Why Ufology is not a science?

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

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 ?

I guess what I was trying to say was more or less that I can read and research testimony and whatever is available in regards to UFO's and apply applied sciences to it, whereas being able to use a scientific method to research an un-predictable and irrepeatable phenomenon.

a reply to: intrptr

I never suggested it was.

All I'm saying is just because you and 3 or 5 or even 1000 people didn't know what it was, doesn't automatically mean "aliens".

And this, in my opinion is why UFOlogy will always struggle to be taken seriously.

It's carried out the opposite way the scientific method is carried out.

The conclusion is made before research, hypothesis and experiments are done.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

I didn't write that.

No, you didn't.
Haha sorry man, my bad.
I got my wires crossed.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: intrptr

I never suggested it was.

All I'm saying is just because you and 3 or 5 or even 1000 people didn't know what it was, doesn't automatically mean "aliens".

Thats exactly what you mean, "it wasn't aliens… "

By the way, you don't need to be a pilot to get the illusion of planets or the moon or sun "chasing you". You can repeat the phenomenon from a moving car, or bicycle even.

We weren't moving, we were standing on a hill top, it 'passed' by us at or beneath the rim of the valley crest. It was amazing neon blue, made no sound, impossibly fast, including a sudden, abrupt angular change of direction, with no radius of turn.

We all witnessed it, it was obviously not weather, a planet, or man made.

originally posted by: Brotherman

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

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 ?

I guess what I was trying to say was more or less that I can read and research testimony and whatever is available in regards to UFO's and apply applied sciences to it, whereas being able to use a scientific method to research an un-predictable and irrepeatable phenomenon.

Wow.
Can you just humor me, and realize that what you originally wrote was...

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

Can you please elaborate on how your response regarding 'applied sciences' works with this quoted statement.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

originally posted by: Brotherman

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor

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 ?

I guess what I was trying to say was more or less that I can read and research testimony and whatever is available in regards to UFO's and apply applied sciences to it, whereas being able to use a scientific method to research an un-predictable and irrepeatable phenomenon.

Wow.
Can you just humor me, and realize that what you originally wrote was...

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

Can you please elaborate on how your response regarding 'applied sciences' works with this quoted statement.

I'm saying that I can see a video about something in the sky and speculate that the laws of physics apply to it so I may think that its falling, maybe, it looks like its flying. I can speculate about what I may have seen and apply it to forming an opinion, that is not science but it is what a lot of people do. Consider the difference between social science and social studies, one of them uses a scientific model while the other studies that model and something called humanities. I am not sure why you are trying to discredit what I am saying cause that is how it is coming off, I don't believe in aliens visiting earth in fantastic space craft.

a reply to: Brotherman

Yeah. I don't feel that we are on the same wavelength, but that is cool.
Thanks for replying.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor
What were you driving at that I dont grasp then? I'm always interested in others views.

a reply to: Brotherman

I really don't mean this in a rude way, but I feel that I asked you to clearly define statements you made.
And you.. wouldn't do that.
So that's all I have...

a reply to: Brotherman

I also feel that this 'thread', and I use the term loosely, is the wrong place to discuss such things.
You are most welcome to create a thread where you state your dogma on this kind of subject, and I will totally engage.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor
Ok maybe I wasn't very clear. I agree with the OP ufology is not a science. People study UFO's though. I am equating the study of UFOs as people trying to apply a science to speculation to try and understand it. In the end people that do study UFOs never provide anything concrete. That's all I am saying.

a reply to: Brotherman

I thought the OLOGY part just meant you were studying something.

A good ufologist should be like Sherlock Holmes. You have to eliminate all the other possibilities before you go screaming aliens.

Lots of people are not aware of some of the stranger things that are moving around up there. Some people are.
A good "UFOlogist" might save someone a lot of embarrassment one day.

Cheers

Mentioning Biology here was not accident, after observing anomalies in a regular basis the idea that they are living beings is a natural one, many behave exactly like living beings. I had never seen any indication of "mechanical" artifacts but I had seen a lot of behavior suggesting aliveness. This area of interest had been hijacked by Ufologists when it really belongs to Biologists.

UFOs as living beings:

originally posted by: 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.

There may be productive methodological approaches to explaining why witnesses, even groups of witnesses, may encounter unusual visual stimuli that they interpret in similar fashion. Their perceptual brainware could well be functioning exactly as evolved and as trained, to compare visual inputs to remembered objects, even if the objects 'chosen' aren't actually real.

Here is what I hope is a scientific approach to understanding ONR example of perceptual processes with known input that produce, across decades and continents and full range of professions, remarkably similar interpretations that are not objectively real.

www.jamesoberg.com...

I hope this may also be useful -- it was the winner of a worldwide essay contest in 1979 on the question, "Is ufology a science?"

www.debunker.com...

a reply to: ufoflicks

Its a slow video and the clips aren't really good enough to make anything out.
Blue sky, no background reference, lots of camera shake.
One part looks interesting with the thin whispy thing. Its almost electrical looking. Almost as if there's little strands coming off. Like cloud dissipating but speeded up.
The boomerang one could just be someone throwing a boomerang. No scale or distance to judge. Could even be a blird flying past.
There might be better vids I suppose but this ones not really gripped me. Opinions may differ but that's mine.
Couldn't get vids to work on the other thread.
Cheers.

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
Is it a religion then?

It's similar in that it is a psycho-sociological phenomenon that attempts to define or ascribe meaning to perceived extraordinary experiences. Probably the biggest difference is that religion tends to suggest that if you do something or believe something a particular way you will benefit from it. If you pray, or meditate, or believe in Jesus, or live according to the Eight-Fold Path, etc., you will have a better life, or afterlife. Except for very few fringe groups, most people feel that interactions with UFOs are essentially baffling or neutral, and there's no way you can purposely interact with them to make your life better.

originally posted by: intrptr
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.

To be blunt...i dont care if it was 150 if you who saw something. It means nothing to me. until a sighting is well documented, its just a personal experience. One which i don't believe.

That you can claim indirectly that you know that it wasn't EVERY POSSIBLE THING other than beings from another planet is so grotesquely arrogant in my opinion. And the fact that you UFO believers get pissed off with us non believers shows this.

I'll say it again:

To be able to discount ANY possible reason for what you saw (natural phenomenon, satellites, aircraft, drones etc....) shows breathtaking arrogance. But hey, you are in good company here on ATS. And whenever i say i don't believe in UFO's the mods remove my comment.

originally posted by: ufoflicks
Mentioning Biology here was not accident, after observing anomalies in a regular basis the idea that they are living beings is a natural one, many behave exactly like living beings. I had never seen any indication of "mechanical" artifacts but I had seen a lot of behavior suggesting aliveness. This area of interest had been hijacked by Ufologists when it really belongs to Biologists.

UFOs as living beings:

Is this really the best video you can find to convince us?

Unknown, is just like a secret, it wouldn't be after the latter.