Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Access Denied]

Rramjet: Psusedoscientist? An Analysis​

Access Denied, Skeptic [redacted] USA​

Abstract

Rramjet, a frequent verbose poster at the JREF forum, claims to be a scientist and believes “aliens” are visiting Earth in UFOs but is he actually a pseudoscientist in disguise who’s research and evidence can simply be dismissed? If Rramjet isn’t a pseudoscientist just making it up as he goes along and has the slightest clue what he’s talking about, his arguments won’t be full of fail and easily debunked. A simple experiment replicates a staggering number of previously reported positive results.

Data Collection

Surely you are not contending that the category of UFO reports that have been identified as having plausible mundane explanations have not actually been plausibly explained because “plausible” is a subjective term?

Blimp.

[fail, easy]

Then there will be no difference between the two categories of reports (known and unknown)…

There is. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

…if they are essentially the same thing (misidentified mundane objects).

They’re not. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

It is easy to test this scientifically of course…

It isn’t. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

…just work from my null hypothesis…

It’s not a null hypothesis.

[fail, easy]

…that there should be no difference….

There is. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

….(and that is after all what you have just proposed).

It isn’t. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

The error rates should be evenly distributed,,,

They’re not. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

…if the debunkers contention is correct.

What debunkers? If he can’t produce quotes, his claim, and his hypothesis, is invalid.

[double fail, easy]

If they are not…

They’re not. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

…then that is evidence against the debunker’s contention.

What debunkers? If he can’t produce quotes, his claim, and his hypothesis, is invalid.

[double fail, easy]

Why should that “distinct subset” exist at all if all reports are merely misidentified mundane objects?

If I have to explain it again, he still wouldn’t understand.

[fail, had to bite lip]

Surely they should all have the same general characteristics…

They don’t. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

…after all, according to the debunkers…

What debunkers? If he can’t produce quotes, his claim, and his hypothesis, is invalid.

[double fail, easy]

….they are all misidentified mundane objects…

They’re not. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

…and all eyewitnesses are equally prone to error (delusion, hoax, etc).

They’re not. His hypothesis is invalid.

[fail, easy]

But of course your hypothesis here would also be easy to test, just look at any differences in who is doing the reporting between the goups and assess each's reliability respectively.

How reliable of an observer is someone who reports something that can’t be identified?

[fail, had to think twice]

Results

20 fails / 8 sentences = 2.5 fails/sentence

Fig. 1​

Debunking accomplished with only 2 words in most cases and a lot of cut and paste making it even easier.

Analysis & Discussion

That’s a whole lot of fail for such a short reply and was no sweat. Even the math was mercifully simple with the counting only slightly less so. It was also a lot of fun.

Conclusion

Rramjet’s arguments are full of fail and easily debunked, therefore he’s a pseudoscientist just making it up as he goes along and doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about. Again we see the null hypothesis that Rramjet’s UFO research and evidence are tested against, specifically the established knowledge that “aliens” aren’t visiting Earth in UFOs, stands with little to no possibility of being rejected for the foreseeable future.


Addendum

Rramjet missed the sign above the door at JREF, the debunker’s forum is <--- that ---> away.

 

[ufology]

That was an awful lot of words to say that you want critical thinking to be redefined in such a way that accepting anecdotes as evidence is acceptable. Come to think of it, that is what you argue in most of your posts about this topic. The steadfast refusal by skeptical minded people to grant you this redefinition, including the reasons why this would be detrimental to critical thinking, should by now have let anyone who considers himself a "critical thinker" rethink their position.

Your refusal to do so is another reason why we can safely conclude that you do not engage in critical thinking when it comes to ufology as practiced by you.

Your using the straw man tactic A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The misrepresentation is that you claim that I redefined critical thinking. which is not true. The actual definition I used came from the Foundation For Critical Thinking. The remainder of the introduction is simply a quick start for new posters.

It has been pointed out by other posters that there are several interpretations and definitions and that we should have a more clear definition of Critical Thinking for use in this discussion. My response was to concur but cautioned that it should not be narrowed so far as to make it synoymous with the scientific method, as that would derail the thread. Here are more points to consider.

