Ufology is a scientific field of study

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I agree with you OP. I'm certain the scientific study of UFO's is at least as legitimate as many of the fluff subjects which are offered at various universities. What bank of coursework would you recommend such students pursue: mechanical &, aeronautical engineering, astronomy, forensics…? Or would you approach it on a purely historical perspective as regards to records, cave drawings, or structures?

I’ll be honest with you…I can’t say I believe in UFO’s. But then again, I would turn into the most fervent believer if one happened to “beam me up” one day while I was walking my Scottie. I particularly have a difficult time understanding why beings would surf our atmosphere for decades (centuries or millenniums) and have virtually no contact with humankind. It goes against reason to believe they are just checking up on us without any specific purpose or goal.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.

You misunderstand.

First, I did not say they were not peer-reviewed. I said, Ufology, as a field, has no formal peer-review process. Proper scientific fields do; Ufology does not.

And yes, while extraterrestrials are a theory within Ufology, the papers you cited, though about extraterrestrials are not related to Ufology because those papers contribute nothing to our understanding of the UFO mystery. You are making what is known as a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Therefore Ufology, the study of unidentified flying objects, is a legitimate field of study.

Again, an acknowledgement of a reality does not make for a science. While the UFO mystery may be a subject for study, Ufology is not a field of science.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.

Red herring arguments by way of appeal to motive and ad hominems.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.

First off, you and I have not interacted enough for you to declare anything I do "typical."

Second, you are quoting a different source; you cannot accusing me of ignoring part of the definition when you employ a different source.

And only by one of the definitions, the informal definition, is Ufology a "science."

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

But in the use of this definition you are equivocating and making a red-herring argument. You equated Ufology with the formal sciences but when shown how it is not a formal science, you cherry pick a definition, the wrong definition mind you, to make your case. So, you are right, in that definition, Ufology is a "science;" however that is not the kind of science we are talking about, is it?

[edit on 13-6-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex

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.

First, I did not say they were not peer-reviewed. I said, Ufology, as a field, has no formal peer-review process. Proper scientific fields do; Ufology does not.

This is the exact point of the post. I never said that the scientific community treats Ufology like science. I said it is a legitimate study and should be treated as such by science and it should be taught in college. Did you even read my post?

I quoted the peer-reviewed papers to show that theories within Ufology are already peer-reviewed and this supports the claim that Ufology is a legitimate science.

And yes, while extraterrestrials are a theory within Ufology, the papers you cited, though about extraterrestrials are not related to Ufology because those papers contribute nothing to our understanding of the UFO mystery. You are making what is known as a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

You have to be joking. Yes , the papers I quoted support and examine theories within Ufology namely the ET Hypothesis. The papers speak to intelligent species in the galaxy as well as other life forms that might explain some U.F.O.'s. Did you even read the papers? At least the Abstracts?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Therefore Ufology, the study of unidentified flying objects, is a legitimate field of study.

Again, an acknowledgement of a reality does not make for a science. While the UFO mystery may be a subject for study, Ufology is not a field of science.

Yes, the acknowledgement of an observed phenomena, does make it a legitimate field of study. That's what science is. Science studies empirical evidence which is observed evidence like Unidentified Flying Objects. This is what Ufology is. The study of an observed phenomena which scientist and non scientist say exist.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.

Red herring arguments by way of appeal to motive and ad hominems.

This is not a Red Herring. This shows you are being intellectually dishonest. You are avoiding the simple question and trying to say it's an attack. This is the oldest and sorriest trick in the debate book. You can't answer the simple question because it makes your argument mute. If you say yes, Unidentified Flying Objects exist, then of course Ufology is a legitimate field of study. If you say no, your a closed minded skeptic. I don't think I have debated anyone who can't answer the simple question.

Most if not all of them have said that Unidentified Flying Objects exists.

I understand why your running from the question but again, it just looks bad because it's obvious that you are scared to answer it.

Ufology fits all of those definitions.

Of course it's the study of a natural phenomena called UFO's which are Unidentified Flying Objects.

These things could be piloted by beings that evolved in a similar way that we did. They could be extra dimensional, which the study of extra dimensions occur all the time in Physics classes around the country. They could be atmospheric, man made or a life form we have yet to discover.

All of these things fit into Science.

Let me say this again, there's NO DOUBT that Unidentified Flying Objects exist. We see them in pictures, video and radar reports. You are not talking about science because this is exactly what science is.

OP, it's obvious that you have no real grasp of what science is. That's ok, a lot of people don't but don't make claims you can't back up. People who do this tend to come off as ignorant.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by cripmeister]

Originally posted by cripmeister
OP, it's obvious that you have no real grasp of what science is. That's ok, a lot of people don't but don't make claims you can't back up. People who do this tend to come off as ignorant.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by cripmeister]

You need to quote where I made a claim that I couldn't back up.

I have backed up everything I said with facts.

You have made a blanket and general statement that makes no sense.

What I think is ignorant, is people who say, "well you just don't know what this means" or "you just don't understand."

This is just a way of saying that I have no facts, I have no argument, so I have to say these silly things to make it look like I know something that you don't.

Please, list one thing I said that I didn't back up with facts instead of making these general and blanket statements because you have no facts.

Wikipedia have an interesting page on Ufology, and it heavily relates to the debate at-hand;

Ufology has never been fully embraced by academia as a scientific field of study even though it was, in the early days, the subject of large scale scientific studies that produced reports described to follow. Prior to August, 2008, one could not obtain a "ufology" degree from any college or university, though there have been a few college or university courses on the subject, often from a folklore perspective.

en.wikipedia.org...

Theres a good point in that the Airforce and other branches investigated ufos and published some reports and compilations. But my personal contention is that the "study-of-ufos" differs entirely from "ufology". As I said earlier, I see two kinds of ufology; 1) A serious type of investigation and research. 2) A fringe type of research. -- And unfortunately, I think that its hard to say that at the moment at least; there is far more 'fringe' than scientific and serious. This is the problem, imo. The article/page continues;

Ufologists vary from fringe proponent David Icke to respected mainstream scientists like Peter A. Sturrock, J. Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, James E. McDonald, or Auguste Meessen, some of whom argue that UFO reports are as worthy of study as any topic, and deserve case-by-case analysis using the scientific method.

Not all ufologists believe that UFOs are necessarily extraterrestrial spacecraft, or even that they are objective physical phenomena.

en.wikipedia.org...

So the way I see it is; ufology needs to be distinct from conspiracy-theory. Although I believe that there definitely is a conspiracy. But we all know how academic circles and institutions are; they dont accept conspiracy theory - therein lies the fundamental problem.

Regards,

Ufology is a joke, let's face it, if they ever proved anything they would be out of a job. Who actually hires ufologists? What do they do besides writing conjecture and being a perrenial talk show guest?

You make some articulate points Matrix, and I have read the thread up till now agreeing with most of them.

The usuals will come along and argue that since Ufology was officially quashed from 1949 on with the "swamp gas and ball lightning" studies of Project Grudge, the Robertson Panel and Project Blue Book et al, that it is not therefore it cannot be a "formal" science.

But consider the "formal" science of quantum physics, one that has been built upon heavily in our world with great success. Many of the principles involved are so foreign to most laymen (and many scientists) that they would toss the ideas into the same bucket as "Ufology" if asked to truly try to understand them. As an example see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the subsequent Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment. Also see "Alice In Quantumland" by Gilmore 1995, a look at elementary particle behavior through a parody of "Alice in Wonderland". The quantum world is so strange that you have to take on by "previously normal standards" totally irrational ideas. But the experimental data bear out the theories and principles, so you have to believe (or accept) the weird theories embodied therein. The whole field was developed on many indirect observations, i.e. there were no direct samples, measurements or photographs obtained. But it is accepted and taught in universities all over the world. I truly believe it is far more bizarre than the concepts in "mainstream" Ufology.

SO we have those who say we (the public anyway) don't have a UFO captured in a freezer, so we don't have a science. But we have many hundreds of observations from highly credible witnesses, and many thousands more from "just plain folks", like my Grandma or maybe yours. IMO Ufology is like Galileo approaching the Catholic Church with (his theory at the time) that the Earth orbits the Sun. Highly problematic for the powers that be, that they might not be infallible with their beliefs and power, or their desire to control ours.

Giving Ufology a logical treatment similar to that of quantum physics, take into the account that if there were advanced civilizations visiting, they may not wish to be, or cannot be observed in our sense of the word. Or that they may be to us as we are shadows to the ants through the glass of an ant farm. Another way of thinking (simplistically), is that a successful experimental observation of the phenomenon would affect its ephemeral nature, as in Schroedinger's Cat.

Being solution-oriented, some are thinking outside of the box, and trying to devise a system for detection of UFOs. It might be a start for the detection and measurement phase of Ufology by the public. See Peter Davenport's proposal for detection at NUFORC.org. (491 kb PDF)


[edit on 14-6-2009 by 1SawSomeThings]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You have to be joking. Yes , the papers I quoted support and examine theories within Ufology namely the ET Hypothesis. The papers speak to intelligent species in the galaxy as well as other life forms that might explain some U.F.O.'s. Did you even read the papers? At least the Abstracts?

You are making a common fallacy among UFO fans. That is, life elsewhere equates to life coming here. Those papers, while about a common theme shared with Ufology, they are not "examining" as you claim, theories that UFOs are piloted by alien intelligences. They are about life elsewhere in the galaxy. They contribute nothing to our understanding of the mystery. Even if we discover life on another planet it does not mean other intelligent beings are coming here.

You may have read them, but you have failed to understand them, and are inappropriately appropriating them.

Originally posted by Matrix RisingThis shows you are being intellectually dishonest.

You obviously have not read my other posts in this thread.

Originally posted by Majorion
But my personal contention is that the "study-of-ufos" differs entirely from "ufology".

That is the point I was making, Majorion. I am glad someone else sees that. While the UFO mystery is worthy of scientific study, Ufology as it stands is not a scientific field.

UFO ....a school subject....r u sure ?

Doomsday Rex,

You have to be joking. Yes , the papers I quoted support and examine theories within Ufology namely the ET Hypothesis. The papers speak to intelligent species in the galaxy as well as other life forms that might explain some U.F.O.'s. Did you even read the papers? At least the Abstracts?

You are making a common fallacy among UFO fans. That is, life elsewhere equates to life coming here. Those papers, while about a common theme shared with Ufology, they are not "examining" as you claim, theories that UFOs are piloted by alien intelligences. They are about life elsewhere in the galaxy. They contribute nothing to our understanding of the mystery. Even if we discover life on another planet it does not mean other intelligent beings are coming here.

This post proves my point yet again.

You are making the common fallacy of people who are blinded by belief. I know it's hard to seperate Fology from the E.T. Hypothesis because people hear U.F.O.'s and they can't seperate the two.

This is understandable because the E.T. Hypothesis is the dominant theory within Ufology because it seeks to explain mass sighting, abduction accounts and more without saying everyone has to be hallucinating or stupid.

You said,"It doesn't mean intelligent beings are coming here." This shows you can't seperate the two. Ufology doesn't mean intelligent beings are coming here. Ufology means the study of U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects.

So of course Ufology is a scientific and legitimate field of study because it's based on an observed phenomena that has a consensus from scientific and non scientific circles that they exist.

This is why I keep asking you the question and you keep dodging the question. It's because if you say the U.F.O.'s exist then of course Ufology is a legitimate field of study based on an observed fact.

For instance, the study of Bigfoot couldn't be a legitimate and scientific field of study because there's no empirical evidence that Bigfoot exist. Therefore there's not a consensus between scientific and non scientific circles to the existence of Bigfoot.

Every scientist and non scientist that I have debated will say, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO's) exist. There's just different explanations as to what they might be.

Ufology is the study of an observed fact which is Unidentified Flying Objects therefore it's a legitimate field of study.

I ask the question for the umpteenth time because your avoidance of the question speaks volumes.

