So my "sateliites" were in a south to north rotational orbit and there were four of them in a row and the front two were oscillating about a central point between them. The "satellite hypothesis" is simply implausible. On any rational measure, satellites can be eliminated.
- Status
So my "sateliites" were in a south to north rotational orbit and there were four of them in a row and the front two were oscillating about a central point between them. The "satellite hypothesis" is simply implausible. On any rational measure, satellites can be eliminated.
There is the not inconsiderable problem of how "geese" (or birds of any variety) could be lit in such a way that they were indistingishable from stars (but no twinkle) - especially given it was midnight at the height of summer in the southern hemisphere.
Have you - or anyone else for that matter - seen geese (or birds of any variety) shine like stars and move in the pattern described? Especially as there was no sunlight by which they could be illuminated in the first place...
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Rramjet, what other mundane explanations have you eliminated?
No, they were at a great height, there can be no doubt about it.
It is a simple fact that they were “out there” - and although of course one can mount a theoretical argument that perhaps they were not (one can mount a theoretical argument that we simply cannot know anything at all) – at some point we have to realise that we humans are generally pretty good at perceiving the world around us and that the majority of people for the majority of the time do not make such perceptual errors. The UFO debunkers simply see the flood of UFO reports come in and assume that people make mistakes all the time – but this is just a representativeness bias – a bias of attention. They do not realise that the vast bulk of humanity is making such observations without error most of the time - and it is only the misperceptions that tend to get reported – making it merely seem like people are poor at perception. They are actually quite good at it.
It can be likened to people who are afraid to fly, yet happily jump in their car without a seatbelt. The statisics show that you are many times more likely to suffer a tragedy in your car - yet people's attention is grabbed by the plane accidents and they develop an irrational fear because of it. Most accidents happen in the home, you are more likely to be injured or killed by a relative or person known to you, etc and so on... but people discount those things to develop greater fears about things that are much less likely to happen simply because of the attention those other things command. It is a cognitive bias and the UFO debunkers fall victim to it when it comes to how they conceptualise human perceptual ability.
The first reason I state that the objects were satellite height is that I have observed many satellites and these were no different in character. The second is that I have observed many other mundane objects cross overhead at night (including jets in the stratosphere) and these things were just way beyond that. They also passed over a range of hills to the north, again providing an impression of great height. Also, both Mr X and Mr Y conjectured (at first) that they must be satellites – so I was not the only one who concluded that the objects were “way out there”. There was also the pinpoint intensity of the luminosity. Closer objects just do not give that “pinpoint”.
It is a simple fact that they were “out there” - and although of course one can mount a theoretical argument that perhaps they were not (one can mount a theoretical argument that we simply cannot know anything at all) – at some point we have to realise that we humans are generally pretty good at perceiving the world around us and that the majority of people for the majority of the time do not make such perceptual errors. The UFO debunkers simply see the flood of UFO reports come in and assume that people make mistakes all the time – but this is just a representativeness bias – a bias of attention. They do not realise that the vast bulk of humanity is making such observations without error most of the time - and it is only the misperceptions that tend to get reported – making it merely seem like people are poor at perception. They are actually quite good at it.
It can be likened to people who are afraid to fly, yet happily jump in their car without a seatbelt. The statisics show that you are many times more likely to suffer a tragedy in your car - yet people's attention is grabbed by the plane accidents and they develop an irrational fear because of it. Most accidents happen in the home, you are more likely to be injured or killed by a relative or person known to you, etc and so on... but people discount those things to develop greater fears about things that are much less likely to happen simply because of the attention those other things command. It is a cognitive bias and the UFO debunkers fall victim to it when it comes to how they conceptualise human perceptual ability.
”When to use anecdotal evidence
Despite its limitations, anecdotal evidence is important in some areas of research, such as case study research, where the emphasis might be on learning as much as you can about a specific situation and you have to depend on a person's own experience for information/data. Even in areas where anecdotal evidence is not considered valid or reliable for the type of study that you want to conduct, it can strongly suggest lines of research.” (http://www.uow.edu.au/student/attributes/statlit/modules/module1/anecdotal.html)
Despite its limitations, anecdotal evidence is important in some areas of research, such as case study research, where the emphasis might be on learning as much as you can about a specific situation and you have to depend on a person's own experience for information/data. Even in areas where anecdotal evidence is not considered valid or reliable for the type of study that you want to conduct, it can strongly suggest lines of research.” (http://www.uow.edu.au/student/attributes/statlit/modules/module1/anecdotal.html)
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
"When not to use anecdotal evidence
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184657[/INDENT]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184657[/INDENT]
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
As you've noted, we must evaluate the reliability of the witness. Because the source is well known for numerous previous incidents of dishonesty, how much "weight of evidence" should we give to unfalsifiable anecdotes from this biased and credulous pseudoscientific source?
I think you can see that there is room for a great deal of doubt about it.
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
(bolding mine)
Yet again, you cite a source as proof of your argument that is actually arguing against the position you're trying to defend!
Did you even read that page you're quoting from?
That discussion clearly points out that anecdotal evidence is fine to use for a starting point to suggest lines of research, but should not be relied on as proof of anything.
That's exactly what he does, and it doesn't only appear dishonest, it is extremely dishonest. He simply handwaves or ignores challenges to his faulty logic, and just keeps reiterating the fallacies again and again on each new page.