Dr. Richard Paul is an internationally recognized authority on critical thinking, with eight books and over 200 articles on the subject. Among a lot of other things, he says that, "since critical thinking can be defined in a number of different ways consistent with each other, we should not put a lot of weight on any one definition. Definitions are at best scaffolding for the mind."

Here are some other thoughts:

Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions.

Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem; in general, whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do so in a reasonable and reflective way.

Critical thinking is also an important part of the scientist's toolbox, and conversely science can play an important role in the application of critical thinking. For example in determining which hypothesis ( either generic or scientific ) is the most reasonable. So science, as I have said before is not ruled out with respect to critical thinking and I've invited the presentation of scientific data.

In the spirit of Dr. Richard Paul's "scaffold for the mind" analogy, I have made the point that ultimately the common thread that runs through all definitions of critical thinking, although not always stated in these exact words is that critical thinking is an intellectual pursuit of the truth wherever it may lead, and whatever means helps advance that effort is reasonable to consider.

So I haven't "redefined" critical thinking. I've simply placed it into a context suited for the subject matter, and I've left it open for further discussion. In that context, science is most welcome in the realm of critical thought, but in the absence of purely scientific data, the discussion can still continue based on what available information we do have.

In the case of UFOs, there are firsthand accounts, some of which are backed by corroboration and detecting equipment such as cameras or radar. It does not seem reasonable ( at least to me ) to dismiss all such accounts. But this is only in relation to judging the objective reality of UFOs. There are other aspects of the field that can be discussed as well.

All in all I believe the above makes my position fair minded and as clear as possible under the circumstances. By all means the floor is open for further comment on how the thread can be improved.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

In other words, you wish to pick and choose at which bits of critical thinking you accept whilst ignoring all the parts of critical thinking that doesn't agree with your motives. (a most uncritical thinking tactic).

So redefining critical thinking in order to get anecdotes accepted as evidence of something that has not been shown to exist then.

 

[Stray Cat]

So here we have both of our resident Flying Saucerers just wanting anecdotes to be accepted as evidence of something that has not been shown to exist.

 

[Pixel42]

Anecdotal evidence can be assessed for the factors that we know detrimentally influence perception. If those factors are not present, then we start to pay attention.

Since most of those factors are cognitive biases which are built-in to the way the human brain has evolved to work, they are always present. A good part of the scientific method is devoted to painstakingly compensating for them, so that reliable conclusions can be drawn. No such compensation can be applied retrospectively to anecdotal reports, which is precisely why they are not regarded as reliable.

 

[ufology]

You can substitute ghosts, successful homeopathic treatments, Santa Claus - almost any woo belief - for "some sort of alien technology" there and this would still be the case.

You could substitute anything of course. But you are quoting me out of context. The context was concerning the question of what steps I used that represented critical thinking with respect to the phenomena. The number of cases I found was due to an investigation for information and evidence ( which is part of critical thinking ). Therefore it would have been completely irrational to substitute "Santa Claus" for UFOs when I was doing my information gathering. Furthermore, simply because we know Santa Claus is myth doesn't mean UFOs are myth. It is false logic.

A lot of people who might have been fooled by their fallible perceptions is no more convincing evidence than one person who might have been fooled by their fallible perceptions. Why do you find this basic fact so difficult to grasp?

You presume too much. I understand that you are trying to dismiss all information that has not been proven with empirical evidence by science to be real. However the pursuit of truth isn't about dismissing possibilities because they haven't yet been proven, it's about evaluating the avialable information to advance us toward the truth. In this regard, to dismiss all non empirical scientifically proven information would be irresponsible.

Addtionally, your premise is also flawed in its logic. Examples have already been provided to illustrate how multiple bits of incoclusive evidence can be pieced together to form much more valuable information. My main example was the use of software to assemble multiple partial fingerprint samples into a single print that can be used to identify a suspect. With ufology, it's harder because we don't know for sure what the finished picture looks like. But we do know that ( to use the analogy ) there are all these eyewitnesses who saw something and a whole bunch of partial fingerprints.