Do you think U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects) exist. I'm not asking you about Aliens or secret military crafts. I'm just asking you do U.F.O.'s exist which is what Ufology is. The study of Unidentified Flying Objects.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Matrix Rising]

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
You make some articulate points Matrix, and I have read the thread up till now agreeing with most of them.

The usuals will come along and argue that since Ufology was officially quashed from 1949 on with the "swamp gas and ball lightning" studies of Project Grudge, the Robertson Panel and Project Blue Book et al, that it is not therefore it cannot be a "formal" science.

But consider the "formal" science of quantum physics, one that has been built upon heavily in our world with great success. Many of the principles involved are so foreign to most laymen (and many scientists) that they would toss the ideas into the same bucket as "Ufology" if asked to truly try to understand them. As an example see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the subsequent Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment. Also see "Alice In Quantumland" by Gilmore 1995, a look at elementary particle behavior through a parody of "Alice in Wonderland". The quantum world is so strange that you have to take on by "previously normal standards" totally irrational ideas. But the experimental data bear out the theories and principles, so you have to believe (or accept) the weird theories embodied therein. The whole field was developed on many indirect observations, i.e. there were no direct samples, measurements or photographs obtained. But it is accepted and taught in universities all over the world. I truly believe it is far more bizarre than the concepts in "mainstream" Ufology.

SO we have those who say we (the public anyway) don't have a UFO captured in a freezer, so we don't have a science. But we have many hundreds of observations from highly credible witnesses, and many thousands more from "just plain folks", like my Grandma or maybe yours. IMO Ufology is like Galileo approaching the Catholic Church with (his theory at the time) that the Earth orbits the Sun. Highly problematic for the powers that be, that they might not be infallible with their beliefs and power, or their desire to control ours.

Giving Ufology a logical treatment similar to that of quantum physics, take into the account that if there were advanced civilizations visiting, they may not wish to be, or cannot be observed in our sense of the word. Or that they may be to us as we are shadows to the ants through the glass of an ant farm. Another way of thinking (simplistically), is that a successful experimental observation of the phenomenon would affect its ephemeral nature, as in Schroedinger's Cat.

Being solution-oriented, some are thinking outside of the box, and trying to devise a system for detection of UFOs. It might be a start for the detection and measurement phase of Ufology by the public. See Peter Davenport's proposal for detection at NUFORC.org. (491 kb PDF)


[edit on 14-6-2009 by 1SawSomeThings]

Very good points.

This is what I was saying about things like Parallel Universes which is accepted by Professor David Deustsch to Dr. Michio Kaku. Nobody has ever seen or measured Parallel universes but it's considered a legitimite scientific field of study.

There's more empirical evidence for theories within Ufology but some can't see this because they are blinded by a belief system. As soon as they hear U.F.O. their belief system about the E.T. hypothesis kicks in. It's hard to seperate these things when your blinded by belief.

Who holds the course?

Matrix Rising, this is no longer a discussion but you arguing for the sake of arguing. You have become so incensed that someone disagrees with you on one point that you fail to see when they agree with you on others.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I ask the question for the umpteenth time because your avoidance of the question speaks volumes.

Let's get this out of the way first. I have answered this question, at least twice, but like being so incensed that someone disagrees with you one point, you have ignored my answer.

Once again, the UFO mystery is worthy of scientific study. Whatever the truth may be behind the mystery, there is a lot to be learned about the world around us and perhaps ourselves. However, Ufology as it is currently constituted is not a science. Do you understand the differentiation I and others on this thread have made between the study of UFOs and Ufology?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You said,"It doesn't mean intelligent beings are coming here." This shows you can't seperate the two. Ufology doesn't mean intelligent beings are coming here. Ufology means the study of U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects.

Yes I understand. In fact, that was the exact point I was making. You have repeated my point, albeit in a long-winded fashion. We are in agreement on this point. However, you accuse me of not being able to distinguish between the two ideas, going so far as to twist my words, for what reason I do not know other than arguing for the sake of arguing.

