Well, it's been a while since I posted, I'm afraid real life once again got in the way of forum posting.
Life happens.
I'll be making some more posts, but for now I'd like to address RRamjet's post #8570.
Wonderful! You are a breath of fresh air (someone is actually going to address some substantial points!)
In reference to the Battelle Study (
http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf):
First you need to look at the definition of unknown. Simply put, it means that they couldn't think of a mundane explanation that fit the observations.
Almost – there were two parts to the Battelle scientist’s conceptualisation of UFOs. First:
“…the term "flying saucers" shall be used hereafter in this report to mean a novel, airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World.” (p.1)
Second, “UNKNOWN” was defined as:
”This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)
Now obviously the scientists involved in the assessment of the UFO reports would have used a process of elimination to do so (Did it have wings? No, so obviously not an airplane. Did it manoeuvre? Yes, so obviously not a meteor. Did it travel at a substantial speed. Yes, so obviously not a balloon, radar kite, etc. Did it make any noise? No, so obviously not a helicopter. Etc and so on). Now I understand RoboT has done his very best to poison people’s minds against the process of elimination as a scientific tool. However, despite this, it must be noted that such a process is a powerful and logical process - without which science would simply not be possible. That is, the process of elimination is one of the most foundational elements of science and logic itself - and to denigrate or attempt to cast doubt about its legitimacy as a useful and powerful tool actually represents an attack on science and logic itself!
”
I would like to point out that elimination is indeed a basic component of doing science thus in that context ID does not contribute to scientific inquiry. But unlike ID, science does not use elimination to conclude the validity of a certain hypothesis but rather the invalidity of one. Science then goes on to propose another hypothesis which will have to withstand the attempts at disprove. When evidence supporting the hypothesis strengthen, so does the hypothesis.” (
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000188.html)
”
Elimination of potential hypotheses is a fundamental component of many learning processes. In order to understand the nature of elimination, herein we study the following model of learning recursive functions from examples.” (
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=637320)
”
Induction. From
The Oxford English Dictionary (
OED); to induce (in relation to science and logic) means “to derive by reasoning, to lead to something as a conclusion, or inference, to suggest or imply,” and induction “as the process of inferring a general law or principle from observation of particular instances.” Another version is the “adducing (pulling together) of a number of separate facts, particulars, etc. especially for the purpose of proving a general statement.”
My 1967 edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannica (
E. Brit.) gives two versions by John Stuart Mill: “the operation of discovering and proving general propositions” or “that operation of the mind by which we infer that what we know to be true in a particular case or cases will be true in all cases that resemble the former in certain assignable respects.”
A paraphrase of Francis Bacon’s view (also from the
E. Brit.) is
“a selective process of elimination among a number of alternative possibilities.” The
E. Brit. in a separate entry defines
primary induction as “the deliberate attempt to find more laws about the behavior of the thing that we can observe and so to draw the boundaries of natural possibility more narrowly” (that is, to look for a generalization about what we can observe), and
secondary induction as “the attempt to incorporate the results of primary induction in an explanatory theory covering a large field of enquiry” (that is, to try to fit the generalization made by primary induction into a more comprehensive theory).[/I]” (bolding added. Rr) (
http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml)
One could of course go on providing quotes to show how fundamental and essential the process of elimination is to science, but I think the above should suffice.
There are several problems with this. First is the obvious, just because the assessors couldn't think of a mundane explanation doesn't mean that there isn't one.
So when you state (wollery) that the scientists simply “
couldn’t think of a mundane explanation” you are implying that the scientists involved were somehow limited by their own
imagination rather than having the ability to bring to bear the logical, iterative (and powerful) process of elimination using the knowledge of the “Free World”. In effect then, you are belittling the ability of the scientists involved to conduct
science – and that is clearly not a sustainable position to take.
Second, it assumes that the observations are accurate, and as we've seen (Campeche), even normally reliable, well trained observers can get it badly wrong.
The observations (the reports) investigated were rated as to their reliability on a number of criteria.
”Ratings were assigned on the basis of the following factors of information, considered in relation to one another:
(1) The experience of the observer, deduced from his occupation, age, and training;
(2) The consistency among the separate portions of the description of the sighting;
(3) The general quality and completeness of the report;
(4) Consideration of the observer' s fact-reporting ability and attitude, as disclosed by his manner of describing the sighting.” (p.11)
Now while it is obvious that this (
as you point out) provides no
absolute guarantee, an interesting finding of the Battelle report must be noted in this regard. That is, the more
reliable the report, the greater the likelihood of it being classified as “UNKNOWN” (p. 24) Of course you (or anyone) can point to
individual cases where ostensibly reliable observers “got it wrong”, but what matters here is the overall pattern in the data gathered over
thousands of reports – and this simply shows that the more reliable the report, the more likely it was to be classified as UNKNOWN.
