UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Spektator]

I can't blame anyone for not wanting to "step into evidence" for UFOs. It tends to be squashy and smelly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am aquainted with several that I have been impressed with, but I am not a UFO researcher of note, and would not present myself as one. Several posters here have decades of experience in examination of case histories.

I am reluctant now to step into anything which concerns 'evidence' as I believe I have presented my ideas above illustrating the chasm in defining the word as it relates to the UFO/Alien subject, and I think the definition dog will begin to chase its tail once again.

I respect critical thinking and the steps which are taken to separate the 'woo' from the legitimate. I understand the neccessity of validating data, vetting sources and the satisfaction of knowing that what is left on the plate has credibility. However, my view is that if those controls are too strict, potentially valid info may be tossed as being invalid.

One of the main issues, as I see it, is a more rigourous examination of the raw data at the collection point, whether it be from an individual, or other source. Only by ensuring initial credibility can we, as collective examiners, be assured we have a starting point we can trust.

Fair enough. It has been noted numerous times in this thread that a collection of a huge number of bits of non-compelling evidence do not make a compelling case for an extraordinary claim. Do you think that that is a fair assessment of the current situation for the "UFO's are of alien origin" claim?

 

[wollery]

It's worth remembering where this thread actually started. Rramjet has explicitly said that he doesn't think there is a single case that provides strong evidence for UFOs being aliens, but that the large number of cases with very little evidence to support them suggests that they are. It was him that started this thread as a place where he would supposedly show us this mass of bad quality evidence.

So Snidely's complaints are really nonsensical. Even the UFO proponent who started this thread doesn't believe he has any good evidence. Skeptics aren't dismissing his evidence out of hand, we're simply agreeing with him that it is, in fact, bad quality. The only place we differ is in the conclusions we draw from seeing a pile of poor quality evidence. If Snidely disagrees with the way the evidence is dealt with, perhaps he should take it up with Rramjet, rather than trying to pin blame on the nasty skeptics?

And yet, Rramjet argues each case as if it were compelling evidence.

 

[Czarcasm]

Fair enough. It has been noted numerous times in this thread that a collection of a huge number of bits of non-compelling evidence do not make a compelling case for an extraordinary claim. Do you think that that is a fair assessment of the current situation for the "UFO's are of alien origin" claim?

Or, to say it another way, you can collect all the horse dung in the world in one pile, but when you put the saddle on top, it ain't gonna "giddy-up" no matter how hard you whip it.

 

[Access Denied]

Assuming I am 'continuing to ignore' is both disrespectful and incorrect.

I'll need some time for a cogent reply to your assertions above. Please do not assume anything.

So while patiently waiting for a reply to my latest reply to you I shouldn't assume you intend to address the questions I asked you in my reply to you last week as noted here first?

(that's a rhetorical question by the way)

OK, I'll try to keep an open mind...

 

[amb]

The same people that believe in life after death, astrology, homeopaths, and ghosts etc seem to be the same people as believe in ufology. Yet most claim to be at least agnostic.
Yet don't realize that it's just pseudoscience.
A high proportion of the general population believe in UFOs. An even higher number believe in God. It still doesn't makes it true no matter what the numbers show. The problems arise because people are willing to believe without any solid evidence or proof.

 

[Belgian thought]

“The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That's one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population the intelligent ones or the fool”


Henrik Ibsen - An Enemy of the People

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm not sure. What's the consensus?

 

[Belgian thought]

 

[Marduk]

I'm not sure. What's the consensus?

the only factual statement I could make is that posters that use names that are at least 3000 years old are less likely to be fools than posters who aren't
but there are no guarantees

 

[Akhenaten]

the only factual statement I could make is that posters that use names that are at least 3000 years old are less likely to be fools than posters who aren't
but there are no guarantees

We agree, which makes it unanimous, so far. Must be true.

 

[SnidelyW]

It's worth remembering where this thread actually started. Rramjet has explicitly said that he doesn't think there is a single case that provides strong evidence for UFOs being aliens, but that the large number of cases with very little evidence to support them suggests that they are. It was him that started this thread as a place where he would supposedly show us this mass of bad quality evidence.

