GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
M3 Too.
StevenCalder
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 207
Agreed.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
I want to clarify that I over-posted the list of LTA airship squadrons in the Californian Naval reserve in my previous post. Only two of these, the ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, CA and ZPs 951 and 952 at MCAF Santa Ana, CA are relevant to this discussion.
ETA: I agree that the Rogue River sighting can be classified as "unidentified" because 1) the witnesses could not identify what they had seen, and 2) no other evidence is forthcoming.
I also agree that it's possible what they saw was a Naval reserve airship on a jaunt from its CA base, whether the witnesses could identify it as such or not.
ETA: I agree that the Rogue River sighting can be classified as "unidentified" because 1) the witnesses could not identify what they had seen, and 2) no other evidence is forthcoming.
I also agree that it's possible what they saw was a Naval reserve airship on a jaunt from its CA base, whether the witnesses could identify it as such or not.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Agreed.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,419
As a fully trained, peer-review published scientist I have to say that you are talking complete and utter cobblers.
Even ignoring parsimony and Occam's Razor it should be clear to anyone with just a passing acquaintance with reason and logic that there are many situations where alternative hypotheses are not equal.
For instance, say we have a young child left alone in a room with a bowl of sweets. After ten minutes all of the sweets are gone. Now, one hypothesis for the disappearance of the sweets is that the child ate them. Another hypothesis is that a Unicorn materialized out of thin air, touched the sweets with his horn and magically transformed them into intangible butterflies that flew out of the room through the walls, and the Unicorn then turned into an invisible Ogre, who remains in the room to taunt the child.
So, are both the above hypotheses equal? Or is one of them complete cobblers?
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
If there is no evidence that the child ate the sweets (eg video tape or an x-ray of his stomach), and none that a unicorn materialized etc., then both hypotheses are equally valid... according to Rramjet's invented system of logic.
However, since we have background evidence that children do indeed eat sweets from time to time, and none that unicorns exist or that they turn into invisible ogres, it is therefore more plausible that -- you guessed it -- the kid ate the candy.
Background evidence is the distinguishing factor here, as it is with Rogue River. We have hard, incontestable evidence of airships -- not only that they exist, but that there were active airship squadrons within obtainable distance of the sighting -- and none of "alien" (whatever that may mean) visitation. It is therefore more plausible that it was an airship.
Anyone failing to follow that simple line of logic is either kidding themselves or me, or both.
However, since we have background evidence that children do indeed eat sweets from time to time, and none that unicorns exist or that they turn into invisible ogres, it is therefore more plausible that -- you guessed it -- the kid ate the candy.
Background evidence is the distinguishing factor here, as it is with Rogue River. We have hard, incontestable evidence of airships -- not only that they exist, but that there were active airship squadrons within obtainable distance of the sighting -- and none of "alien" (whatever that may mean) visitation. It is therefore more plausible that it was an airship.
Anyone failing to follow that simple line of logic is either kidding themselves or me, or both.
Rramjet, I would once again like to direct your attention to my post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5227227#post5227227) where I question the validity of the data you provide as evidence in the iranian case. Since you asked for comments on that case it would be nice of you to actually say something about the comments you get.
All the best
/J
All the best
/J
jer_j
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 108
I reached that same conclusion roughly 800 posts ago. I guess I just haven't yet developed your patience for suffering foolishness.
ALL HYPOTHESES ARE EQUAL.
You are confusing post hoc "evidence" with a priori "hypotheses".
There IS plausible evidence by which we can infer that the child might have been responsible - the child was in the room for starters.
On the other hand there is no evidence to infer a unicorn to be responsible (apart from its mythical status, but all other things being equal) because there is no evidence that a unicorn was ever in the room.
This makes the "unicorn" hypothesis less plausible that the "child" hypothesis.
The difference between hypotheses is then decided ON THE EVIDENCE. Nothing else. NOTHING else. Get it?
A priori, ALL hypotheses start out equal.
But don't just take my word for it. DO please try and at least consult a qualified, professional logistician or philosopher. Please, try, just for once, to go out and explore the real world of logic and rational critical thinking. You just might be surprised at what you find.
Answer one question and we will proceed with an analytical debate from that point.
It seems by your comments in that post you may be contending the event never happened at all. I could be wrong in that assessment so I must ask: Are you contending the event never happened?
No I do not.