The sheer number of somethings seen has enabled investigators in the past to reasonably conclude that "the phenomenon is real", and they go on to make some other coclusions based on the observations and investigations of people they trusted, including military and commercial pilots. Comparing these people to cranks who would just as easily report Santa Claus is neither reasonable nor fair minded, both of which are elements of critical thinking.

So your assumption that what you were looking at was the size and distance of an aircraft is clearly questionable. How did you then eliminate all the other possible explanations based on assuming different sizes and distances for the object?

Certainly anything is questionable. However in order to dismiss my account you will have no choice but to declare it as fiction or a hoax. This is because there was enough objective data from the sighting to judge distance size and speed with reasonable accuracy, and the numbers computed defy any Earthly craft in terms of performance. I have a hard time accepting it myself, but I know what we saw, and it was real. If you want more data to judge whether or not what I'm saying makes sense, I'd be happy to share, but it's getting late and I need to conclude this post. You can private email me or just ask in the forum.

So the question becomes at some point, how many people are you going to write off as cranks or hoaxers ... basically call liars. I'm not sure you appreciate the injustice of being falsely labled. I've already been attacked here as "dishonest". I have a pretty thick skin but if one considers themselves to be making an honest effort, it wears them down. It's not like you've lost a con game and your ego is wounded. It's is a personal hit and it has emotional consequences that are deeper.

So before you write off UFOs you should really get out and try to talk to real people who have had really good sightings. There are more of them than you think. Just start asking. If you don't come across all judemental to begin with, you can get some of them to open up and tell you their story. The human side is far more valuable than you are giving it credit for.

j.r.

 

[Pixel42]

The number of cases I found was due to an investigation for information and evidence ( which is part of critical thinking ). Therefore it would have been completely irrational to substitute "Santa Claus" for UFOs when I was doing my information gathering.

But you can gather information and (anecdotal) evidence about Santa Claus, homeopathy, astrology etc etc too and - if you don't understand the scientific method - wrongly assume that the sheer amount of evidence gathered implies that there is some real phenomenon at the bottom of it.

Furthermore, simply because we know Santa Claus is myth doesn't mean UFOs are myth.

Indeed, and I didn't say it did. I just pointed out that the evidence you have gathered could also be gathered for things which we know are myths.

I understand that you are trying to dismiss all information that has not been proven with empirical evidence by science to be real.

You understand, as usual, wrongly. I am merely pointing out that anecdotal evidence is unreliable, and that nothing can therefore be reliably concluded from it alone.

However the pursuit of truth isn't about dismissing possibilities because they haven't yet been proven, it's about evaluating the avialable information to advance us toward the truth. In this regard, to dismiss all non empirical scientifically proven information would be irresponsible.

I'm not dismissing anecdotal evidence, I'm pointing out that it's unreliable and therefore - in the absence of any other evidence - insufficient to reach a reliable conclusion.

Addtionally, your premise is also flawed in its logic. Examples have already been provided to illustrate how multiple bits of incoclusive evidence can be pieced together to form much more valuable information.

I'm not going to explain the flaw in that argument again as multiple people have already done so.

My main example was the use of software to assemble multiple partial fingerprint samples into a single print that can be used to identify a suspect.

OK, I'll point out the flaw in this one. The totality of a set of pieces of evidence is as reliable as each single piece. Each individual piece of a fingerprint is a reliable piece of information, so the totality of them put together is also reliable. Each individual anecdote is unreliable, so the totality of them put together is also unreliable.

The sheer number of somethings seen has enabled investigators in the past to reasonably conclude that "the phenomenon is real",

The phenomenon of people seeing things in the sky which they cannot immediately (or, occasionally, ever) identify is certainly real. All else is baseless speculation.

and they go on to make some other coclusions based on the observations and investigations of people they trusted, including military and commercial pilots. Comparing these people to cranks who would just as easily report Santa Claus is neither reasonable nor fair minded, both of which are elements of critical thinking.

You seem fixated on the (rather whimsical) Santa Claus comparison, when the ghost and homeopathy comparisons are far more apposite.

