Zanders
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 689
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
I'm just checking. Do all of the claims on Rramjet's long list of links have the same veracity? Are some less plausible? Is there less evidence for some and more for others?
If so, what criteria should we apply to know the difference?
If so, what criteria should we apply to know the difference?
No, I don't ignore any evidence you post. However, this letter to the editor does not contain any evidence. It contain claims.
Interesting claim. Can you provide some evidence?
IF it could be shown that the author had a subscription I would agreee that he most likely has an interest in science. However, it doesn't say anything about his ability to think rationally or about an interest (or knowledge) about the scientific method.
Did they?
So? Do you have any evidence or do you believe any claim as long as it is presented matter of factely?
As I and others have shown before, anecdotal evidence=a claim.
Is it evidence for UFO's or "aliens" or just a derail of your own thread?
You completely (totally) ignored the evidence I presented in your previous reply…
Claim: To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain.
Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
Anecdote: A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.
Thus “I claim to have seen a fish” can then be anecdotal evidence that I have seen a fish. It is then up to you to determine what weight you place on that evidence.
Okay, let me reword. The author of the article (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) either had a subscription to Scientific American or had access to copies of Scientific American and was obviously interested enough in scientific enquiry to submit an article on a particular topic that Scientific American was running a series on (over a number of different editions).
If the author of the article was not interested in science, then he would not have been interested enough to have been following the debate and to have penned the article. That is, if he merely opportunistically picked up an edition of Scientific American while having no particular interest in science, then he became interested enough to pen an article and to also put himself out to the extent of visiting a hospital to interview the “sufferers” first hand. That suggest an interest in science and an ability to think rationally about it (in seeking a first hand account from the sufferers).
Sure there is always a potential for a hoax, but there are other factors, of which the above is just one of many, that suggest the article’s veracity.
I don’t know whether Scientific American conducted a specific verification of the story in the submitted article. However, the author must have known that the potential for relatively easy verification was there (he provided enough specific detail for this to occur). It is also implausible to think that, given the standing of the magazine and its aims, it would not have employed a system of fact checking.
I am merely pointing out that the language used in the article does not embellish the story in any way. There are no unwarranted justifications or sensationalism, the author just simply and matter of factually relates the basic story. I am not saying that this alone can be used as a justification for veracity, but it is another point in favour of that conclusion.
It is also interesting to note that the symptoms of injury match the method of injury and that is something that the author could not have known at the time. Unlikely coincidence or another piece of evidence suggesting veracity?
I did not. I pointed out that the article in itself doesn't contain any evidence at all. You might feel that hearsay is evidence but that doesn't magically make it so.
So you agree that anecdotal evidence is the same as a claim. Good.
Your assumptions about the author doesn't lead to the conclusion that he's "a rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology.. That's what I was arguing.
How do you know he followed any debate? You're jumping conclusions.
Yeah, it must have been a piece of cake to send some researchers down to Venezuela 124 years ago.
What was the standing of the magazin and what were it's aims? Can you describe the system of fact checking as it relates to letters from readers?
So your default position is to believe any claim as long as it's delivered matter of factly?
First of all. We have not established that the described symptoms actually occured. Secondly, we don't know the method of injury but I assume you mean radiation exposure.
1. Immediate vomiting and extensive swellings, especially around face and lips.
Vomiting within a few minutes of radiation exposure matches very severe radiation exposure.
Swellings, especially in the face, does not.
2. On the 9th day the skin peeled off and black blotches transformed into virulent raw sores. Hair fell off.
The incubation period from exposure to the development of these symptoms doesn't match very severe radiation exposure.
3. Bloody vomit and stools are typical signs of very severe radiation exposure but are not reported.
Sources:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/radiation-sickness/DS00432/DSECTION=symptoms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Signs_and_symptoms
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
If you are claiming that this is evidence of aliens or "aliens", obviously there would be no weight placed on it by people who think critically. It is a claim and not evidence. How much weight do you put on it as evidence for "aliens"? Keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You are making things up again. The article is evidence that someone wrote those words. Are you going to tell us what the author had for breakfast that morning also?
The "above" is something you made up. Does the article describe his motivation or is that an embellishment that you've added?
