UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[corbin]

Corbin, are you by any chance familiar with the expression, "argument from ignorance"?

Argument from ignorance would be... (actually I think this is a different fallacy, but the fallacy you are talking about nonetheless)

Premise: I can't think of any mundane causes to explain this event.

therefore

Conclusion: There are no mundane causes to explain this event.

Note that this isn't what I was saying. I would fully accept a mundane cause to explain the event (if it fits the description), even if I wasn't the one who thought of it.

 

[GeeMack]

If the witness is credible and the report is reliable, and the report has already to be determined as insufficiently explained by mundane causes, then you have something that deserves further consideration.

That you can't personally imagine alternative explanations does not make them cease to exist. If you were to apply some skepticism and critical thinking to the matter, many of them might be obvious to you, too.

 

[John Albert]

Argument from ignorance would be... (actually I think this is a different fallacy, but the fallacy you are talking about nonetheless)

Premise: I can't think of any mundane causes to explain this event.

therefore

Conclusion: There are no mundane causes to explain this event.

Note that this isn't what I was saying. I would fully accept a mundane cause to explain the event (if it fits the description), even if I wasn't the one who thought of it.

What you said was:

Enlighten us. Which other possibilities fit the description?

and

You say that there are other mundane explanations, but won't tell what these are. Please, tell us what they are. I'm so stupid that I can't think of anything mundane that looks like what was described.

Those are examples of an argument from ignorance. Look it up.

The burden of proof is not on GeeMack to disprove Rramjet's assertion by offering alternate explanations.

Rramjet has to provide the proof that what he saw was extraterrestrial (or paranormal, or "inexplicable"), if that is his assertion.

Failing that, it's nothing more than just another unfounded claim and we see an awful lot of those around here.

 

[corbin]

The burden of proof is not on GeeMack to disprove Rramjet's assertion by offering alternate explanations.

Rramjet has to provide the proof that what he saw was extraterrestrial (or paranormal, or "inexplicable"), if that is his assertion.

Failing that, it's nothing more than just another unfounded claim and we see an awful lot of those around here.

How would you prove the sighting was inexplicable unless by considering mundane explanations? There is no other way.

Your thinking only applies if we want to prove that the UFO is extraterrestrial or paranormal, but not inexplicable.

 

[John Albert]

How would you prove the sighting was inexplicable unless by considering mundane explanations? There is no other way.

That's not GeeMack's problem, is it?

Your thinking only applies if we want to prove that the UFO is extraterrestrial or paranormal, but not inexplicable.

You're splitting hairs. It's the same difference.

Just because you don't know the explanation, that doesn't mean no possible explanation exists.

It's an argument from ignorance. Look it up.

 

[corbin]

That's not GeeMack's problem, is it?

So what is the claimant supposed to do? Anticipate and list all possible mundane explanations as part of their claim? That's not even possible. People could still think of other mundane explanations.

There can be no "evidence" for the claim that something isn't something. You are asking the claimant to prove a negative.

You're splitting hairs. It's the same difference.

Actually there's quite a big difference. A case being inexplicable is a negative claim. (it only has meaning in comparison to other things) The others are positive.

 

[Rramjet]

Fine, but that still doesn't address the problem of non-objective causes (ie. hoaxes, lies, dreams, hallucinations, mental instability, etc.). The reports he's cited claim those sorts of causes amounted to something around 1-2% of all cases. But how do we know that figure is accurate?

Blue Book:
(see The Hynek UFO Report - http://www.scribd.com/doc/43531895/J...FO-Report-1977 p.259 for example)

Hendry:

”An individual 1979 study by CUFOS researcher Allan Hendry found, as did other investigations, that only a small percentage of cases he investigated were hoaxes (<1 %) and that most sightings were actually honest misidentifications of prosaic phenomena.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#Identification_of_UFOs)​

Condon:

”… pointing to the fact that only, a very small proportion of sighters can be categorized as exhibiting psychopathology…” (http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-ii.htm#s7)​

I contend that not only are the studies flawed and the number they attribute to hoax is far lower than it ought to be…

You may “contend” the unfounded assertion if you like – but unless you have a reason (ie; evidence or logical argument) to believe as you do, it is merely a faith-based contention.

All you could reasonably deduce from that outcome is that those cases represent either more non-objective confabulations not discovered by the initial researchers, or else other objective causes not easily attributed to known objects by the initial investigation. Basically no difference from what we already know about them.

