As I wrote before, nowadays I tend to focus on data-collecting and data evaluation methodologies. I discussed the cases presented by Rramjet a number of times before (as skeptic and as believer) and other posters here are dwelling pretty well in to their minutiae.
Rramjet is following one of the standard UFOlogy (also valid for other “fringe-subjectlogy”) scripts. He is trying to sell the available poor-quality evidence as reliable evidence to back a particular speculation or view of the UFO phenomena (in his case, it seems a Jaccques Valée-type approach, or maybe something like Icke's "we are living in a matrix built by reptillian aliens" nonsense). Other examples of standard UFOlogy scripts would be the “aliens told me” contactee variants.
Whatever is Rramjet pet speculation for UFOs, its most basic flaw rests at its foundations- the evidence, at the data he uses. It can not withstand any basic set of testing for quality. Rramjet tried more than once compare it with data used by Darwin and Copernicus; it’s a terribly flawed comparison, flawed to the point of bordering dishonesty if the person who is making such a comparison has a minimum background on science. All it takes is to compare the data collection/evaluation methodologies used by these real scientists with UFOlogy research. In real science, the quality of datasets and their interpretations can be tested (and quite often contested) and these datasets can be reproduced by other scientists if the material is good. In UFOlogy, second-hand accounts, news from National Enquirer, burry pictures and material suspected of being hoaxes are widespread.
So the first step, usually not followed by UFOlogists would be to build a solid database using a non-biased methodology which, when used by someone else, with the same input data would generate the same results. In other words- solid unbiased criteria to qualify a UFO case as good. Note that “good” in this case is not equal to “alien” (this would be some steps beyond, it is actually an interpretation); it just means the case can be researched in depth, the data collected about it is reliable, it can be cross-checked, for example. So, I ask, where and how to draw the lines between good and bad cases?
UFOlogists can't even draw boundaries around the phenomena they study. Within UFOlogy cases are selected based on personal criteria which usually rely deeply on the UFOlogist’s own perception of the UFO phenomena.
As an example, I can point Rramjet’s positioning of Mothmen sightings within UFO phenomena- many would place them within the cryptozoology and/or paranormal phenomena spheres. Where and how to draw the lines between these phenomena (if there is one actually)? Remember, you should provide a set of unbiased criteria and other people must reach similar results when applying them. Note that something like “because it floats, glows and disappears in thin air” is not good enough…
Now comes one more problem- the interpretation. It is mostly tied to the criteria issue. Rramjet’s arguments on an alien origin for UFOs will work only if we can actually be sure the events regarding a given case happened as told. For example, Rogue River eyewitnesses must actually have seen a disc-shaped craft. The problem is that we can not be sure of this; nowadays there’s absolutely no way one can, for example, cross-check their reports with other people who were around back then. We can, however, suppose or speculate about possible mundane explanations (OK, we can speculate about non-mundane explanations also, but I’ll get in to this later). But that is as far as one can go, and the ultimate result will be an “inconclusive” label.
Also along this line, I must also remind you that even if a solid UFO case classification method is ever created, the ultimate result of the interpretation of a give case may be something other than “alien”. It may also be “inconclusive” (not enough information to know if those lights could be or not something mundane) or “possibly a misidentification of space junk re-entering atmosphere”, among many other options.
Moving further on, I can’t help but commenting on the arguments used by UFOlogists (and Rramjet, in this particular case). They have too many basic flaws, especially when one is reminded that he/she is supposed to have scientific training. It seems the training is forgotten when it comes down to UFOs… An example is the boat argument in Rogue River case. Heck, even boats moored in quiet lakes will rock! All it takes is someone to move inside it.
So, you have five guys aboard a boat moored on a lake, no winds, no waves. OK. Then someone says “What the hell is that thing flying over there? It looks like one of those flying saucers…” You expect everybody to stand still? And have you ever considered the effects of a gentle rocking when observing a small object in the distance through binoculars? Ever tried to do such a thing? No, its not easy, it can not be easy, especially at high magnifications. Rramjet denies this fact. Poor methodology; scientific methodology and critical thinking are not being used. And in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Absence of critical thinking and scientific methodology.
One last comment, regarding the possible explanations for the UFO phenomena. Yes, I’ve made it before (just like the points exposed above), but here it goes again, for the lurker’s sake…
Rramjet claims the UFO cases he presented can be explained by "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world”. Now, there’s that razor… You know, a basic scientific methodology / critical thinking principle about simple x complex explanations…
The claim “UFOs can only be explained by intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" has the embedded claims that something actually lies “outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world” and that this something is intelligent and able to cross the boundaries between Jacques Valée’s Magonia and our natural world.
Now, which explanation would that blade cut? "Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" or mundane (but not correctly identified for a number of reasons) objects/phenomena and/or hoaxes?
Remember, if you decide to stick to the "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" you will have to provide reliable evidences that something actually lies “outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world” and that this something is intelligent and able to cross the boundaries between theirs and our natural world. And you must do this without appealing to circular reasoning (“UFOs are evidence of intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world thus there are evidence that intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world are the source of UFO phenomena). Wild baseless speculations are also not useful.
Can you do all the above? Oh, the old lines against skeptics and mainstream science will not help you. Woo lore can not generate energy or make airplanes fly… Ad infinitum repetition of links to UFO cases will not also help. Can you actually hit the core of the issue?
OK, that was my monthly wall o' text...