Of course you don't know if they did or not. You don't know if the author knew that the potential for verification was there or not. You don't know that the magazine had a system for fact checking and if they did, you have no idea what it would be. This is typical "God of the gaps" wishful thinking.
Let me list the sensational adjectives: vivid, dazzling, terror stricken, end of the world, violent, extensive, virulent, suddenly, truly horrible. Dispassionate, you think?
Since you had to go back 124 years to find it, I'd say coincidence.
UFOs as sighted objects can ultimately be classified as:
1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)
Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
4) Jungian consciousness
5) Conscious energy forms
6) Government conspiracy
7) add as you think of one...
The “interdimensional hypothesis” is of course just one of a range of competing speculative hypotheses. Of course the operative word is “speculative”. Nevertheless, it is only via speculating hypotheses that these may ultimately be tested against the known facts – or experimental procedures designed otherwise to “test” them. That precisely is how we progress science and knowledge. We generate speculative hypotheses and ultimately see how they “stack up” against what we know…
..but thank you Zanders for providing links to the explication of one of those speculative hypotheses. Perhaps that list of speculative hypotheses above needs a more detailed and proper treatment. I have not had time to “flesh it out” (so to speak)… you have made a good start though...
Zanders
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 689
Are there any stories like this with verification that have happened recently?
When you are dealing with stories that are over one hundred years old, it gets very hard to verify the details.
It is best to ignore old stories and focus on more recent ones that are verifiable.
I am sorry but I think you will find that “hearsay” can be evidence too. And strictly speaking only those parts of the article that relate to how the victims obtained their injuries is “hearsay”, the other parts (about visiting the victims in hospital and observing the symptoms of injury first hand) is anecdotal evidence.
I don’t see how you obtained that reading from my statement … I do however know why you would posit such a reading…
As for you other particular objections to my evidence of veracity within the article: Sure, taken individually, holes can be picked in each one. However, what is important to consider is the weight of evidence, taken over the whole. If it were merely the case that I had presented but a single piece of (potentially flawed) evidence, then you might have a point, but the effect of a number of such pieces is cumulative, each adding to the veracity of the article. That is, in isolation each can be seen to have its own particular flaw, but together they tend to suggest one particular conclusion (veracity) to a greater extent than they do another particular conclusion (non-veracity).
The victim’s symptoms were apparently:
1. “…almost immediately violent vomitings…”.
2. “…extensive swellings commenced to appear in the upper part of their bodies, this being particularly noticeable about the face and lips.”
3. The next morning … upon the face and body large balck blotches.”
4. “…until the ninth day … the skin peeled off, and these blotches were transformed into virulent raw sores.”
5. The hair on the head fell off…”
Types of radiation: (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiationtypes.html)
Effects of radiation:
Alpha: (http://www.ehow.com/list_5887049_effects-alpha-radiation-humans.html)
Beta: (http://www.ehow.com/about_5367108_beta-radiation-effects.html)
Gamma: (http://www.ehow.com/about_5202322_effects-gamma-radiation.html)
Not to mention ultraviolet… and what in the article is preventing exposure to some combination of those types? And some of the symptoms apparently appeared after some days. And just see what happens when you type in “swelling + radiation poisoning” into your search engine… all I am saying is that the symptoms do seem to match “radiation poisoning”.
The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlandir.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pineywoods.html)
Transcript interview
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/cashlandrum.htm)
Zanders
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 689
How about a non UFO enthusiast source?
I feel that it would be good to balance it out with both perspectives. I will still read through these, though.
Last edited:
Rramjet, has anyone ever come up with any artifacts left behind by these hoards of aliens?
I kinda lost interest in UFOs about 1952 when the likes of George Adamski started writing about golden sandalled maidens from Venus.
If you (or anybody else) can produce just ONE that's unambiguously of extraterrestrial origin, your case will be made and all opposition silenced. So how 'bout it?
Doubtless you'll wind up rich to boot.
I kinda lost interest in UFOs about 1952 when the likes of George Adamski started writing about golden sandalled maidens from Venus.
If you (or anybody else) can produce just ONE that's unambiguously of extraterrestrial origin, your case will be made and all opposition silenced. So how 'bout it?
Doubtless you'll wind up rich to boot.