Interestingly, when the cases were assessed for reliability, it was found that the more reliable the report, the GREATER the number of unknown categorisations there were (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf p.24)

This is seemingly a counterintuitive result - the common UFO debunker (mis-) conception is that the less reliable the reports, the greater the proportion of unknowns. However, precisely the opposite turns out to be the case. Clearly, on the evidence the more reliable a report, the more difficult it is to assign your “confabulations not discovered by the initial researchers” explanation.

Don't pigeonhole yourself into thinking that UFO's must be ET. You already seem to think it is more likely than paranormal explanations, which means you are not just looking at the evidence, but looking at it and treating it with the more great and difficult expectation of evidence for ET's.

Oh, don't you worry about that. I'm not "pigeonholed into thinking" anything of the sort. Those kinds of jumps to conclusion are Rramjet's and ufology's domain, not mine.

Don’t disingenuously pigeonhole other’s beliefs either: I have explicitly, clearly and repeatedly stated that we do not have any direct evidence for the ETH and that I have never, nor am I attempting, to explain UFO sightings in terms of the ETH. You know that – yet you continue to push the false assertion.

Ugology can speak for himself – if and when he returns (and given the treatment he has received here I would not blame him if he did not return) – however, I suspect you also misrepresent his beliefs as well.

 

[Astrophotographer]

That is precisely why I said the question is one of credibility/reliability of the witness, since it appears that if we assume the recollection is accurate, it cannot be explained by any mundane cause.

How do you quantify "credibility" and "reliability"? History has shown that even the most "reliable" witnesses are subject to errors in observation (See Hynek and Hendry for examples of pilots, police officers, etc making errors in observation). So why must we accept that this observation is 100% accurate? If one assumes that there may be an error or two in his recollections (i.e. angular speed and "oscillations around a central point"), which is not that great a stretch, it suddenly begins to look very mundane in origin. Therefore, you can't make a conclusion that the possibility of this being satellites is "implausible".

 

[corbin]

Just because you don't know the explanation, that doesn't mean no possible explanation exists.

It's an argument from ignorance. Look it up.

Show me where I said the following:

"I don't know of any possible mundane causes to explain this case, therefore, no mundane causes exist."

You'll find that the "therefore" part is missing. My comment that "I'm so stupid that I can't think of any..." was just being cutesy at GeeMack's refusal to provide alternative explanations. I wasn't saying that was the reason that I came to the conclusion of there being no mundane causes sufficient for explanation.

 

[Access Denied]

Here we go again…

It was originally claimed by Access Denied that Rramjet was claiming the 1.5% number is insignificant BY ITSELF on account of the study being flawed.

No I didn’t. Show me a quote where I said that or kindly retract the claim.

Access Denied then said that by extension, the 5% would also be insignificant by Rramjet's presumed logic.

That I did say.

The only problem is that Rramjet never claimed that the 1.5% number was insignificant by itself on account of the study being flawed, therefore, you can't extend this logic to the 5%... because he never claimed it. In this case, the argument remains internally consistent.

The only problem I see is you attacked a staw man of your own construction…. again.

The preposition you failed to refute remains, specifically that Rramjet claimed the 1-2% figure was insignificant... a slippery slope indeed.

Nice try though.

They're not ignoring the results.

Sounds to me like they're just being scientific, and avoiding jumping to any conclusions.

Agreed, from the summary…

“The first step in the analysis of the data revealed the existence of certain apparent similarities between cases of objects definitely identified and those not identified. Statistical methods of testing were applied which indicated a low probability that these apparent similarities were significant. An attempt to determine the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS represent observations of a class, or classes, of "flying saucers" necessitated a thorough re-examination and re-evaluation of cases of objects not originally identified; this led to the conclusion that the probability was very small.
Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological 'developments outside of the range of present-day scientific knowledge. It is emphasized that there was a complete lack of any valid evidence consisting of physical, matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.”​

And from the introduction…

“In general, the data were subjective, consisting of qualified estimates of physical characteristics rather than of precise measurements. Furthermore, most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately. The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years. Both of these factors introduced an element of doubt concerning the validity of the original data, and increased its subjectivity. This was intensified by the recognized inability of the average individual to estimate speeds, distances, and sizes of objects in the air with any degree of accuracy. In spite of these limitations, methods of statistical analysis of such reports in sufficiently large groups are valid. The danger lies in the possibility of forgetting the subjectivity of the data at the time that conclusions are drawn from the analysis. It must be emphasized, again and again, that any conclusions contained in this report are based NOT on facts, but on what many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be.”​

We’ve been over this study in particular and this last point in general ad nauseum here yet the pseudoscientific amatuers like Rramjet and the “professional” UFOlogists he follows without question absolutely refuse to acknowledge it at any and all cost to their credibility.

