Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
mmm . . . stealthy.
- Status
You fools,
I really, really like Rramjet’s LOGIC. It opens up so many possibilities for my own HYPOTHESIS. According to Rramjet logic 101, I have so far succeeded in presenting The SASCOW (Small Alien Super Child Of Wonder) Theory. I have received two positive responses, and absolutely NO rebuttals. So I win. No one even presented that confounding SASBOW Theory, or the Small Alien Super Blimp Of Wonder HYPOTHESIS.
And winning here, in the JREF forum, really is the prize isn’t it? Oh I can convince a hundred slobs in other crackpot forums of SASCOW, but to CLAIM I befuddled the DEBUNKERS of the JREF forum, well, that IS something to brag about. Me and Rramjet obviously agree, that despite our condemnation of the many brilliant posters here, it is the top of serious, legitimate debate to CLAIM victory in this highly respected forum.
Rramjet, you are a legend, but I am afraid my SASCOW Theory TRUMPS your “Preposterous Interdimensional Locals” Theory (or PIL). Even you could not muster debate against your OWN logic.
I shall now gloat.
I really, really like Rramjet’s LOGIC. It opens up so many possibilities for my own HYPOTHESIS. According to Rramjet logic 101, I have so far succeeded in presenting The SASCOW (Small Alien Super Child Of Wonder) Theory. I have received two positive responses, and absolutely NO rebuttals. So I win. No one even presented that confounding SASBOW Theory, or the Small Alien Super Blimp Of Wonder HYPOTHESIS.
And winning here, in the JREF forum, really is the prize isn’t it? Oh I can convince a hundred slobs in other crackpot forums of SASCOW, but to CLAIM I befuddled the DEBUNKERS of the JREF forum, well, that IS something to brag about. Me and Rramjet obviously agree, that despite our condemnation of the many brilliant posters here, it is the top of serious, legitimate debate to CLAIM victory in this highly respected forum.
Rramjet, you are a legend, but I am afraid my SASCOW Theory TRUMPS your “Preposterous Interdimensional Locals” Theory (or PIL). Even you could not muster debate against your OWN logic.
I shall now gloat.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I'm sold. Do we get a hat with SASCOW on it?
Unfortunately, much like Dr. Rramjet, my PhD and personal brilliance has held me back, financially. Hats are $15. Up front.
I will get around to replying to some of the recent posts ASAP, but first let me make some general comments.
The plain facts are these:
1. People observe objects that they and subsequent research cannot identify in mundane terms.
2. These objects cannot be identified in mundane terms either because
the objects seem to posses properties or characteristics that lie outside the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural of technological world, or that no mundane explanation presents itself as plausible in the circumstance.
There are two ways we can proceed from here. First we can deny that the objects do possess such properties as described and that the objects actually do lie within the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural or technological world - in which case we must hypothesise that the observer has (wittingly or unwittingly) misapprehended the true properties and characteristics of the object, or we accept that the observer is substantially accurate and that the objects really do possess the characteristics as described and that we must hypothesise that our consensus view of “reality” is inadequate to explain them.
While there is a natural opposition to the latter (no-one likes to think that they do not have a good grasp of what constitutes the boundaries of the natural or technological world), history is replete with examples that tell us that our view of the world and how it operates is based on a consensus opinion and that new discoveries are continually shifting and amending those boundaries. Thus to deny the properties and characteristics of the objects in these terms – based on what we know about the world and technology today – could easily itself be a misconception and thus not a valid objection.
Which direction we take then depends on whether we consider the observer to be accurate or to be under some form of (witting or unwitting) misapprehension.
First “unwitting” misapprehension:
Can observers be mistaken about what they observe?
Yes, of course they can.
Does it necessarily follow then that they are mistaken in any particular observation we care to examine?
No, of course not.
How then can we tell if a witness, in a particular observation, was mistaken or not?
There are two ways of explicating this. First we can examine research on the circumstance and conditions under which witnesses can be mistaken and see if it can inform us on whether any of those circumstances or conditions might apply in the observation under examination and second we can see if there are independent observers who describe the same properties and characteristics of the observed object.
Second, “witting” misapprehension:
Do observers lie or hoax?
Yes, of course they do.
Does it necessarily follow then that they are lying or hoaxing in any particular observation we care to examine?
No, of course not.
How then can we tell if a witness, in a particular observation, is lying or hoaxing or not?
There are actually two ways of explicating this. First we can examine the reliability of the witness (Do they have a history? Are they of sound mind? Have they solid references? etc) and second, we can see if there are independent observers who describe the same properties and characteristics of the observed object.
One final thing to consider is whether there exist unknown natural or technological phenomena that do lie within the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural or technological world, but that our current consensus knowledge simply has not yet discovered and if and when it does, it will be able to describe how this can be so (while maintaining our consensus view of reality).
The problem adherents of the latter “explanation” for the observed object have is that “anything goes”. Anything from unknown electromagnetic phenomena, to secret military technology, to extraterrestrials are all equally valid hypotheses under this “explanation”. Proponents of each hypothesis formed under this “explanation” will claim that each, when positively “discovered”, will conform to the natural world once we understand their true nature and can describe in mundane terms how each manifests and operates. Thus this explanation is a dead end. We can go nowhere with it that will provide us new knowledge. It is merely putting off until the future, questions that need to be answered now.
So, then we must return to questions of whether the observed object really does or does not have the characteristics as described by the observer. But what if we discover that the observers are reliable and accurate? How should we proceed from there?
Of course we must then explore mundane explanations to see if any accord with the characteristics and properties of the observed object. In this endeavour we must be careful to restrain our hypotheses to plausible hypotheses. For example it is no use stating that the observer misapprehended a mundane object if that mundane object was not (or could not have been) present at the time.
But of course the real world is rarely as straightforward. After the event we can never determine with 100% reliability whether a witness was reliable and accurate but by the same token, we can also never determine with 100% reliability that any mundane hypothesis we propose is the answer either.
It all comes down to a balance of probabilities. Given the circumstances and conditions and considering past research, is it likely or unlikely that the witness is reliable or accurate? Also given the circumstances and conditions and considering past research, is it likely or unlikely that our hypothetical mundane solution provides the explanation.
One other thing to note is that in our determination of the above questions, we must provide evidence. That is, it is no good merely stating that we think that a witness is reliable and accurate. We must provide evidence that there is at least a strong likelihood of this being true. Similarly it is no good merely stating that we think a particular mundane object is the explanation, we must provide evidence that there is at least a strong likelihood of this being true.
So, what if, after having gone through all the above, we finally end with a determination that it is likely that the witness is reliable and accurate and that the object therefore really does have the properties and characteristics as described and that we cannot ascribe a likely, plausible mundane explanation to it?
Well then we are at the point of being able to state that the object is unidentified. In other words a UFO.
Then where do we go? We have already noted that an appeal to unknown natural or technological phenomena that might be discovered in the future is a dead end, so how then should we proceed?
Well of course we must examine the descriptions of the object’s properties and characteristics (and its affect on the surrounding environment) and see what those characteristics and environmental effects might tell us about the nature of the object.
We might ask questions like:
Is it a solid object?
Does it display aspects of intelligent control?
Do its properties and characteristics accord with our knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc?
… and so on.
But once we have finished asking and answering those types of questions, where do we go from there?
We create hypotheses of course.
Could it be ET?