So Snidely's complaints are really nonsensical. Even the UFO proponent who started this thread doesn't believe he has any good evidence. Skeptics aren't dismissing his evidence out of hand, we're simply agreeing with him that it is, in fact, bad quality. The only place we differ is in the conclusions we draw from seeing a pile of poor quality evidence. If Snidely disagrees with the way the evidence is dealt with, perhaps he should take it up with Rramjet, rather than trying to pin blame on the nasty skeptics?

I have no issues with skeptics and critical thinking in general. Where a reasonable approach to critical thinking is warranted, I am completely on board.
What has appeared to happen in this thread, and the point I am making now, is that skeptics can get caught up in ever-narrowing definitions of what constitutes 'quality' evidence and 'acceptable' evidence. Both are subjective, and it appears this collective subjectivity, as it concerns evidence for the UFO/Alien phenomena, has taken on a seemingly infectious quality- in which succeeding skeptics consistently narrow and restrict the definition of what constitutes 'quality' evidence and 'acceptable' evidence.

This is not 'blaming skeptics nor 'whining' about their arguments. I am pointing out what I see as a trend. To attack this observation as 'blaming' seems simplistic.

I am here to learn, grow, and evaluate my opinions regarding this subject on an ongoing basis, and if reasonable arguments are constituted, I will re-evaluate my position.

 

[SnidelyW]

Fair enough. It has been noted numerous times in this thread that a collection of a huge number of bits of non-compelling evidence do not make a compelling case for an extraordinary claim. Do you think that that is a fair assessment of the current situation for the "UFO's are of alien origin" claim?

I am reasonable, and will agree that there is a lot of things which have been stated regarding the UFO?Alien situation which have been of poor quality by even the most relaxed of standards.

I do not think, however, that is a fair assessment, as there are, as a guess, probably millions of case histories to wade through. I would never paint them all with the same brush, as some here seem to.

Are you suggesting that one should never conclude anything on the sheer volume of evidence? For anything, or just the UFO/Alien phenomenon?

 

[Nonpareil]

I have no issues with skeptics and critical thinking in general. Where a reasonable approach to critical thinking is warranted, I am completely on board.

Critical thinking is always warranted.

What has appeared to happen in this thread, and the point I am making now, is that skeptics can get caught up in ever-narrowing definitions of what constitutes 'quality' evidence and 'acceptable' evidence. Both are subjective, and it appears this collective subjectivity, as it concerns evidence for the UFO/Alien phenomena, has taken on a seemingly infectious quality- in which succeeding skeptics consistently narrow and restrict the definition of what constitutes 'quality' evidence and 'acceptable' evidence.

No, the bounds for what constitutes acceptable evidence are pretty clear in this case. Witness accounts are not acceptable, as they are notoriously unreliable. Since, in the end, that's all there is, there's no evidence that presents a compelling case.

I am here to learn, grow, and evaluate my opinions regarding this subject on an ongoing basis, and if reasonable arguments are constituted, I will re-evaluate my position.

What you appear to be forgetting here is that you are holding beliefs with no basis. What you should be doing, if you are truly trying to apply critical thinking, is the opposite. The basic position should be "not alien", not "alien". Only when evidence is presented should you consider "alien".

 

[Nonpareil]

I do not think, however, that is a fair assessment, as there are, as a guess, probably millions of case histories to wade through. I would never paint them all with the same brush, as some here seem to.

We call 'em like we see 'em. The burden of proof is on you. If there is good evidence, present it. Unless you do, we are under no obligation to consider it.

Are you suggesting that one should never conclude anything on the sheer volume of evidence? For anything, or just the UFO/Alien phenomenon?

Well, yes, pretty much. Quality over quantity.

 

[SnidelyW]

Critical thinking is always warranted.



No, the bounds for what constitutes acceptable evidence are pretty clear in this case. Witness accounts are not acceptable, as they are notoriously unreliable. Since, in the end, that's all there is, there's no evidence that presents a compelling case.



What you appear to be forgetting here is that you are holding beliefs with no basis. What you should be doing, if you are truly trying to apply critical thinking, is the opposite. The basic position should be "not alien", not "alien". Only when evidence is presented should you consider "alien".