It does, however, make for good theater…

 

[Rramjet]

They're not ignoring the results.

They started out with an explicit hypothesis and aim:

”In the meantime, mirror graphs had been constructed from the frequency tabulations which seemed to show that when the KNOWNS (total less UNKNOWNS) and the UNKNOWNS were grouped according to one of six characteristics, the percentage of KNOWNS and the percentage of UNKNOWNS in each characteristic group showed the same general trend. In other words, on the basis of these graphs, it looked as though there was a good possibility that the UNKNOWNS were no different from the KNOWNS, at least in the aggregate.. It was decided to investigate this by the use of a statistical procedure called the "Chi Square Test". The Chi Square Test is a statistical test of the likelihood that two distributions come from the same population, that is, it gives the probability that there is no difference in the make-up of the two distributions being measured.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf pp.60-61)​

The results of those Chi-Square analyses turned out to be statistically significant – that is the analyses showed there was a statistically significant difference.

Yet in conclusion they stated: “ ”The results of these tests are inconclusive…” (p.76)

That, given their initial hypothesis and aim, on any measure you like to call it, IS ignoring the results.

 

[Rramjet]

How do the aliens know that we are here? The blue dot is the extent of our radio broadcasts. The words microscopic,needle and and very big haystack come to mind.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_234094e3dc8548edb2.jpg[/qimg]

How do we detect life on other planets?

For example:
(http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM7QR39ZAD_Life_0.html)
(http://www.universetoday.com/12171/could-we-detect-plants-on-other-planets/)
etc...

 

[Paul2]

So what is the claimant supposed to do? Anticipate and list all possible mundane explanations as part of their claim? That's not even possible. People could still think of other mundane explanations.

There can be no "evidence" for the claim that something isn't something. You are asking the claimant to prove a negative.

If you can't anticipate all possible mundane explanations, then you can't ask, in effect, GeeMack to do it, either.

That's why a process of elimination is such a bad method. What really should be happening is not trying to eliminate all mundane explanations, but, rather, someone needs to prove what it is (not what it isn't). Until that happens, it's just unknown, or uncertain, etc.

 

[Rramjet]

That you can't personally imagine alternative explanations does not make them cease to exist. If you were to apply some skepticism and critical thinking to the matter, many of them might be obvious to you, too.

That is why I have stated that the cases I am presenting simply...

defy plausible mundane explanation.

Note that does not mean they disprove, or reject or discount or any similar synonymous terms. It simply means they resist (boldly) mundane explanation.

If (in the future) a plausible mundane explanation is found, then I would be only too willing to accept such an explanation - principally because it removes the case from consideration and in so doing removes extraoneous or erronous information when we are considering researching such cases. No research effort wants to maintain potentially misleading data on the cases it is researching.

Thus I have always been careful to explain that the cases I have been presenting simply defy mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is the UFO debunkers who seem to insist that I pigeonhole the unkown cases into the ETH. Not I.

 

[corbin]

The second method is to demonstrate statistically that identified and unidentified UFOs are not drawn from a single population (i.e. mundane origins). However, this is also problematic, because identified UFOs are drawn from a huge range of populations, some with common properties, some without common properties, which may be more or less identifiable than others, and some of which (hoax, delusion, lucid dream and hallucination) have the potential to be totally dissimilar from any identified UFO, which will skew any attempt at statistical analysis.

Sure but as hoax etc (according to the independent research of the Air Force, Hynek and Hendry) is between 1-2%, then it is not significant. We can account for such in our analyses. (I’ll get the references for you later – but you can be sure I do have them and they are valid…).

So by that reasoning do you not agree the final 5% unidentified figure reached by the Air Force and Hynek is insignificant too?