But now we run into a problem. Hypotheses should be testable right? Well, yes and no. HOW did we imagine our hypothesis in the first place? Of course we based it, like any naive inductivist would, on the observations. Intelligent control, physics defying properties, associated “beings”… it MUST be ET! Well, no… we can imagine other hypotheticals, like, interdimensional beings perhaps, or time travellers, or “they” might actually be “indigenous”…co-inhabitants if you like… or perhaps Venus was once like earth… or one of the moons of Jupiter could support life… Nevertheless, the ET hypothesis would seem to be the most plausible of all such potential hypotheses. That of course does not make it the correct hypotheses…
Of course we will never know for sure unless ET actually takes us to their “home” and gives us the grand tour. For even if they landed on the Whitehouse lawn we would not know… they could be deceiving us still! Even if we had a crashed craft and alien bodies… we STILL would not know for sure. So it is disingenuous for the UFO debunkers to claim that they will only “believe” if UFO proponents can show them physical evidence. For even after such evidence is admitted, there is STILL no direct proof of ET. We are still left with the proposition “Well it looks like it could be…”[/I] But that is just what we have now. “It looks like it.”, so what we need to do now is conduct research with the evidence that we have now.
We need to look at the cases. For it seems to me that the UFO debunkers still do not believe that UFOs are NOT mundane objects. We need to show that the witnesses are reliable and not mistaken. And we can do that by presenting cases that demonstrate this is likely to be true and that there is no plausible mundane hypothesis that can be put forward as an explanation. I propose the cases I have been presenting do exactly that.
The plain facts are these:
1. People observe objects that they and subsequent research cannot identify in mundane terms.
2. These objects cannot be identified in mundane terms either because
the objects seem to posses properties or characteristics that lie outside the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural of technological world, or that no mundane explanation presents itself as plausible in the circumstance.
There are two ways we can proceed from here. First we can deny that the objects do possess such properties as described and that the objects actually do lie within the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural or technological world - in which case we must hypothesise that the observer has (wittingly or unwittingly) misapprehended the true properties and characteristics of the object, or we accept that the observer is substantially accurate and that the objects really do possess the characteristics as described and that we must hypothesise that our consensus view of “reality” is inadequate to explain them.
While there is a natural opposition to the latter (no-one likes to think that they do not have a good grasp of what constitutes the boundaries of the natural or technological world), history is replete with examples that tell us that our view of the world and how it operates is based on a consensus opinion and that new discoveries are continually shifting and amending those boundaries. Thus to deny the properties and characteristics of the objects in these terms – based on what we know about the world and technology today – could easily itself be a misconception and thus not a valid objection.
Which direction we take then depends on whether we consider the observer to be accurate or to be under some form of (witting or unwitting) misapprehension.
First “unwitting” misapprehension:
Can observers be mistaken about what they observe?
Yes, of course they can.
Does it necessarily follow then that they are mistaken in any particular observation we care to examine?
No, of course not.
How then can we tell if a witness, in a particular observation, was mistaken or not?
There are two ways of explicating this. First we can examine research on the circumstance and conditions under which witnesses can be mistaken and see if it can inform us on whether any of those circumstances or conditions might apply in the observation under examination and second we can see if there are independent observers who describe the same properties and characteristics of the observed object.
Second, “witting” misapprehension:
Do observers lie or hoax?
Yes, of course they do.
Does it necessarily follow then that they are lying or hoaxing in any particular observation we care to examine?
No, of course not.
How then can we tell if a witness, in a particular observation, is lying or hoaxing or not?
There are actually two ways of explicating this. First we can examine the reliability of the witness (Do they have a history? Are they of sound mind? Have they solid references? etc) and second, we can see if there are independent observers who describe the same properties and characteristics of the observed object.
One final thing to consider is whether there exist unknown natural or technological phenomena that do lie within the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural or technological world, but that our current consensus knowledge simply has not yet discovered and if and when it does, it will be able to describe how this can be so (while maintaining our consensus view of reality).
The problem adherents of the latter “explanation” for the observed object have is that “anything goes”. Anything from unknown electromagnetic phenomena, to secret military technology, to extraterrestrials are all equally valid hypotheses under this “explanation”. Proponents of each hypothesis formed under this “explanation” will claim that each, when positively “discovered”, will conform to the natural world once we understand their true nature and can describe in mundane terms how each manifests and operates. Thus this explanation is a dead end. We can go nowhere with it that will provide us new knowledge. It is merely putting off until the future, questions that need to be answered now.