I'm not comparing people who've seen things in the sky they think are alien spacecraft to cranks, I'm comparing them to people who think they've seen ghosts or have been cured by a homeopathic remedy who are honestly and sincerely mistaken.

Certainly anything is questionable. However in order to dismiss my account you will have no choice but to declare it as fiction or a hoax.

No, I need only consider it the likely result of honest mistake.

This is because there was enough objective data from the sighting to judge distance size and speed with reasonable accuracy, and the numbers computed defy any Earthly craft in terms of performance.

What objective data? Did you see it go behind or in front of something whose size and distance you knew for a fact? Because that's the only way you could have even narrowed them down, yet alone estimated either accurately.

I have a hard time accepting it myself, but I know what we saw, and it was real.

I don't doubt that you saw somethign real. It's your interpretation of what you saw that's in question.

So the question becomes at some point, how many people are you going to write off as cranks or hoaxers ... basically call liars.

I have called no-one a crank, a hoaxer or a liar. I think the vast majority of sightings can be attributed to honest error and lack of information.

 

[Aepervius]

Do that ... just remember images tend to be another story. If you want a decent resolution image of the USI emblem try asking. I might even grant permission and send it to you, provided it is used in a non-defamatory manner.

j.r.

Image are not a different story. They have their own criteria for fair use, but citing an image (showing it) to compare the shape and form of the logo with other is fair use.

 

[catsmate]

What is the difference between a great ( generic ) ufologist and a not-so-great ufologist? A great ufologist is able to discern what information is reasonable and apply it to the pursuit of the truth.

And how do they do this "discerning"? Accept whatever suits their prejudices and distort or ignore the remainder?

 

[Akhenaten]

That was an awful lot of words to say that you want critical thinking to be redefined in such a way that accepting anecdotes as evidence is acceptable. Come to think of it, that is what you argue in most of your posts about this topic. The steadfast refusal by skeptical minded people to grant you this redefinition, including the reasons why this would be detrimental to critical thinking, should by now have let anyone who considers himself a "critical thinker" rethink their position.

Your refusal to do so is another reason why we can safely conclude that you do not engage in critical thinking when it comes to ufology as practiced by you.

Your using the straw man tactic A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Is 'straw man' the fallacy of the month in ufailogy circles?

The statement itself presumes that there are people who know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses [that] that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin. For this I had to ask the question, "What information might there be to reasonably support that assumption?"

This is, in the context of this thread, exactly as Turgor has said, an attempt to redefine critical thinking in such a way that anecdotes become acceptable as evidence.

All that your attempts to handwave this agenda of yours away has succeeded in doing is to focus more and more attention on it, as well as on your dismal failure to understand even the most basic of informal logical fallacies.

The misrepresentation is that you claim that I redefined critical thinking.

which is not true. The actual definition I used came from the Foundation For Critical Thinking. The remainder of the introduction is simply a quick start for new posters.

That's just one of the tactics you appear to be employing to convince the uninitiated that ufailogy employs critical thinking. Start off with a legitimate definition and then add your own spin. In this instance the spin is that anecdotes are acceptable as evidence because you've decided that the witnesses are really, truly not making stuff up. Honestly.

The initiated aren't buying it.

<>

All in all I believe the above makes my position fair minded and as clear as possible under the circumstances. By all means the floor is open for further comment on how the thread can be improved.

j.r.

Of course you believe your position is fair minded. Don't we all? The trouble is, this isn't the 'Fair Mindedness in Ufology' thread.

In any case, I don't know that the thread can be improved all that much. As it stands, it's a pretty good demonstration of the lack of critical thinking in ufology, and is thus an important resource for the Forum.

 

[Stray Cat]

So before you write off UFOs you should really get out and try to talk to real people who have had really good sightings. There are more of them than you think. Just start asking. If you don't come across all judemental to begin with, you can get some of them to open up and tell you their story. The human side is far more valuable than you are giving it credit for.

So again we have ufology just wanting anecdotes to be accepted as evidence of something that has not been shown to exist and now not only are we supposed to accept them but also go out and actively find them.

This gets sillier everytime I log in.

 

[Akhenaten]

So here we have both of our resident Flying Saucerers just wanting anecdotes to be accepted as evidence of something that has not been shown to exist.

