The untold truth of MUFON

Trust these guys?

They're associated with the Ramtha cult, which in turn is associated with at least one ex-Catholic priest who was accused o[f] pedophilia who's in Ramtha's inner circle.

I would seriously question MUFON's ability to figure out the truth, which seems secondary to getting donations from groups like Ramtha.

They're associated with the Ramtha cult, which in turn is associated with at least one ex-Catholic priest who was accused o[f] pedophilia who's in Ramtha's inner circle.

I would seriously question MUFON's ability to figure out the truth, which seems secondary to getting donations from groups like Ramtha.

This is disappointing, but doesn't totally dismiss the usefulness of MUFON's investigations. The criticism is a classic case of the genetic fallacy, in which arguments or information are dismissed based solely on their source or origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit.

This is disappointing, but doesn't totally dismiss the usefulness of MUFON's investigations. The criticism is a classic case of the genetic fallacy, in which arguments or information are dismissed based solely on their source or origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit.

Hmmm I feel like the genetic fallacy holds when we dismiss truths that are unrelated to the source's problems.

For example an adulterer can successfully produce a mathematical proof.

However here we are talking about a group that takes donations from a cult that are tied to paranormal claims related to MUFON investigations. It's relevant to their work, in the same way we look askance at corporations telling us they've researched their own products and found them safe.

This doesn't mean we have to discredit their evidence - like the photo we might have to pay $100 to see properly - but we should at least wait for other corroboration?