My position is why not 'alien'? I think my position of 'UFO/Alien actually requires more critical thinking, as I believe it requires one to take the more difficult road. I could sit back and nod my head and do the 'tsk! tsk!' thing and scold all those ufo believers ad infinitum, but how would that allow my belief system to develop?
I think my beliefs have basis. I can assess photos and radar contacts and read eyewitness accounts, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of them, and make an assessment of their credibility. I can look for trends. I can examine motives, and form conclusions based on the weight of that evidence. How is that not 'critical thinking'?
I did not wish to zoom off on tangents here, but just wanted to explain to you what governs my approach.

 

[Sledge]

Because the default position on any unfounded assertion must be "no it isn't." If you are going to say "it might be alien," ok. But it might be fairies, or foxes with jetpacks, or Transformers (God, I hope it's Transformers), or any other thing for which there is no evidence. Starting with an assumption of what it is is a horrible way to investigate. You look for evidence and see where it takes you, not decide what you want it to be then try to prove that.

 

[Marduk]

My position is why not 'alien'? I think my position of 'UFO/Alien actually requires more critical thinking, as I believe it requires one to take the more difficult road. I could sit back and nod my head and do the 'tsk! tsk!' thing and scold all those ufo believers ad infinitum, but how would that allow my belief system to develop?
I think my beliefs have basis. I can assess photos and radar contacts and read eyewitness accounts, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of them, and make an assessment of their credibility. I can look for trends. I can examine motives, and form conclusions based on the weight of that evidence. How is that not 'critical thinking'?
I did not wish to zoom off on tangents here, but just wanted to explain to you what governs my approach.

go examine a scientific fact,
anyone will do, try that the sea is made of water
then when you have tried to dismantle that supporting evidence yourself for that verified fact and failed
then you will understand the standard required for factual evidence
at the moment Snidely, I gotta tell you, you appear to have a system malfunction that is allowing "belief" to get in the way of "Blasphemy/understanding/control/disbelief" (delete where applicable)


I think you are also misunderstanding that true sceptics are not opposed to U.F.O's being alien craft at all, we are not anti anything and are not attempting to debunk because we are following some misguided belief. We are all firmly sat on the fence, but we understand what is required to prove something factually, and so far in this thread, its not even been close

 

[SnidelyW]

We call 'em like we see 'em. The burden of proof is on you. If there is good evidence, present it. Unless you do, we are under no obligation to consider it.



Well, yes, pretty much. Quality over quantity.

I fully understand the quality argument. I respect your narrow definition of quality. I do not agree with it, but understand and respect your point.

What has appeared to be a trend in this thread is the restrictive definitions placed by skeptics on 'evidence'.

For instance- all eyewitnes accounts are out. All photo evidence is out. All video evidence is out. How can the skeptic position be taken as anything other than dismissive and instantly reactionary when sweeping statements like this are made over and over again?

Perhaps we should all agree on some sort of standard acceptable to all, and keep watching the sky.

 

[Nonpareil]

My position is why not 'alien'?

I know it is. And this is why I believe that you do not understand the burden of proof. Perhaps you should read up on Russell's Teapot. I think it may clear a few things up for you.

I think my position of 'UFO/Alien actually requires more critical thinking, as I believe it requires one to take the more difficult road.

And I believe that it requires less critical thinking, as you are holding this belief without proof. All you have is the argument from incredulity, appeal to magic, argument ad populum and bare assertion.

I could sit back and nod my head and do the 'tsk! tsk!' thing and scold all those ufo believers ad infinitum, but how would that allow my belief system to develop?

It wouldn't. But that's not the point of explaining the fallacies to UFO believers. You need to know the fallacies beforehand. Nizkor has a handy list of the fallacies that you may find edumacting.

I think my beliefs have basis. I can assess photos and radar contacts and read eyewitness accounts, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of them, and make an assessment of their credibility. I can look for trends. I can examine motives, and form conclusions based on the weight of that evidence. How is that not 'critical thinking'?

It's not critical thinking because you have started with a conclusion, then looked for evidence to support it. You are also admitting evidence that is not valid, and jumping to conclusions. You also commit the special pleading fallacy, make bare assertions, and utilize argument ad populum.