Rramjet, that's one of the reasons I had you on ignore for almost a month. After awhile, it gets maddening to keep seeing the same old nonsense being parroted over and over, even though its illogic has been exposed and disproven numerous times by various individuals in the same thread.
Last edited:
Perhaps a note of clarification is in order then:
”We give special consideration to the null hypothesis. This is due to the fact that the null hypothesis relates to the statement being tested, whereas the alternative hypothesis relates to the statement to be accepted if / when the null is rejected.” (http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html#h0)
So if the statement being tested is (correcting for the fact that “explanations” cannot cause anything):
H0: "All UFO sightings are the result of a misidentification of mundane objects "
Then the alternative hypothesis (to be accepted if the null is rejected) would be:
Ha: "Not all UFO sightings are the result of a misidentification of mundane objects "
However, we must come up with an experimental paradigm that allows us to test the null hypothesis. Simply saying produce an ET, even though that would falsify the null hypothesis, since ostensibly no-one has been able to capture an ET and to present it, is not going to give us a workable test that we can conduct here and now (although if you happen to know of someone who can produce an ET…LOL).
So, we need an alternative test of the null hypothesis and in that respect I have proposed:
If the H0 is true, then we would expect no difference on defined characteristics between known category reports and unknown category reports.
This is because if all reports arise from mundane objects, then we would expect the distribution of the characteristics of those objects to be evenly distributed throughout all reports.
Now of course there may be factors that in turn may falsify that assumption – but if there are, we must then control for those factors. I can think of one factor - that of “reliability” of reports.
It may be that the less reliable a report, the more likely it will be to result in an unknown categorisation (thus skewing the distribution).
Of course we must then test the reports for reliability and factor that into our calculations. That is, before testing our null hypothesis, we must test another hypothesis – that is: Does reliability affect report categorisation in such a way that the less reliable the report, the more likely an unknown categorisation will result. Once we have the answer to that question, then we can account for it in the test of our original H0.
Sound reasonable?
(That’s one of wollery’s posts attended to…
)No-one is claiming anecdotal evidence to constitute “proof” of anything – merely that it can add to a weight of evidence and (as you say) suggest lines of research. Nothing more, nothing less.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
No, you've lied here. That wasn't the null hypothesis. Start over and honestly quote wollery's null hypothesis. Are you even going to try to strawman the null hypothesis? How much dishonesty can you stuff into one post?
I snipped the rest of your pseudoscientific response as non-responsive to the null hypothesis.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Your anecdote has no weight of evidence (as you say) due to your dishonesty.
There is of course no “definitive conclusion” and I have never claimed there to be one. I have merely contended that the Navy, the Air Force and Baker’s own analyses have all suggested that the “birds hypothesis” cannot be supported.
In an infinite universe anything is, of course, possible – but merely being possible does not equate to probable, likely or even plausible.
(There, that's both of wollery's posts now attended to...
)John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
It doesn't add up to anything. Anecdotes constitute only claims, not evidence.
People have been spreading legends and myths and lies as fact ever since the advent of language. No matter how many people assert their belief in something, that doesn't make it true. Anecdotes prove nothing. No matter how many tons of bullcrap you have, it's never going to transmute into a lump of solid gold.
The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data." All the folklore and testimonials in the world don't mean squat if there's no material evidence to back them up.
Last edited:
No-one is claiming anecdotal evidence to constitute “proof” of anything – merely that it can add to a weight of evidence and suggest lines of research. Nothing more, nothing less.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
(There, that's both of wollery's posts now attended to...
Which is another lie.
How is one to defend oneself against false accusations of being a liar?
Merely to point that out that the accuser is lying would be to invite entry into a shouting match that would lead absolutely nowhere while distracting from the substance of the debate.
I can only hope that the accuser will one day understand how childish, boorish and uncivil he is presenting himself as - and in that realisation might then consider contributing to the actual substance of the debate.
Merely to point that out that the accuser is lying would be to invite entry into a shouting match that would lead absolutely nowhere while distracting from the substance of the debate.
I can only hope that the accuser will one day understand how childish, boorish and uncivil he is presenting himself as - and in that realisation might then consider contributing to the actual substance of the debate.
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
Anecdotes don't add up to anything. Your "weight of evidence" argument is spurious.
People have been spreading legends and myths and lies as fact ever since the advent of language. Just because a lot of people believe the same thing and confirm their beliefs through stories, that doesn't make those beliefs true. No matter how many people assert their belief in something, that doesn't make it true. All the folklore, testimonials and anecdotes in the world don't add up to diddley-squat if there's no material evidence to back them up.
“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)
(…)
“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)
There seem to be a couple of statements there that merely repeat the same assertion…
Nevertheless that is why we must test anecdotes for reliability and look for corroborating evidence.
That is why we look not only to the multiple eyewitness evidence and evidence of their reliability, but also to corroborating evidence such as radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.
Oh and JA - you seem to have misrepresented this:
It was a paragraph that followed on from the consideration of the limitations of anecdotal evidence that preceded it. It is saying (in essence) that despite the aforementioned limitations.... this (the above statement) is nevertheless true.
It was a paragraph that followed on from the consideration of the limitations of anecdotal evidence that preceded it. It is saying (in essence) that despite the aforementioned limitations.... this (the above statement) is nevertheless true.
- Status