In your conceptualisation you fall foul of the “All crows are black” fallacy. In other words, you point to a single black crow and conclude from that
all crows are black! That, I must inform you, is a logical fallacy. As with all scientific conclusions, one simply cannot draw sound conclusions from a single case, one needs many cases in order to understand the true picture of what is occurring.
Third, how do you determine when there is sufficient information to have a reasonable chance of identification? It seems to me that a trained observer would be more likely to include perceived details, even where those details are wrong, and also phrase their observations in more certain terms, thus giving the illusion of more information where it doesn't exist. For this reason we might expect to see more 'unknown' reports from more reliable observers, simply because they include more information, even when they're wrong or uncertain. It's just a selection effect, and can be seen quite well in the graph on page 24 of the report, where the 'poor' and 'doubtful' reliability categories contain a much larger proportion of reports with insufficient information. Poor observers also tend to be poor reporters.
This is in fact a mere extension of your argument above and it was considered by the Battelle scientists:
”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.” (p.12)
In other words it was not simply about the
quantity of information available – as your argument contends – rather it was about a combination of
reliability and
information content that was the determinant of categories. That is (for example) “Poor” reports (in terms of reliability) could still contain enough information content to allow a KNOWN categorisation and “Excellent” (again in terms or reliability) reports could also be classified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION. Thus it was the
combination of reliability and information content that allowed an assessment and categorisation of the reports, not the mere
quantity of information (as you erroneously contend).
I stated:
“
You also do not rule out the possibility of non-mundane explanations for some cases.”
Of course not, it would be unscientific, an unwarranted assumption, and simply bloody stupid to rule out possibilities where the cause is completely unknown.
Despite you glib and somewhat testy reply, this is an important point. Once a UFO report has been determined to be “UNKNOWN” (or as defying plausible mundane explanation) we are then free to generate alternate explanatory hypotheses. ET happens to be one of those alternate hypotheses. ET is also a
plausible alternate hypothesis because there is nothing in our knowledge of physics and the natural world that would
preclude it as a potentially
correct hypothesis. That is not to say it
is a correct hypothesis, just that we cannot rule it out. We
also cannot rule out potential mundane explanations that are
unknown to us - and the Brown Mountain lights case is an excellent example. In that case literally hundreds of years of observational data was “discounted”, ridiculed and denied by the debunkers – until it was determined that the “lights” were some form of geologically generated plasma. While the
mechanism of such plasma generation remains speculative - the
reality of the phenomenon is now beyond question (but that of course has not stopped the debunkers from continuing their ridicule and out-of-hand denial and dismissals – but of course that is just the nature of their faith-based beliefs – they simply admit of no evidence).
I asked:
“
On that, do you believe there are any UFO cases where sufficient quality of evidence exists to allow us to eliminate all known mundane causes as plausible explanations?”
All known mundane causes, yes. But that doesn't rule out unknown mundane causes. Do you think we know everything there is to know?
And of course this goes directly to the point I just made above. Clearly then I do not think that “we know everything there is to know”. I do however find it fascinatingly ironic that you would attempt to use this argument against me when in fact it is the very same argument that “UFOs as ET” proponents use against the debunkers. The debunkers often claim that ET visiting earth is “impossible” because of time, distance and energy constraints – but of course that begs the question “Do you think we know everything there is to know”? LOL.
I asked:
“
As a corollary, and given that the evidence in many cases suggests technological craft (general appearance, able to be photographed and picked up on radar, etc) and that often there does seem to be an “intelligence” involved (manoeuvring, interaction with the environment, associated beings, etc), then in those cases, what does that evidence suggest to you?”
On its own it suggests nothing. There are plenty of UFO sightings that include those factors that turn out to be mundane objects, including static objects such as oil well fires.
Once again you simply commit the “All crows are black” fallacy. Sure you (or anyone) can point to cases where mistakes have been made – but that does not mean that mistakes
have been made in
all cases. I also find it ironic that the UFO debunkers point to the Campeche incident:
The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(
http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlX7vvYXzxA)
…as evidence of ostensibly reliable observers making a mistake - even while they
totally ignore the evidence in the case that points to a genuine UFO being involved! (just read the case report).
I stated:
“
To me the UFO problem is actually comprises a set of phenomena – that is there are multiple causes. My general feeling is that misconception, misperception or hoax explains many cases, however some may be ET, some may be government black ops (both legitimate and sinister), some may be as yet undescribed natural phenomena, and some may be other things (inter-dimensional time travellers, leakage from parallel universes, etc and so on).”
That's called hedging your bets, or covering all bases.
No, it is simply an acknowledgement of your contention that we cannot “
know everything there is to know”. Nothing more, nothing less.
I asked:
“
The problem we have is in determining which is which for any specific given case. What are your general feelings on the matter?”
That there is too little information to draw any conclusions.