You MUST have taken Rramjet's reply to mean that Rramjet was [implying] the 1.5% number is insignificant BY ITSELF on account of the study being flawed because that's the only interpretation that makes sense for you to be able to apply the same logic to the 5%. This is not at all, however, the meaning of Rramjet's statement of the 1.5% being insignificant. I don't know how else to say it. Its a matter of context.

I don't think you even know what they are talking about when they say "statistical analysis."

 

[corbin]

If you can't anticipate all possible mundane explanations, then you can't ask, in effect, GeeMack to do it, either.

Actually, you can and should. The person saying "there is a mundane explanation" is making the positive claim and therefore has the burden of proof. The statement, "There is no mundane explanation," is negative. Its like asking somebody to prove God doesn't exist.

 

[Access Denied]

You MUST...

So, you can't find a quote other than Rramjet's own quotes that prove my point…

Sure but given independent studies have shown the incidence of hoax/psychological is 1-2%, then lets not get too obsessed with those alternative – the vast bulk of reports (according to the UFO debunkers) arise from a misidentification of mundane objects.

Sure but as hoax etc (according to the independent research of the Air Force, Hynek and Hendry) is between 1-2%, then it is not significant. We can account for such in our analyses. (I’ll get the references for you later – but you can be sure I do have them and they are valid…).

 

[Rramjet]

How do you quantify "credibility" and "reliability"? History has shown that even the most "reliable" witnesses are subject to errors in observation (See Hynek and Hendry for examples of pilots, police officers, etc making errors in observation). So why must we accept that this observation is 100% accurate? If one assumes that there may be an error or two in his recollections (i.e. angular speed and "oscillations around a central point"), which is not that great a stretch, it suddenly begins to look very mundane in origin. Therefore, you can't make a conclusion that the possibility of this being satellites is "implausible".

Sure, the parameters you mention are estimates. The transit time is an estimate and the oscillation is a perception.

The potential error margins surrounding those estimates must then be explored.

Regarding the transit time (20 seconds to cover perhaps 35 degrees of arc), it is hard to see how that could be greatly inaccurate. However, perhaps you may consider it to be an underestimate. After all, research has shown that in interesting or exciting events, time seems to pass very quickly, where in reality more time has elapsed than immediately supposed (as opposed to traumatic events where the opposite seems to occur). So, the estimated time in this event could be shorter than the actual time. So perhaps the compression of time in this case did occur and the 20 seconds is an underestimate. So what if we doubled the time? That in my opinion would be overkill – but let’s see. That would still mean a horizon to horizon time (using a full 180 degrees) of 3-4 minutes. Do you know of any satellite (or orbiting space debris) that can achieve this?

Regarding the oscillation: all three witnesses (Mr X, Mr Y, and myself) noted that the leading two objects were oscillating about a central point between them. It was also noted by all that the trailing two objects were completely stable in their trajectory. If there were any atmospheric affects that might cause the light from the objects to “waver” - thus creating an impression of oscillation where none in fact was occurring – then those same atmospheric affects should have been apparent as affective on the trailing two objects as well. This was not noted.

So even accounting for such effects, the satellite hypothesis seems implausible.

 

[GeeMack]

Actually, you can and should. The person saying "there is a mundane explanation" is making the positive claim and therefore has the burden of proof.

Your misunderstanding of the skeptical position is noted. What the skeptics here are saying is that not every conceivable alternative explanation has even been imagined, much less considered and eliminated.

The statement, "There is no mundane explanation," is negative.

But that is exactly the claim Rramjet is making, that there is no mundane explanation for his and many other UFO sightings. That is shifting the burden of proof, a dishonest ploy often attempted by believers. And even though his argument has already failed at that point, he makes the irrational leap that if there is no mundane explanation, it must be aliens.

Its like asking somebody to prove God doesn't exist.

Correct. It's the responsibility of the believers to demonstrate objectively that gods, or extraterrestrials do exist. And as we all know, that has not yet been done.

 

[Access Denied]

The person saying "there is a mundane explanation" is making the positive claim and therefore has the burden of proof.

Nope, that's the null hypothesis based on established knowledge, read up on it. The burden of proof is on those who claim there is none to refute it.

So far, all who’ve tried have failed so good luck with that…

In the absence of any objective evidence (anecdotes don’t count by the way) to the contrary, the null hypothesis remains valid even if any mundane explanations offered can’t be proven.