So, then we must return to questions of whether the observed object really does or does not have the characteristics as described by the observer. But what if we discover that the observers are reliable and accurate? How should we proceed from there?
Of course we must then explore mundane explanations to see if any accord with the characteristics and properties of the observed object. In this endeavour we must be careful to restrain our hypotheses to plausible hypotheses. For example it is no use stating that the observer misapprehended a mundane object if that mundane object was not (or could not have been) present at the time.
But of course the real world is rarely as straightforward. After the event we can never determine with 100% reliability whether a witness was reliable and accurate but by the same token, we can also never determine with 100% reliability that any mundane hypothesis we propose is the answer either.
It all comes down to a balance of probabilities. Given the circumstances and conditions and considering past research, is it likely or unlikely that the witness is reliable or accurate? Also given the circumstances and conditions and considering past research, is it likely or unlikely that our hypothetical mundane solution provides the explanation.
One other thing to note is that in our determination of the above questions, we must provide evidence. That is, it is no good merely stating that we think that a witness is reliable and accurate. We must provide evidence that there is at least a strong likelihood of this being true. Similarly it is no good merely stating that we think a particular mundane object is the explanation, we must provide evidence that there is at least a strong likelihood of this being true.
So, what if, after having gone through all the above, we finally end with a determination that it is likely that the witness is reliable and accurate and that the object therefore really does have the properties and characteristics as described and that we cannot ascribe a likely, plausible mundane explanation to it?
Well then we are at the point of being able to state that the object is unidentified. In other words a UFO.
Then where do we go? We have already noted that an appeal to unknown natural or technological phenomena that might be discovered in the future is a dead end, so how then should we proceed?
Well of course we must examine the descriptions of the object’s properties and characteristics (and its affect on the surrounding environment) and see what those characteristics and environmental effects might tell us about the nature of the object.
We might ask questions like:
Is it a solid object?
Does it display aspects of intelligent control?
Do its properties and characteristics accord with our knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc?
… and so on.
But once we have finished asking and answering those types of questions, where do we go from there?
We create hypotheses of course.
Could it be ET?
But now we run into a problem. Hypotheses should be testable right? Well, yes and no. HOW did we imagine our hypothesis in the first place? Of course we based it, like any naive inductivist would, on the observations. Intelligent control, physics defying properties, associated “beings”… it MUST be ET! Well, no… we can imagine other hypotheticals, like, interdimensional beings perhaps, or time travellers, or “they” might actually be “indigenous”…co-inhabitants if you like… or perhaps Venus was once like earth… or one of the moons of Jupiter could support life… Nevertheless, the ET hypothesis would seem to be the most plausible of all such potential hypotheses. That of course does not make it the correct hypotheses…
Of course we will never know for sure unless ET actually takes us to their “home” and gives us the grand tour. For even if they landed on the Whitehouse lawn we would not know… they could be deceiving us still! Even if we had a crashed craft and alien bodies… we STILL would not know for sure. So it is disingenuous for the UFO debunkers to claim that they will only “believe” if UFO proponents can show them physical evidence. For even after such evidence is admitted, there is STILL no direct proof of ET. We are still left with the proposition “Well it looks like it could be…”[/I] But that is just what we have now. “It looks like it.”, so what we need to do now is conduct research with the evidence that we have now.
We need to look at the cases. For it seems to me that the UFO debunkers still do not believe that UFOs are NOT mundane objects. We need to show that the witnesses are reliable and not mistaken. And we can do that by presenting cases that demonstrate this is likely to be true and that there is no plausible mundane hypothesis that can be put forward as an explanation. I propose the cases I have been presenting do exactly that.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
The plain fact is that a page of rubbish based on some false dichotomies is worthless.