On the Iranian UFO:
Perhaps then the following links might provide you with some better source information:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
and this
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf
Perhaps then the following links might provide you with some better source information:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
and this
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,419
Thank you for making the point, and just to illustrate it, let me edit your post slightly.
For "alien craft" you can also substitute KotA's personal favourite, the "non-human terrestrial super-intelligent beings", but the point is that there's no evidence for the sighting being anything other than a blimp, which is a perfectly plausible explanation. Therefore there's no reason to suspect it was anything other than a blimp.
By your own argument you've just shot your other argument in the foot. Congratulations, I believe you may have just found "the real world of logic and rational critical thinking".
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Groundhog Day wasn't this funny.
Tapio
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 756
Thanks for your advice. The only problem is, when following it I only find conclusions which support the view held by all other people but you. That is why I maintain it's a matter of semantics (I'll elaborate on this later on). Because based on your posts here I can not fathom how you would hold such a view.
In any case, I think this is not mainly a philosophical matter. Or, it can be, but when thought to be such, we step away from the reality in which this discussion is being held.
Yes, as a philosophical context in some über-objective reality, before any evidence of anything has been acquired, I agree that ALL hypotheses are equal. Science, however, AFAIK is not some godlike form or entity to which such cases are brought before in order to be evaluated. We have acquired knowledge of the world we live in (the extent can be argued over), and we must, as critical thinking people, take heed of that knowledge when examining new hypotheses. This is what I feel people here have been trying to convey.
I agree the hypotheses of a UFO or a blimp are equal as separate thought-forms in our imaginative über reality, resembling a void of knowledge. But in the 'real world', with all knowledge acquired before the Rogue River case (and now after it), both of the hypotheses fall into certain categories (certainly overlapping in ways) of already understood and studied reality. Therefore, as you would put it, they are not equal when studied back then or today, based on the evidence we have concerning reality before the sighting ever took place!
Do you see where I'm aiming at?
Yes, agreed. But the evidence used to decide this matter must include the evidence we have of this reality as a whole. Rogue River is not (as far as I know) an isolated fragment of reality with it's own laws of nature. What happens there must apply to everywhere else in the world, and vice versa. Thus it would be utter nonsense to exclude all other evidence we've acquired before the Rogue River sighting from the evaluation of different hypotheses aimed in finding out the origin of the UFO there. And this is why the UFO and blimp hypothese are not equal, not the moment the sighting occured, not after it, not now, not ever. We have too much evidence wheighing on the possibility of the UFO being of mundane origin, and too little evidence for it being of alien origin already before the case to call these hypotheses equal (although without this evidence they could be called equal).
Of course, it is always possible that a new case brings forth new evidence which might tip the scales, so to speak. But the Rogue River case has not been shown to hold such evidence.
Actually, before passing judgement to what members here think of the concept you might want to read this thread.
You mentioned this one before (only with black crows). I'm very familiar with the fallacy. All I can say is that I suggest you read more carefully what people here post. If what someone writes resembles the fallacy by your interpretation, it doesn't mean it is so
.Let's not get into this anymore, ok? You've got a very good amount of evidence-based discussion provided for the skeptics side of the argument, so I feel pursuing this matter any further will only do harm for your cause.
I can't believe you're actually bringing this up again and again and now AGAIN, when you've been shown at least a dozen times it's a strawman. Not going into that anymore.
Thanks again for the advice. I'm well aware of human 'blind spots', so a nudge to learn more is always appreciated. Alas, this concept is something I feel to be quite settled. I believe we're only having semantic difficulties here. We all agree, but your way of expressing the argument in writing is not what most others here can or will accept as the best/proper way.
Sorry for the delay, but it I feel that perhaps now I can actually get on to it. There's just so much philosophical debris clouding the way...I'll get back to you on the case!
ETA: wollery, brilliant! Simply brilliant!
Last edited:
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,915
Actually, Groundhog day was a surprisingly deep and thoughtful movie, in precisely the way this thread isn't. I took it as an allegory of the tibetan buddhist concept of bardo, which fits in with some of the other movies Bill Murray has made with buddhist motifs, like The Razor's Edge. If we're looking for a bill murray movie to compare to this thread, how about 'Caddyshack'. It's slapstick, plotless, and full of lowbrow humour. This thread is an allegory for the scene where Bill blows up the entire golf course with small furry animals molded from plastic explosives in a futile attempt to kill a gopher.
A
Belz...
Fiend God
I am the Lord of All the universes.
- Status