Let's make something clear. I did not bring up those papers; I did not say those papers support the ETH or disprove the ETH or have anything to do with the ETH. You are the one who cited the papers, despite the fact they have nothing to do with UFOs. You cited them because they discuss extraterrestrials (again, not UFOs) and claim because they do so they support a theory in Ufology that UFOs are piloted by alien entities. To quote you...

the papers I quoted support and examine theories within Ufology namely the ET Hypothesis. The papers speak to intelligent species in the galaxy as well as other life forms that might explain some U.F.O.'s. Did you even read the papers? At least the Abstracts?

While the papers do discuss extraterrestrials, they do notdiscuss them in context of the UFO mystery. They do share a common theme but only when taken out of context. When I pointed this out, you took the opposite tact, telling me that I was confusing extraterrestrials with UFOs, chiding me.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Ufology doesn't mean intelligent beings are coming here. Ufology means the study of U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects.

You are trying to argue both positions just for the sake of arguing. You were the only one to connect the papers to the ETH. No one else.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
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?

That's a good question and I know what Dr Shostak's answer would be because I've heard him answer it. He's a big proponent of using the scientific method to study and look for the existence of ETs, and he obviously has disdain for Ufologists who jump to the conclusion that a photograph of some blurry object in the sky is evidence of ETs and not some other more logical explanation.

Regarding the question of whether UFOs exist, I don't see how that's even a debatable question so why is it asked over and over in this thread, of course there are UFOs, nobody can deny that, can they? Having devoted about 6 months to looking into UFO reports I can say I have an alternative recommendation for a college course, with a title something like "Application of scientific principles to everyday and unusual observations" and one of the topics would be case studies of UFOs. The reason for this is that most of my research has led me to believe that the observers of these phenomenon are lacking in skills related to the application of science to their observations.

I am finding that even trained observers like pilots with thousands of hours of flying time fail to see obvious applications of scientific principles to their observations, and therefore sometimes misinterpret them. So you can imagine how bad off the rest of us are who are not such experienced and trained observers. This is where I would see the benefit of a college course in observation and the application of science to interpret those observations.

I would include a lecture on "rods", a particular type of "UFO" with the most obvious, testable and provable scientific explanation, that as far as I can tell most college graduates are not even aware of. These "rod" UFO sightings can and have been duplicated in laboratory conditions, and people need to know that. As far as I can tell, most people don't. I would agree however that most sightings are not so easily duplicated as the "rods".

I don't think a course solely on Ufology will fly, because too much of the scientific community has disdain for the subject, even big ET advocates like Dr Shostak.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
There's more empirical evidence for theories within Ufology

Exactly, keyword there; within Ufology. Not "Ufology" itself. And this is the point that DoomsdayRex has been endlessly stressing to no avail in his debate with you.

The "Study of UFOs" does not equate by-definition to--"Contemporary Ufology"--as you are arguing. And in your argument, a report like Bluebook is one and the same like with a book about Abductions by Budd Hopkins, for example. Although the two subjects matters are related and form--more or less--the overall "Contemporary Ufology", in this particular fashion negates academia and science.

The "Study of UFOs"--independently--could be considered something else, but only if separate from the other theories, hypothesis, and related subject matters.



Best regards,

Originally posted by Majorion
Exactly, keyword there; within Ufology. Not "Ufology" itself. And this is the point that DoomsdayRex has been endlessly stressing to no avail in his debate with you.

Thank you, Majorion. Maybe hearing the point from someone he is not angry with will help his understanding.

Originally posted by Majorion
The "Study of UFOs" does not equate by-definition to--"Contemporary Ufology"--as you are arguing. And in your argument, a report like Bluebook is one and the same like with a book about Abductions by Budd Hopkins, for example.

On that point, I would like to know what Matrix Rising considers worthy of study and consideration withing Ufology and what he considers worthy of dismissal? For instance, would he want a Kevin Randle taught along side of a David Ickes, or Hynek along side of Stephen Greer or a Blossom Goodchild. Would they want the opinions and views of skeptics taught?

Originally posted by Majorion
The "Study of UFOs"--independently--could be considered something else, but only if separate from the other theories, hypothesis, and related subject matters.