As a late comer to the debate I can perhaps forgive your lack of knowledge of my position here (although I do think you really should have at least read my OP before commenting). I do not, nor have I ever posited that the ETH is the correct explanatory hypothesis. Perhaps the following will help:
UFOs as sighted objects can ultimately be classified as:
1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)
Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
4) Jungian consciousness
5) Conscious energy forms
6) Government conspiracy
7) add as you think of one...
1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)
Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
4) Jungian consciousness
5) Conscious energy forms
6) Government conspiracy
7) add as you think of one...
The ETH (for example) is of course just one of a range of competing speculative hypotheses. Of course the operative word is “speculative”. Nevertheless, it is only via speculating hypotheses that these may ultimately be tested against the known facts – or experimental procedures designed otherwise to “test” them. That precisely is how we progress science and knowledge. We generate speculative hypotheses and ultimately see how they “stack up” against what we know…
Belgian thought
Master Poster
Can you explain where the dividing line is between "Insufficient information" i.e. unknown - and "Unknown" i.e extremely unknown?
But that's the problem for the ETH...it has been tested against what we know, and found wanting.
Your inability to accept the obvious doesn't change that simple fact, but it does make your opinions suspect. How are we to accept anything you say when you display such an obvious bias?
Comming from someone who believes that a claim in itself can be evidence of the truth of that same claim I don't put much weight in this your claim regarding this.
Your statement was:
How could I NOT obtain that meaning (that a claim can be anecdotal evidence) from what you wrote?
So you're opinion is still that a number of unconfirmed claims somehow magically lends veracity to a those very claims? In reality you have one article as your piece of evidence and nothing else that lends veracity to the events described in that article. Your standard of evidence is dropping.
Then please describe what (combination of) radiation matches the symptoms and provide evidence to support your reasoning.
In reference to:
Sure, happy to help. It comes from the Battelle Study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf and see from page 10 for a description of how they categorised the “KNOWNS”…)
Two points:
First I have consistently maintained (from my OP onward) that I personally do not believe the evidence directly supports the ET hypothesis (which is why it is -as I pointed out - a speculative hypotheisis...)
Second I would find it interesting and helpful if you could explain how the ETH has been “tested against what we know”. If you could please outline the methodology utilised for whatever test it was you had in mind that came to the conclusion “found wanting”, I would be extremely appreciative. Thank you.
UFOs as sighted objects can ultimately be classified as:
1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)
Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
4) Jungian consciousness
5) Conscious energy forms
6) Government conspiracy
7) add as you think of one...
The ETH (for example) is of course just one of a range of competing speculative hypotheses. Of course the operative word is “speculative”. Nevertheless, it is only via speculating hypotheses that these may ultimately be tested against the known facts – or experimental procedures designed otherwise to “test” them. That precisely is how we progress science and knowledge. We generate speculative hypotheses and ultimately see how they “stack up” against what we know…
1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)
Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
4) Jungian consciousness
5) Conscious energy forms
6) Government conspiracy
7) add as you think of one...
The ETH (for example) is of course just one of a range of competing speculative hypotheses. Of course the operative word is “speculative”. Nevertheless, it is only via speculating hypotheses that these may ultimately be tested against the known facts – or experimental procedures designed otherwise to “test” them. That precisely is how we progress science and knowledge. We generate speculative hypotheses and ultimately see how they “stack up” against what we know…
Sure, happy to help. It comes from the Battelle Study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf and see from page 10 for a description of how they categorised the “KNOWNS”…)
“INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this category of identification was not used as a convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps, could have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known object or phenomenon;
PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS - This identification category was assigned to a report when, although it was well established that the observer had seen something, it was also obvious that the description of the sighting had been overdrawn. Religious fanaticism, a desire for publicity, or an over-active imagination were the most common mental aberrations causing this type of report;
UNKNOWN This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its manoeuvres could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.
For the purposes of this study, two groups of identifications were recognized, the KNOWNS (including all identification categories except the UNKNOWNS) and the UNKNOWNS.” (p. 12, http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS - This identification category was assigned to a report when, although it was well established that the observer had seen something, it was also obvious that the description of the sighting had been overdrawn. Religious fanaticism, a desire for publicity, or an over-active imagination were the most common mental aberrations causing this type of report;
UNKNOWN This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its manoeuvres could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.