Once again we see the debunker fallback position rear its head: A blanket, out-of-hand dismissal of all UFO cases. My follow-up question would then be: What of those UFO cases where there
is sufficient information (for example the cases so designated in the Battelle study)? Of course the UFO debunker’s blanket denial in this regard exposes another weakness in their argument. Of course, when a UFO case has been classified as “KNOWN” (a known mundane object or phenomenon) then suddenly
there was sufficient information and the report
was reliable enough to determine
that categorisation – but mysteriously (hypocritically?), when a report is classified as
UNKNOWN then “Insufficient and unreliable information” becomes the blanket criticism! It is only when the debunkers can determine “KNOWN” that a UFO report suddenly becomes reliable and contains sufficient information – but never otherwise. LOL.
I stated:
“
As you have articulated your beliefs so far, there may not be a great deal of difference between us. Could that be true? You thoughts on all the above would be greatly appreciated wollery.”
I think the biggest difference seems to be your desire (or maybe need) to attribute UFOs to something bigger. I simply reserve judgement. I don't know what they are and don't presume to draw conclusions on evidence that doesn't support any conclusions.
Then you have simply not followed my contentions in this thread. I have continually and consistently pointed out that I simply
have no explanation for what UFOs actually
are (or what their eventual explanation might turn out to be). All I have been pointing out is that there exist cases which defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less. You even seem to acknowledge that (“
I don't know what they are and don't presume to draw conclusions…”) and you even positively highlight some of my own statements that support that conclusion (eg; “
Looks can be deceiving”) – yet you try to build this straw-man argument that I have some sort of “need” or “desire” to “attribute UFOs to something bigger”. You are simply not understanding my position wollery and I suspect you resort to your straw-man here because you simply cannot countenance the fact that our respective views on the matter might not be so dissimilar after all.
Of course, another difference is that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of dismissing all UFOs out of hand and colluding to dishonestly misrepresent and obscure. That's the usual tactic of a conspiracy theorist.
Where a UFO debunker dismissal is “out-of-hand” I merely note and highlight the fact that this is what has occurred (as I have done so above). Similarly, where a “
dishonest” misrepresentation by the UFO debunkers has occurred, I also highlight
that fact. You are of course free to argue that I am mistaken in such characterisations and of course then must support your assertions with evidence and/or logical argument. And in that regard it must be noted that the mere unfounded accusation that I am incorrect or that I illegitimately characterise certain debunker positions (as you delineate) can be dismissed for what it is – unfounded. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But I think there's a bigger problem. You keep saying that scientists don't investigate UFOs, despite quoting the findings of studies on UFOs conducted by scientists, and that we need a concerted scientific effort, but what exactly do you want?
I desire a properly constituted
program of research (an academic, scientific, peer-reviewed program), not the sparse, individual ad hoc studies (often constituted with the sole aim of debunking) that currently sprinkle the landscape.
We can study old cases until we're old, wrinkled and blue in the face, but we won't get any more information from them.
That is simply an incorrect assertion and represents a misunderstanding of science and scientific progress. Once a program of research is initiated it inevitable follows that new concepts and new ways of viewing the world emerge. Armed with those “fresh eyes” one can then re-examine “old” data in light of the new concepts in order to see what then emerges.
Do you want more monitoring of the skies? Do you have any idea how many telescopes (amateur as well as professional) there are pointing at the skies on any given night? How many CCTV cameras? How many people with mobile phone cameras?
Sure and UFOs are “captured” with those technologies every day. What is lacking is a rigorous program of research designed around specifically targeted monitoring programs. Currently, any UFOs (ostensibly) captured by the technology you point to can be dismissed out-of-hand by the UFO debunkers as hoaxes, faults in the equipment, misperceptions, etc and so on. Only a properly constituted, peer-reviewed and deliberately targeted
program of research can overcome those blanket, out-of-hand general objections and dismissals (which program will obviously entail a targeted “monitoring of the skies” as you suggest).
One of the biggest problem with UFOs is that they are (almost always) transient non-repeating phenomena. There's simply no way to study them in a proper scientific manner. For the vast majority of UFOs you can't set up observing equipment in advance, and even when there is advanced notice it usually proves almost impossible to get reliable data.
That is simply not true. The Brown Mountain lights is a case in point. There are other “UFO hotspots” around the world that could similarly be monitored. The plain
fact is that such a properly constituted monitoring program has
not ever been conducted (Project Twinkle
* is the obvious exception although there are current efforts to get some up and running – of which I may provide more information if the discussion warrants) – so your conclusions in this regard (as you stated above) are based on absolutely
no evidence (and that fact is no longer surprising to me).
I will return to your other post (and SOdhner’s) when time permits – as you say – life sometimes gets in the way.
*White Sands: Project Twinkle (April-May 1950)
(
http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
(
http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(
http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
ET is not plausible. Why would you think it was? You must understand that oil well fires or blimps are more plausible, based on the evidence. You'll readily admit that we have no evidence for aliens visiting our planet... unless you've provided that extraordinary evidence and nobody noticed? Link to the post, if so.