In order for this to become a science, they would have to be willing to accept the consensus of the scientific community. Right now, Ufology has trouble coming to a consensus on anything; we argue over cases, there are still people who cling to known hoaxes and misindentifications.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


There is no money in it, that's why it will never be a college course. Why spend the money to get a degree in Ufology, when there is ZERO demand for it in the job market? Now, if people were hiring for this kind of scholarly knowledge, then...I'll eat my words.

Just my 2-cents.

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
There's more empirical evidence for theories within Ufology

Exactly, keyword there; within Ufology. Not "Ufology" itself. And this is the point that DoomsdayRex has been endlessly stressing to no avail in his debate with you.

The "Study of UFOs" does not equate by-definition to--"Contemporary Ufology"--as you are arguing. And in your argument, a report like Bluebook is one and the same like with a book about Abductions by Budd Hopkins, for example. Although the two subjects matters are related and form--more or less--the overall "Contemporary Ufology", in this particular fashion negates academia and science.

The "Study of UFOs"--independently--could be considered something else, but only if separate from the other theories, hypothesis, and related subject matters.



Best regards,

You are trying to seperate contemporary ufology with other ufology and it doesn't add up.

Ufology is Ufology. It's the study of Unidentified Flying Objects. You will have different theories from different sources but it's all Ufology.

For instance, there's different theories in physics about Parallel universes. Nobody has ever seen or observed a Parallel universe yet this is accepted from people like Professor David Deutsch or Dr. Michio Kaku.

I have heard of and seen people who have been abducted. I have read studies by people like Harvard Professor John Mack on abductions. I have seen polygraphs and other test for abductee's. I have seen implants taken out of abductees.

So yes, this is included within Ufology. Like I said earlier, the E.T. Hypothesis is the dominant theory within Ufology because it seeks to explain these abduction cases and mass sightings without calling everyone involved stupid or hallucinating.

If Parallel universes is a legitimate field of study, and I think it is, then Ufology is definately a legitimate field of study.

I have never seen a Parallel universe but I have seen 3 U.F.O.'s. I can see pictures and videos of UFO's and hear eyewitness accounts from police officers and pilots. I can't do this with Parallel universes.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by Matrix Rising]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Majorion
Exactly, keyword there; within Ufology. Not "Ufology" itself. And this is the point that DoomsdayRex has been endlessly stressing to no avail in his debate with you.

Thank you, Majorion. Maybe hearing the point from someone he is not angry with will help his understanding.

Originally posted by Majorion
The "Study of UFOs" does not equate by-definition to--"Contemporary Ufology"--as you are arguing. And in your argument, a report like Bluebook is one and the same like with a book about Abductions by Budd Hopkins, for example.

On that point, I would like to know what Matrix Rising considers worthy of study and consideration withing Ufology and what he considers worthy of dismissal? For instance, would he want a Kevin Randle taught along side of a David Ickes, or Hynek along side of Stephen Greer or a Blossom Goodchild. Would they want the opinions and views of skeptics taught?

Originally posted by Majorion
The "Study of UFOs"--independently--could be considered something else, but only if separate from the other theories, hypothesis, and related subject matters.

In order for this to become a science, they would have to be willing to accept the consensus of the scientific community. Right now, Ufology has trouble coming to a consensus on anything; we argue over cases, there are still people who cling to known hoaxes and misindentifications.

This post makes no sense. In every field of study you will have theories that are not accepted by the mainstream of that particular field.

Again, you just can't seperate UFO's from Extraterrestrials. UFO's means Unidentified Flying Objects.

You are talking about people arguing over cases and hoaxes. You are debating the ET hypothesis. Again, Ufology doesn't mean extraterrestrials. The ET hypothesis is a theory within Ufology.

You said:

"Right now, Ufology has trouble coming to a consensus on anything."

This again is way off because you can't seperate Ufology from Extraterrestrials. Ufology doesn't have a problem coming to the consensus that UFO's Unidentified Flying Objects exist. This is a scientific consensus. This is Ufology, the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.