On testable hypotheses:
Here is a testable hypothesis then:
1. There are no testable hypotheses in the field of UFO research.
Here are some more testable hypotheses for you:
A. All UFO sightings are the result of misperceptions, delusion, lies or hoaxes.
B. There is a plausible mundane solution for every UFO sighting.
(all less that 12 words...
)
Here is a testable hypothesis then:
1. There are no testable hypotheses in the field of UFO research.
Here are some more testable hypotheses for you:
A. All UFO sightings are the result of misperceptions, delusion, lies or hoaxes.
B. There is a plausible mundane solution for every UFO sighting.
(all less that 12 words...
)
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Here is a testable hypothesis then:
1. There are no testable hypotheses in the field of UFO research.
Here are some more testable hypotheses for you:
A. All UFO sightings are the result of misperceptions, delusion, lies or hoaxes.
B. There is a plausible mundane solution for every UFO sighting.
(all less that 12 words...
And all so blatantly wrong that no debunking is required.
3. None of the reported observations is corraborated by enough objective data.
We should, as sceptics, require aditional, objective data that confirms the observed carachteristics since we know that human perception is fallable.
New discoveries are made by applying the scientific method. Not by accepting eyewitness testimonies at face value.
It doesn't matter if we consider the observer to be accurate or not. Without confirmation by objective means we have to leave it as unidentified. That's the case with all of science and I see no reason why we should treat UFOlogists differently.
And 3, we should obtain objective data. Failing that, we should leave it as unidentified.
Se previous comment.
Word sallad.
I know, I know!!! Obtain objective confirmation as is the norm in the scientific community.
Yes, but without reliable data we can't rule everything out.
Yes we can, if we gather objective data. Unfortunately, no such cases exist.
You mean guessing or accept/reject based on your current belief system?
Exactly what I have been saying all along. Please provide that objective evidence.
You mean, when we have confirmed by objective means that an unknown object actually was flying around somewhere? Then we should try to figure out what it was.
It was a UFO at the start of your post and it's still a UFO. Stop redefining the meaning of UFO.
Oh please tell me...
No, we don't need to examine the described carachteristics. We need to examine the confirmed caracteristics.
Your point is?
That's not a hypothesis, it's a question.
Why more plausible? You're jumping conclusions.
Objective evidence that something not created by man was flying around would convince me that it's worth investigating. Where it comes from comes next.
You don't need to do that because it doesn't help. You need to present objective evidence. How hard can that be to understand?
Belgian thought
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,346
Watch out - this film came out today...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2819116/UFO-is-spotted-over-Dublin.html plus the news that due to the MOD closing its UFO department - The Sun will "pick up the baton, and release a rundown of your sightings, like the MoD used to."
That is all we need!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2819116/UFO-is-spotted-over-Dublin.html plus the news that due to the MOD closing its UFO department - The Sun will "pick up the baton, and release a rundown of your sightings, like the MoD used to."
That is all we need!
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Membership is invitation-only and after some tests.I Knew it! I knew it! Can I join? Please? I'll swear bloody oaths, ridicule the enemy, point and laugh, ...I can do dat. Let me in somebody.
With this in mind, rejoice! You are being informed that we, the hidden reptilian alien overlords, are going to meet for dinner and you were
Invitation (RSVP) should be arriving by mail disguised as a phone bill.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
That poor blimp should get out of the closet as soon as possible.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
If you understood this part, the rest needn't have been said.
Despite your strong DESIRE for aliens to exist, a real scientist would not base his BELIEF on anything less than real evidence. A shame, really.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
LOL. You call that "testable"? You think that a good test would be to fully investigate every one of the many thousands of sightings, including future ones, to find one that has a a definite non-mundane reason? When exactly does this test end and who performs it?Here is a testable hypothesis then:
1. There are no testable hypotheses in the field of UFO research.
Here are some more testable hypotheses for you:
A. All UFO sightings are the result of misperceptions, delusion, lies or hoaxes.
B. There is a plausible mundane solution for every UFO sighting.
(all less that 12 words...