It's the Flying Saucery Wall o' Waffle Smackdown - 2011.

I imagine someone will be producing a poster to advertise the event fairly soon, depending on who finds himself with some spare time first.

 

[Rramjet]

Since most of those factors are cognitive biases which are built-in to the way the human brain has evolved to work, they are always present.

Cognitive heuristics and biases are manifest according to situational factors that may or may not be present. So while the biases may be, as you say, ever present, situational factors will determine which (if any) are manifest.

A good part of the scientific method is devoted to painstakingly compensating for them, so that reliable conclusions can be drawn.

Well no, science does not compensate for them at all, it actually seeks to remove them completely as effective factors (to nullify their effects by controlling for their influence).

No such compensation can be applied retrospectively to anecdotal reports, which is precisely why they are not regarded as reliable.

We are not therefore talking about “compensation” – we are talking about determining what situational factors may be present that would trigger particular (and well documented) heuristics or biases. We can then make a judgement as to whether a particular anedcdote could be reliable in its descrition of a certain characteristic or not.

Relating that to perceptual biases for example we know that if someone claims an object is of a certain size, but has viewed it against the background of a clear blue sky, then we would not place any particular weight on that estimate. If however the object was in front of a tree, then we could say, because of that reference point, the size estimate would be at least representative (though still not without a certain amount of error – the range of which could also be estimated).

In this way we can make determinations of statements of claim contained within anecdotes to assess them for reliability- accounting for all the well documented perceptual and cognitive biases that humans are prone to in relation to the situational factors present at the time and location of the observation.

I think the problem the debunkers are having in this thread is that they don’t have a clear concept of what the scientific method actually entails when it comes to the theoretical underpinnings in relation to the practicalities of application in the field. That is perhaps understandable because one must have a great deal of experience to allow that understanding – and often even after decades of practice and learning, many scientists themselves have difficulty with it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sure, that is the question, What is the evidence indicating? But whatever hypothetical explanations are developed must be plausible. “Space Nazis” would not fit that criterion. I mean they might be “space Nazi’s”, but Occam’s razor would suggest that merely “ET” would be about as far as we would like to go in that direction. It would also suggest that ET might be preferred over time travellers for example (as would the fact that physics suggest grave problems with time travel (at least backwards) as a viable concept.

No, you are incorrect. Occam's Razor would suggest no such thing. You have displayed no critical thinking here.

Of course the psychosocial aspects must also be explored as plausible hypotheses. No one is suggesting they should not.

You suggest that you can tell when they must not be explored. That is your uncritical mind again.

That would be true if we did not have a significant proportion of cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation. As we do seem to have that body of cases, then hypothetical explanations do need to be explored – including the hypothesis that they are indeed misidentified mundane objects (and of course my null hypothesis is merely one test of that hypothesis).

Well, no. We have no cases which defy plausible mundane explanation and you simply lie when you say so now. I and others have explained to you why you can't eliminate them. Remember Delphos where you went so horribly, horribly wrong and it is there for all to see your shame? Your version of a process of elimination is fatally flawed and you don't think critically when you claim to use it.

The progress of research in history rests in large part on anecdotal accounts. Such a accounts are subjected to scientific methodology, tested for reliability and comparatively analysed etc – as any type of evidence in any type of research should be. You would not term history pseudoscience though would you?

In the history of UFOlogy, no anecdotes have ever been confirmed to be pseudoaliens. Continuing to rely on them to back up your unfounded belief in ET is not critical thinking.

When the scientific method is applied to Biblical anecdotes, we have seen that the evidence (in the main) simply does not stack up.

Yep, same with UFOlogy so relying on them to shore up UFOs as aliens isn't critical thinking.

No-one is talking about “proof” here…

Well, except you and ufology who have repeated the word 47 times. Strawman much?

If you can demonstrate that ufology (or I) was talking about proof (as opposed to a weight of evidence) then you might have a point. Can you do that?

You were just talking about proof in the previous paragraph.