For the purposes of this study, two groups of identifications were recognized, the KNOWNS (including all identification categories except the UNKNOWNS) and the UNKNOWNS.” (p. 12, http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
Two points:
First I have consistently maintained (from my OP onward) that I personally do not believe the evidence directly supports the ET hypothesis (which is why it is -as I pointed out - a speculative hypotheisis...)
Second I would find it interesting and helpful if you could explain how the ETH has been “tested against what we know”. If you could please outline the methodology utilised for whatever test it was you had in mind that came to the conclusion “found wanting”, I would be extremely appreciative. Thank you.
If you keep twisting my meanings and you will never understand what I am on about.
What I meant was that I make no claim other than anecdotes can be evidence and that the weight we place on them as evidence will be proportional to the amount of verification that can be ascertained for the story contained within.
“I claim to have seen a fish” can then be anecdotal evidence that I have seen a fish.”
By considering what I just wrote above..?
A claim can be an extremely short anecdote (“I saw a fish”) or a book length anecdotal exposition (Chariots of the Gods … an obscure reference I know but in that book there are references to Mesopotamian fish gods as aliens… if memory serves correctly – it’s been over 40 years since I read it…).
In reference to the SciAm article (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
Perhaps you better read over what I stated about that again. You seem to have completely missed my point. It was that the weight of evidence in favour of veracity seems to outweigh the weight of evidence against veracity. That’s all.
I stated:
“…all I am saying is that the symptoms do seem to match “radiation poisoning”.
I posted this before… perhaps you missed it?
“The victim’s symptoms were apparently:
1. “…almost immediately violent vomitings…”.
2. “…extensive swellings commenced to appear in the upper part of their bodies, this being particularly noticeable about the face and lips.”
3. The next morning … upon the face and body large balck blotches.”
4. “…until the ninth day … the skin peeled off, and these blotches were transformed into virulent raw sores.”
5. The hair on the head fell off…”
Types of radiation: (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiationtypes.html)
Effects of radiation:
Alpha: (http://www.ehow.com/list_5887049_effects-alpha-radiation-humans.html)
Beta: (http://www.ehow.com/about_5367108_beta-radiation-effects.html)
Gamma: (http://www.ehow.com/about_5202322_effects-gamma-radiation.html)
Not to mention ultraviolet… and what in the article is preventing exposure to some combination of those types? And some of the symptoms apparently appeared after some days. And just see what happens when you type in “swelling + radiation poisoning” into your search engine… all I am saying is that the symptoms do seem to match “radiation poisoning”. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6582274#post6582274)
1. “…almost immediately violent vomitings…”.
2. “…extensive swellings commenced to appear in the upper part of their bodies, this being particularly noticeable about the face and lips.”
3. The next morning … upon the face and body large balck blotches.”
4. “…until the ninth day … the skin peeled off, and these blotches were transformed into virulent raw sores.”
5. The hair on the head fell off…”
Types of radiation: (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiationtypes.html)
Effects of radiation:
Alpha: (http://www.ehow.com/list_5887049_effects-alpha-radiation-humans.html)
Beta: (http://www.ehow.com/about_5367108_beta-radiation-effects.html)
Gamma: (http://www.ehow.com/about_5202322_effects-gamma-radiation.html)
Not to mention ultraviolet… and what in the article is preventing exposure to some combination of those types? And some of the symptoms apparently appeared after some days. And just see what happens when you type in “swelling + radiation poisoning” into your search engine… all I am saying is that the symptoms do seem to match “radiation poisoning”. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6582274#post6582274)
BTW: xrays can cause burns too… just ask the people who were using xray crystallography in the 1950s…
...besides, my point was that "radiation poisoning" seems to be the closest match to the symptoms ... if you can come up with something else that explains the symptoms, be my guest.
Yeah, and since we completely lack verification I guess Wikipedia sums it up nicely:
"Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy."
Maybe you could report how much weight you put on the different pieces of information presented in the letter and your reasoning behind assigning those weights instead of making sweeping generalizations?
So you think that the victims were exposed to Alpha, Beta, Gamma as well as ultraviolet and xray radiation and that they recieved both low and very high doses at the same time? Is that correct?
- Status