careers.

Finally - one last point of observation: My own belief is that there is indeed empirical evidence available and that scientists are now (and have been for some time) indeed studying such evidence. Unfortunately, this evidence, and the scientists themselves remain under very tight lock-and-key and the results of their research has not, and may never be, made available to the public or even to a global network of scientists (in academia or industry, for example) that would be very eager to share in the examination (and dissemination) of such evidence.

Thus, Ufology will, at least for the time being, remain a pseudo-science. There is no producible proof (or REproducible proof) available to any and all inquirers, and so, you have almost nothing to study (other than beliefs, cultural reactions, conspiracy theories, etc. - sociological correlations all.

A field of inquiry perhaps. But a field of scientific study? I'm afraid not...

At least not yet...

From a Professor who would love to teach such a course - my sympathies...


In the meantime... carry on! And ...keep looking up...




[edit on 6/13/2009 by Outrageo]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
No, I have not redefined them. If you read my post I said Ufology should be taught in colleges because Ufology is the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.


You did say that; however that is not the argument you made. You said it was a legitimate science and then went on to appropriate things from another field, Astrobiology, and claim them as evidence for Ufology. In reality those papers had nothing to do with the study of UFOs.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Do you deny that Unidentified Flying Objects exists?


I did not make that argument. That is beside the point. The discussion is whether or not Ufology should be a legitimate science, not whether an individual member believes in UFOs.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The ET hypothesis is just one theory within Ufology.

Just because other fields of study looks at UFO's doesn't mean Ufology, the study of Unidentified Flying Objects is not a legitimate scientific field of study.

Again, I think it shows a blind belief when you can't seperate Ufology from Extraterrestrials.

The ET hypothesis is just one theory within Ufology. Is this that hard to understand.


I am not the one incapable of separating the two. I did not say the two were inseparable; you said that in the course of making your argument. In your argument for why Ufology is a legitimate science, you appropriated papers from Astrobiology concerning extraterrestrials. That was the entirety of your argument.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Nobody I have debated within scientific circles or non scientific circles have denied the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects therefore making it a legitimate field of study.


An acknowledgement of a reality does not a science make. Re-read the definition of science provided in my first response and you will see the difference.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outrageo
...and yes, I personally agree that the UFO phenomenon should ALSO be studied - much more than it is today.


I have to echo the sentiments you and others have made. UFOs should be studied by mainstream science more. Whatever the truth behind the phenomenon there is a lot to be learned about the world around us and ourselves.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I would consider ufology a different but legitimate field of study.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Outrageo
 


Again, this whole argument about empirical evidence makes no sense.

Lets look at the definition of empirical evidence.

From the Miriam Webster online dictionary empirical means: 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

wiki.answers.com...

Again, who has experienced Parallel universes? Who has observed Parallel universes?

There's empirical evidence for U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects) from eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, pictures, videos, trace evidence and radar reports.

I think people just associate Unidentified Flying Objects with Extraterrestrials and they can't seperate the two.

The ET Hypothesis is a theory within the field of Ufology.

Again, it's a legitimate scientific field of study based on empirical evidence.

If Parallel Universes, Loop quantum gravity, string theory and more are legitimate fields of study which I say they are, then Ufology is a legitimate field of study because there's more empirical evidence for things within Ufology than there is for these theories.

If Ufology is not a legitimate field of study then we have to scrap half of the field of Theoretical Physics.

We don't know what constitutes Dark matter/energy or if Dark Matter/Energy even exists. In the latest Scientific American Magazine there's a theory that says we are living in a void and Dark matter/Dark energy doesn't exist.

So my point is, a legitimate field of study is in the eye of the beholder. It's all based on belief.

There's no reason why Ufology, the study of Unidentified Flying Objects is not a scientific field of study.

The only reason that this can be rejected is because some people are so scared that Ufology = Extraterrestrials that they can't seperate the two. There are blinded by a belief that these things can't or don't exist.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 



No, I have not redefined them. If you read my post I said Ufology should be taught in colleges because Ufology is the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.



You did say that; however that is not the argument you made. You said it was a legitimate science and then went on to appropriate things from another field, Astrobiology, and claim them as evidence for Ufology. In reality those papers had nothing to do with the study of UFOs.


Of course it's a legitimate field of science. Just because I quoted another field means nothing. It doesn't take away from Ufology no more than a paper on that combines Micro Biology and Quantum Mechanics. That makes no sense. I showed the paper to let you know that Extraterrestrials, a theory within ufology, has been peer reviewed. You made the claim that it hasn't been peer reviewed. Sorry, wrong again.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Do you deny that Unidentified Flying Objects exists?



I did not make that argument. That is beside the point. The discussion is whether or not Ufology should be a legitimate science, not whether an individual member believes in UFOs.


Nope, it's not beside the point. It's exactly the point. Ufology is the study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Everyone that I have debated within scientific circles and non scientific circles will say that Unidentified Flying Objects are an observed fact. Therefore Ufology, the study of unidentified flying objects, is a legitimate field of study.

You don't want to answer because you know if you say yes they exist, then you have no argument and if you say no they don't exist then you look like a closed minded skeptic.

So you try to avoid the question and it's obvious why.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The ET hypothesis is just one theory within Ufology.

Just because other fields of study looks at UFO's doesn't mean Ufology, the study of Unidentified Flying Objects is not a legitimate scientific field of study.

Again, I think it shows a blind belief when you can't seperate Ufology from Extraterrestrials.

The ET hypothesis is just one theory within Ufology. Is this that hard to understand.



I am not the one incapable of separating the two. I did not say the two were inseparable; you said that in the course of making your argument. In your argument for why Ufology is a legitimate science, you appropriated papers from Astrobiology concerning extraterrestrials. That was the entirety of your argument.


You seem to be stuck on the definition of science you quoted earlier. I have noticed that you only quote part of the definition that you think agrees with you, typical.

Here's the definition:

sci·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed
Date: 14th century
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5capitalized : christian science

www.merriam-webster.com...

Again, by this definition, Ufology fits.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Matrix Rising]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join