Why Ufology is not a science?

Lets compare the so called Ufology with Biology for example:

Biologists have specific subjects of interest, any claims, ideas, theories in Biology are based in multiple empirical evidence that can be independently verified by different biologists. Professional biologists will never relay only in any "sighting report" of a new life form, independent observations by trained professionals need to validate these reports to be considered as valid data and empirical evidence.

On the other hand Ufology, by a cursory browsing of the topics covered in any site dedicated to it, appears to be a collection of "gossips" where nothing really is independently validated or observed, where there is an obsession with "documents" and some extraordinary weight is given to these documents, myths and obfuscation are pervasive in Ufology, not surprising many will get entangled in that maze without any hope of finding any exit. Can you imagine biologists doing that?

But the example of Biology is a good one to follow: by accepting only what independent and consistent observations dictate, Ufologists had failed from the start in that regard: the consistency present in many "sightings reports" should had suggested to them that direct atmospheric observations will uncover many of these manifestations in a controlled setting, but Ufologists as a rule never did that and have continued the "tradition" of collecting "sighting reports" from untrained casual observers.

But that is changing today with the people making systematic atmospheric observations around the world, with very cheap digital and optical equipment in the market today these observations can be done with a very limited budget.

The people doing these observations are far ahead from the old school of armchair ufologists, many of these ufologists do not even have elementary knowledge of atmospheric physics or had ever handled any optical equipment.

These active observers are uncovering extraordinary things with very limited instruments that closeminded scientists with unlimited resources had been unable to see.

Modern Ufology consists of low quality photographs and (generally) low quality digital video recordings.
Please list/link some examples of photographic/video evidence that you feel makes ufology 'extraordinary' in the period of the last 10 years for example?

a reply to: ufoflicks

A major problem is anyone can log on here and claim to be 'an expert'... then their conjecture is sometimes taken seriously.

You cannot walk into a lab and claim to be a biologist.

That is why many true ufologists get pi***d off when people post blurry Ytube videos etc.

Is it a religion then?

(I didn't say cult, although its up to the reader to interpret the differentiation)

a reply to: ufoflicks

I'd say that UFOlogy isn't science because it deviates from the scientific method on several occasions. First it makes many presumptions. Ufo = alien being the biggest one. It also doesn't produce reproducible results and it relies on subjective evidence for its primary source of evidence.

the consistency present in many "sightings reports" should had suggested to them that direct atmospheric observations will uncover many of these manifestations in a controlled setting,

Ha ha, nice try. What I saw with others on a hill top a lonnng time ago was not an 'atmospheric manifestation'.

It was at night, before cell cams, hand held video recorders and Mufon. Back then you didn't report such things, people would question your sanity.

Haven't seen anyone 'reproduce' night time weather manifestations in a 'controlled setting', either.

a reply to: intrptr

Ha ha, nice try. What I saw with others on a hill top a lonnng time ago was not an 'atmospheric manifestation'.

That you know of..

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: intrptr

Ha ha, nice try. What I saw with others on a hill top a lonnng time ago was not an 'atmospheric manifestation'.

That you know of..

So you're suggesting that anecdotal evidence should become iron clad fact ?

a reply to: intrptr

Skeptics have a multitude of scientific explanations that try to explain away the UFO phenomenon. They can immediately point to CGI and drones to explain away sightings. However, like you said, there have been sighting well before CGI, video recorders, and digital photography.

Nothing can explain away a personal sighting, especially when it's seen by multiple witnesses. You have to be there in the moment to become a true believer and come to the realization that there are things out there that science just can't explain away.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: intrptr

Ha ha, nice try. What I saw with others on a hill top a lonnng time ago was not an 'atmospheric manifestation'.

That you know of..

That you couldn't 'know of,' you weren't there. In that light alone, your suggestion that we couldn't differentiate between what we witnessed and the weather is utterly contemptuous.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: intrptr

Skeptics have a multitude of scientific explanations that try to explain away the UFO phenomenon. They can immediately point to CGI and drones to explain away sightings. However, like you said, there have been sighting well before CGI, video recorders, and digital photography.

Nothing can explain away a personal sighting, especially when it's seen by multiple witnesses. You have to be there in the moment to become a true believer and come to the realization that there are things out there that science just can't explain away.

Science doesn't "explain away" things. It just doesn't accept existence until reliable proof can be presented of existence. That isn't science saying that the thing doesn't exist though.

To be honest, nothing is wrong with the term "UFO". After all, it means unidentified flying object. Which is a PERFECT description of these things. But attributing any other characteristics to what you JUST labeled as "unknown" is hypocritical and not scientific.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Nothing can explain away a personal sighting, especially when it's seen by multiple witnesses. You have to be there in the moment to become a true believer and come to the realization that there are things out there that science just can't explain away.

Especailly the 'we' part, as in five friends and another group of complete strangers, all concurring what it wasn't-- it wasn't from here. It wasn't earth tech and yet, it was technical.

The switch to witness removes all that wannabe believer stuff in a heart beat.

I can study almost anything and not consider it a science???

originally posted by: Brotherman
I can study almost anything and not consider it a science???

Your definition of 'science' would be important then. Would it not ?

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Um...no.

I honestly don't know how you think that's what I'm saying?

a reply to: intrptr

It's utterly contemptuous that you know of every aerial phenomenon in existence to state that you know what you saw.

You've missed my point it seems. Pilots have mistaken Venus as an object following them in their aircraft on many occasion, and they should know better. How many average Joes have seen a bright star/planet or the ISS in the sky and thought it was aliens? Hundreds. Don't believe me? Just do a search of threads here from over the years.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Um...no.

I honestly don't know how you think that's what I'm saying?

Ok, well you wrote:

I can study almost anything and not consider it a science???

I asked, and am asking if you could demonstrate what is 'Science' to you then.
What is 'A' science?
Is that clearer?
There is a universal definition to what the word 'Science' means, and is.
That's where I'm coming from...

a reply to: Chadwickus

You've missed my point it seems.

No I didn't and it wasn't Venus we saw, either.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

I didn't write that.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Chadwickus

You've missed my point it seems.

No I didn't and it wasn't Venus we saw, either.

If you say it was anything other than an "unidentified flying object" you are being unscientific though. This includes adjectives like "technical".