Recent developments in UFO 'Abductology'

ufology said:
Null hypotheses are used in scientific experiments under controlled conditions to calculate probabilities based on repetiton of experimentation. Abductions don't fit into this framework and therefore attempting to frame them inside non-applicable science is pseudoscientific. The problem needs to be looked at from a critical thinking point of view that doesn't involve watered down science.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Then why do you have a null hypothesis? Oh, that's right. You have one that isn't falsifiable. It's easier to believe that way.
 
Ufology, wasn't it less than a week ago that you'd never even heard of a null hypothesis, until I pointed you to a website that explained it in layman's terms?

Now here you are, adopting a pretense of authority about the definition and proper application of a null hypothesis?!?

...yet you still deny that you're engaged in the practice of pseudoscience.
 
John Albert said:
Ufology, wasn't it less than a week ago that you'd never even heard of a null hypothesis, until I pointed you to a website that explained it in layman's terms?

Now here you are, adopting a pretense of authority about the definition and proper application of a null hypothesis?!?

...yet you still deny that you're engaged in the practice of pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


Actually I heard about the null hypothesis first over on the Paracast forum. Besides that, with you guys always with the knives out, I don't have time to be a slacker.

j.r.
 
Well then you'd better quit slacking and start reading up on it again, because you're getting it all wrong.
 
I wonder if we're evolved enough to travel to other planets, abduct whatever's top of the food chain and have sex with it? (I like to think so.)
 
Last edited:
quarky said:
Because more time allows more likelihood of beings evolved enough to pull off the feat.
Click to expand...
Well, if we're really going to go off on a flight of fancy, how about the suggestion that there will be less abductions over time because the abducting aliens found out everything they wanted to know about their human abductees after a few years, and then decided to go off to other star system.

Your 'logic' seems to me to be Imagination-land with no borders. :rolleyes:
 
ufology said:
Null hypotheses are used in scientific experiments under controlled conditions to calculate probabilities based on repetiton of experimentation. Abductions don't fit into this framework and therefore attempting to frame them inside non-applicable science is pseudoscientific. The problem needs to be looked at from a critical thinking point of view that doesn't involve watered down science.

j.r.
Click to expand...

So do you understand now why your null hypothesis is not falsifiable and therefore useless? And is your null hypothesis now going to be that no alien abduction case is the result of aliens abducting humans? That would be the critical thinking way to do it.
 
RoboTimbo said:
So do you understand now why your null hypothesis is not falsifiable and therefore useless? And is your null hypothesis now going to be that no alien abduction case is the result of aliens abducting humans? That would be the critical thinking way to do it.
Click to expand...


Doesn't the null hypothesis have to be provable as well? How can you prove a negative, that the folks alleging they were abducted weren't actually abducted?
 
John Albert said:
Doesn't the null hypothesis have to be provable as well? How can you prove a negative, that the folks alleging they were abducted weren't actually abducted?
Click to expand...

No. It has to be falsifiable -- there is, in principle at least, some evidence which would show that it is false. For example, if an alien ship landed, and an alien slithered out and somehow communicated the idea "Yes, we took Joe Blow while he slept, and anally probed him -- and it was really, really good.", then that would falsify the null hypothesis that Joe Blow was not abducted by aliens.

But so far, that hasn't happened, and we're stuck with the null hypothesis.
 
ufology said:
I can see a lot of guys trying the "alien sex" excuse if their wife caught them with a blone hair wrapped around their penis ... man what next ... maybe they can get the space-babes to appear with him and his wife on Dr. Phil or some reality show.

j.r.
Click to expand...

What would be your null hypothesis for this case? You can also put the Villas-Boas abduction case in this basket. A very wise man once said something about humans, aliens, sex and petunias...

What do you think would be the most plausibe explantion?

a. Aliens from another star system travelled to Earth; these aliens not only happen to look very similar if not almost identical to humans but also share so much of their genetic encoding chemicals that can breed with us and despite all their advanced tech, they will resort to sex to do so, instead using some more controlled proceedure like in-vitru fertilization.

b. It never actually happened; maybe the claimed abductee even really believe it happened, but it was some sort of psychological phenomena.

c. It never actually happened; it was just a fabrication.
 
blobru said:
I wonder if we're evolved enough to travel to other planets, abduct whatever's top of the food chain and have sex with it? (I like to think so.)
Click to expand...

GeeMack said:
Get in line.
Click to expand...
Only if they are green Orion women. If they are Hutts like Jabba, you can have my place on the line.
 
Correa Neto said:
What would be your null hypothesis for this case? You can also put the Villas-Boas abduction case in this basket. A very wise man once said something about humans, aliens, sex and petunias...

What do you think would be the most plausibe explantion?

a. Aliens from another star system travelled to Earth; these aliens not only happen to look very similar if not almost identical to humans but also share so much of their genetic encoding chemicals that can breed with us and despite all their advanced tech, they will resort to sex to do so, instead using some more controlled proceedure like in-vitru fertilization.

b. It never actually happened; maybe the claimed abductee even really believe it happened, but it was some sort of psychological phenomena.

c. It never actually happened; it was just a fabrication.
Click to expand...


A null hypothesis can only be applied to the statistics of controlled experiments e.g. Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable ( usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time ), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. Skeptics should stop using the null hypothesis with respect to UFO sightings and other data that has not been collected under controlled conditions. To do so is pseudoskeptical, ( so although you may think I'm being critical or picky, I'm actually trying to help you here.) It is however applicable to something like homeopathy, where conditions and results can be measured with more precision, although technically the case studies for homeopathy ( and other medicine ) still count as annecdotal evidence.

Now all that being said .... what would my assessment be? I really don't know enough about it. As bizarre as it is, I don't have any proof of a hoax, nor of truth. It's far more unbelieveable than a typical good UFO sighting, and nowhere near the same level of credibility as a report from a trained reliable observer such as an on duty USAF pilot. And if that is my opinion, I know the polarized skeptic would have a hard time even imagining it in the context of any reality.

j.r.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
A null hypothesis can only be applied to the statistics of controlled experiments e.g. Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable ( usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time ), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. Skeptics should stop using the null hypothesis with respect to UFO sightings and other data that has not been collected under controlled conditions. To do so is pseudoskeptical, ( so although you may think I'm being critical or picky, I'm actually trying to help you here.) It is however applicable to something like homeopathy, where conditions and results can be measured with more precision, although technically the case studies for homeopathy ( and other medicine ) still count as annecdotal evidence.

Now all that being said .... what would my assessment be? I really don't know enough about it. As bizarre as it is, I don't have any proof of a hoax, nor of truth. It's far more unbelieveable than a typical good UFO sighting, and nowhere near the same level of credibility as a report from a trained reliable observer such as an on duty USAF pilot. And if that is my opinion, I know the polarized skeptic would have a hard time even imagining it in the context of any reality.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Define "polarized skeptic".
 
"A null hypothesis can only be applied to the statistics of controlled experiments"

Still trying to trott that after you were told repeatidely it is not the case ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom