Having followed this thread since its inception, it occurs to me that Rramjet's repeated error of uncritical credulity hinges on two fallacies (both of which are two-parters:
1. a. Eyewitness reports are generally reliable and therefore submissible as scientific evidence; b. We know and understand the specific circumstances in which eyewitnesses reports may not be reliable.
2. a. Unidentified objects are unidentifiable by any known or studied means; b. Therefore we must look to unknown and unstudied explanations for them.
Both of these premises are incorrect. If we could somehow clarify these errors for Rramjet's benefit, and help him see where he is tripping up, we may be able to make some progress with regard to his repeated arguments from ignorance and (in)credulity.
I have NEVER claimed the eyewitness report to be “generally reliable”.
I HAVE claimed that we must examine each case on its merits, utilising all our knowledge, to determine if the witnesses are reliable or not. This we CAN do by utilising research on human behaviour coupled with biographical histories.
I have NEVER claimed that the cases I am submitting represent “scientific” evidence.
I HAVE claimed that we must USE science and logic and research on perception and human behaviour to explore the evidence as presented in the UFO reports. That we CAN do this successfully and efficiently is shown by the fact that a vast majority of reports can be explained in mundane terms.
However, when we apply all the scientific and logical methodology to a case and we find the witnesses reliable and we STILL draw a blank on mundane explanations, then we are free to draw hypotheses based on the evidence as presented in the reports. It all begins with some very simple questions: WHAT could it be and HOW do we explain it?
UFOs
by definition are “Unidentified”. I have NEVER claimed them to be “unidentifiable”. We certainly MUST use (in your words) “
”any known or studied means” in our attempt to identify the objects sighted in the reports.
I HAVE however claimed that, after applying our “known or studied means”, and when we have exhausted all plausible mundane possibilities, THEN we may start to explore alternative hypotheses based on the evidence as presented in the reports.
If I have made any errors and you can clarify them, then I would be grateful if you could do so. But merely stating that I have made errors does NOT make it true that I have.
It is not going to happen. According to Rramjet, a UFO can not be identified by a prosaic source, therefore it must be exotic. In order to keep this little charade up, he will reject any prosaic explanation and any questioning of the witnesses testimony.
Again with the unfounded assertions – indeed a directly FALSE assertions in this case.
I do NOT reject all prosaic explanations. IF a plausible mundane explanation is put forward, then I WILL accept it… for example the recent “balloon” explanation put forward by the debunkers for a video I cited. I found that explanation plausible and then accepted the mundane explanation.
He also claims to know how to correct for any errors in perception through scientific understanding. However, he has yet to demonstrate how this is done and I seriously question if it can be done.
I DO NOT claim to be able to
“correct errors in perception through scientific understanding”.
I DO however claim that perceptual research CAN inform us about eyewitness reports by making us aware of the conditions and circumstances under which perception may be mislead and therefore providing us the ability to examine the case reports
in light of this research for such conditions and circumstances.
A good example of this is provided by the Rogue River case. A number of people observe an object in a clear, blue sky. Perceptual research tells us that estimates of distance are difficult under such conditions. IF the witnesses all agree on a distance , THEN we become suspicious of the report because, according to research, we EXPECT different estimates from our witnesses if they were truly independent – and what do you know, the distance estimates vary between 1 and 4 miles!
Another example is the Cempeche incident. Pilots mistook oil well fires for UFOs. But HOW could this occur… considering only the pilot reports and the video, if we took them at face value, we might be inclined to accept UFOs too! However, perceptual research, provides us with a
plausible explanation as to HOW the pilots might be so mistaken and thus we are able to accept the “oil-well fires” as a mundane explanation. If informative perceptual research was NOT available in this case, people WOULD still be arguing over the case, because we would NOT understand HOW such a mistake could have been made.
So demonstrably, we CAN use perceptual research to inform us about cases. That is, to directly answer your question Astrophotographer, HOW it is done.
All the can be presented is where people have misinterpreted mundane events as UFOs in the past and compare them with the testimonies presented. If one sees similarities, then one can SUGGEST this is a possible explanation.
This is but a SINGLE tool in our armoury that we can utilise to explore case reports. If conditions and circumstances are similar between cases, then we CERTAINLY must consider if previous explanations can be used to explain the current case. But in so doing we must call upon various research disciplines to verify if our explanations actually DO fit the current case. More, one can certainly suggest explanations, but in so doing we must be mindful of restricting ourselves to
plausible mundane explanations. For once we start considering
implausible mundane explanations we rapidly lose touch with logic and reality.
I was merely intrigued by a few cases I heard about and about JREFs reputation in this direction and I decided as a matter of interest to see what JREF had to say. I stated I would present research and evidence to support some initial contentions to get the ball rolling and took it from there.