Once again, those a merely unfounded assertions. How many times must you be reminded that if you [I[]make[/I] a claim, you must support that claim with evidence or logical argument. The mere statement of claims does not somehow magically confer veracity on them. Surely you understand that much at least?

And yet you continue to make them! Extraordinary!

...we have a body of evidence (some anecdotal) but also radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence, that would suggest a real phenomenon (or phenomena).

You forgot FLIR again. LOL! That would suggest that you are dishonest.

You keep saying these things but provide absolutely no evidence that such beliefs of yours are based on anything other than mere faith.

Well, no. Your UFOs as alien spaceships is a faith based religion like belief. You really don't know the difference?

The following case contains a conjunction of multiple eyewitness, radar and film evidence. Would you call that evidence “easily fabricated”?

Is Campeche among them? You forgot FLIR again. LOL! Was Campeche fabricated? Strawman much?

Now I must warn you that I do not propose to discuss the following cases I present. It is just that you have accused me of lying (below) by stating that the evidence does not exist. I must therefore demonstrate that the evidence does exist. However, if you want to discuss those cases, you should go over to the uFO evidence thread.

Evidence of what, though? If your conclusion is correct that UFOs are alien spaceships, the null hypothesis is that all of those cases will display similar characteristics.

<snipped off topic cases>

You confirmation bias has lead you up the wrong path John Albert. I have never claimed there was physical evidence – indeed I have consistently pointed out the absence of such evidence – instead I claim there to be physical trace evidence – there is a difference you know.

But there isn't physical trace evidence of aliens. Were you talking about the human hair or the known fungus? Remember what the critical thinking people have told you about beginning with your conclusion and shoehorning anything to fit?

Ufology has claimed there to be physical evidence – and that is true, such evidence has been presented – however, as you point out, that evidence has never been verified to the satisfaction of the sceptics.

Has it been verified to the satisfaction of gullible creduloid pseudoscientists? That isn't critical thinking.

I must also point out that there is a very interesting case in that regard.

Hair of the Alien (23 Jul 1992)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html)
(http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)
(http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2005/07/hair-of-alien-ccr5-deletion-factor.html)
(http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/mymumtalkstoaliens)

One cannot talk about that evidence “bending the rules of science” unless you propose we know all the rules of science there is to know.

So you are bringing in the human hair.

No, it is related to Arthur C. Clarke’s statement that “ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”.


You may ignore the evidence if you like, that is of course your prerogative. Just don’t expect us to take your comments seriously if you do.

You may uncritically claim to have evidence of aliens if you like, that is of course your prerogative. Just don't expect rationally minded people to take your comments seriously if you do.

No authority – just a concept that is well known.


The ETH is a plausible explanatory hypothesis. Nothing more, nothing less. All I am stating is that the appearance of “magical technology” (as ostensibly displayed by some UFOs – you do know what “ostensibly” means don’t you?) is akin to the beliefs underlying Cargo Cult manifestations of earlier times in our history. They believed it was the result of the work of Gods, learning from that, I would rather put it down to superior technology.

What the...? It's like whack a mole. It keeps popping up. No, ET is not a plausible explanatory hypothesis as has been patiently explained to you. Suggesting that it is isn't thinking critically.

No, Rramjet, you and ufology has shown no critical thinking skills at all. I'll let you know when you do.

 

[Rramjet]

But you can gather information and (anecdotal) evidence about Santa Claus, homeopathy, astrology etc etc too and - if you don't understand the scientific method - wrongly assume that the sheer amount of evidence gathered implies that there is some real phenomenon at the bottom of it.

Please consider the following (and do try and assess it for meaning this time):

“Weight of Evidence … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

I just pointed out that the evidence you have gathered could also be gathered for things which we know are myths.

But we know that the conjunction of multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence simply does not exist for the “myths” – yet such evidence does exist for UFOs. That should give you a BIG clue right there as to why your assertion might be unfounded.

I am merely pointing out that anecdotal evidence is unreliable, and that nothing can therefore be reliably concluded from it alone.

While it is certainly possible for anecdotal evidence to be unreliable, that does not mean that a particular anecdote is be unreliable in a particular instance. One must assess the anecdotal evidence for reliability on a case by case basis.