I think you'd better look up the word "testable"
Oh, and as to point B,
Maybe not. Only every single one so far that has a solution.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
In #2 you sort of glossed over the word "SEEM". You used it but then ignored. I will quote several individuals for you about this key point. From Project Bluebook SR14:
It must be emphasized, again and again, that the conclusions contained in this report are based NOT on facts, but on what many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be. (pages 3-4)
Additionally, we can quote R.V. Jones (who had lots of experience interviewing "trained" observers during WWII):
....witnesses were usually right when they said that something had happened at a particular place, although they could be wildly wrong about what had happened. (the Natural philosophy of flying saucers - Condon report appendix V)
Thomas Huxley also has an important point:
The rule of common sense is prima facie to trust a witness in all matters, in which neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices, nor that love of the marvellous, which is inherent to a greater or less degree in all mankind, are strongly concerned; and, when they are involved, to require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the contravention of probability by the thing testified. (Agnoticism 1889)
I could go on quoting Sagan and others (including SF writers Asimov and Clarke) but they would be another wall of text.
Your methodology in trying to evaluate the accuracy of eyewitness reports is flawed simply because you do not apply it when discussing these cases. You ignore case histories, which demonstrate how people misperceive mundane objects.
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 338
From the Department of Redundancy Department…
There’s nothing implausible or unscientific about misperceptions, hallucinations, or hoaxes and since there’s no objective way to rule all those out without evidence to the contrary… that’s it, it’s over, you’re done… it’s unidentified.
You may think you’re being really clever here but you can’t just handwave away the reality of human fallibility… nobody’s perfect. Feel free to believe the witness(es) (or even your own eyes) based on faith alone but that’s not science.
Yes, you are… and you’re right, it can’t be done.
Doesn’t matter where you put it or what you want to call it, you can’t eliminate the “mundane” without evidence for the unknown…
Right but you’ve failed to rule out all plausible explanations…
There’s nothing implausible or unscientific about misperceptions, hallucinations, or hoaxes and since there’s no objective way to rule all those out without evidence to the contrary… that’s it, it’s over, you’re done… it’s unidentified.
But again, you haven’t done that… doesn’t matter what the object allegedly did.
Right but there exists lots of evidence for misperceptions, hallucinations, and hoaxes… all three are perfectly mundane hypotheses and until you rule those out, you don’t know that the alleged object actually “defies knows physics”… it’s merely speculation on your part.
You may think you’re being really clever here but you can’t just handwave away the reality of human fallibility… nobody’s perfect. Feel free to believe the witness(es) (or even your own eyes) based on faith alone but that’s not science.
Not in the eyes of science…
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Do you wear a deerstalker hat and have an assistant named Watson?
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
How do you propose to test this hypothesis?
1. How do you rule out every possible explanation for the sighting?
2. How do you determine if a witness has grossly misrepresented what he saw?
3. How do you determine if a witness isn't making his sighting up?
4. How do you determine if a witness doesn't have psychological issues that makes them see things that are not really there?
5. How do you determine a case is absolutely a hoax or not?
6. How do you......... (fill in the blank)?
You are wrong. It is a non-testable hypothesis.
There are always those exceptions that will prevent a positive determination of what was actually seen and what the witness reported seeing. You can't get around this issue no matter how hard you try and how scientific you claim to be.
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
Rramjet said:
This is a major sticking point. Rramjet's believes that if an observer has some set of admirable characteristics (is in a position of responsibility, has no *obvious* reason to lie - note the negative which has the result of shifting the burden of proof inappropriately), then we give that person's testimony more weight. We of the scientific persuasion, however, might go so far as to raise our eyebrows initially for a claim reported by a person in authority or responsibility, but would still wait for the heart of the matter, necessary in logical terms, which is objective, independent verification of testimony - especially for a claim that would turn everything we know upside down.
This is because eyewitness testimony is just a story.
- Status