I'm not dismissing anecdotal evidence, I'm pointing out that it's unreliable and therefore - in the absence of any other evidence - insufficient to reach a reliable conclusion.

You just did, you are dismissing them out of hand as unreliable. No-one is claiming that anecdotes can provide proof of anything, however they can certainly add to a weight of evidence (which concept you should be familiar with by now - right?)

The totality of a set of pieces of evidence is as reliable as each single piece. Each individual piece of a fingerprint is a reliable piece of information, so the totality of them put together is also reliable. Each individual anecdote is unreliable, so the totality of them put together is also unreliable.

If one person said they saw something unusual at a given time and place, then that might be dismissed as a quirk of observation or personality. If two people claimed they saw the same thing, then we might pay more attention. If two people saw the same thing independently (say from a different location or at a different time) then we might give it even more attention. If more and more people see the same thing , now at different locations, here at different times, then a weight of evidence begins to build indicating something is going on.

The phenomenon of people seeing things in the sky which they cannot immediately (or, occasionally, ever) identify is certainly real. All else is baseless speculation.

So it is baseless speculation to suppose that all such observations have plausible mundane explanations? I think you would find yourself in opposition to your compatriots on that score.

I'm not comparing people who've seen things in the sky they think are alien spacecraft to cranks, I'm comparing them to people who think they've seen ghosts or have been cured by a homeopathic remedy who are honestly and sincerely mistaken.

Sure, misidentifications occur. No-one is disputing that. However, we do seem to have a substantial body of cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

 

[Stray Cat]

You just did, you are dismissing them out of hand as unreliable. No-one is claiming that anecdotes can provide proof of anything, however they can certainly add to a weight of evidence (which concept you should be familiar with by now - right?)

Look at it like this: The physical evidence for aliens weighs nothing.
Add some stories about aliens and exactly how much weight does that add?

 

[John Albert]

A big, tall Wall 'O Waffle™

Rramjet, I'm trying to point out fallacious reasoning and dishonest argument tactics in this thread, and you just keep on piling them on. At this rate, I'll never finish the job!

I've already explained my reasoning, quoted examples, and linked to adequate definitions of the various fallacies that were committed. I've even addressed your rebuttals to my findings in two different posts. Now if you're still having difficulty, I suggest you go back and reread those posts. Failing that, you can just wait for me to work my way through the rest of the thread and I'll address your new fallacies when I get to them. This is a huge undertaking though. I estimate the thread will have reached at least 50 pages by then, so please be patient.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think the problem the debunkers are having in this thread is that they don’t have a clear concept of what the scientific method actually entails when it comes to the theoretical underpinnings in relation to the practicalities of application in the field.

Which thread are you reading?

All I see in this thread is a pair of ufailogists struggling to maintain their pretence that they have actual, presentable evidence of aliens/ETs and that their critics are being unfair in demanding to see it.

That is perhaps understandable because one must have a great deal of experience to allow that understanding – and often even after decades of practice and learning, many scientists themselves have difficulty with it.

Not buying it Rramjet. Trying to put your I'm-a-scientist-and-therefore-know-these-things spin on your twisted interpretation of critical thinking was dead in the water many, many months ago.

 

[Pixel42]

But we know that the conjunction of multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence simply does not exist for the “myths” – yet such evidence does exist for UFOs.

I'd say that the quality and quantity of anecdotal evidence for myths such as homeopathy and astrology, for example, is if anything better than that for UFOs being piloted by alien entities. It's just that in those cases it's easier to do experiments that show that the conclusions drawn by the hard of critical thinking from such evidence are mistaken.

Sure, misidentifications occur. No-one is disputing that. However, we do seem to have a substantial body of cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

What do you mean 'we', paleface?

I have yet to see a convincing argument for a single such case.

 

[Akhenaten]

Image are not a different story. They have their own criteria for fair use, but citing an image (showing it) to compare the shape and form of the logo with other is fair use.

He knows that, and it's why he got all persnickety about it when his dishonesty was shown in claiming that his little merit badge thingy displayed the "broken outline of an ambiguous object" rather than the flying saucer that it was demonstrated to be.