UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

So if you think there is a mundane explanation... shouldn't you be able to present it? Surely in those cases with mundane explanations this would be easy. And don't conflate what I'm saying with cases with insufficient information from which no conclusions can be drawn - I'm talking about those important cases where sufficient information is provided and the sighting as described cannot plausibly be of anything mundane or explained psychologically.

Unfortunately, no such cases has been presented in this thread and furthermore, as you have mentioned yourself, one can't prove a negative. You can never be sure about when you have examined all mundane explanations.

 

[Stray Cat]

What you are saying is that because flashbulb memories aren't perfect, then they don't exist. Perfect.

Strawman alert!!!

Would you rely on something that was unreliable?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So far about three explanations have been offered, and none of them seem to fit the description. One was "illuminated birds," another was "4 satellites flying together," and the last was a bunch of vague implications that the observer perhaps forgot what he saw.

No, it was not a vague implication that he forgot what he saw. It was an exact implication that his memory could be faulty, assuming that he isn't outright lying which is another mundane explanation that you've forgotten and which can't be eliminated. Try not to build too many strawmen.

If there is sufficient information, then you must indeed choose between one of those two positions. The only case where you don't is if there is not sufficient information.

An unknown person who claims to be a scientist but can't formulate a null hypothesis and doesn't understand the scientific method or burden of proof with a reputation for lying to support his pseudoalien agenda tells us a story about lights in the sky with no location, no date, no time, with two alleged unnamed co-claimants on an internet forum. Nope, I don't see any problem with there being sufficient information or reliability of the claimant. Do you?

Note: There not being sufficient information doesn't mean that the observer didn't record every minute detail about the sighting. Insufficient information concerns the visual observation itself, and perhaps also information necessary to rule out specific mundane causes.

It doesn't bode well for pseudoscience.

 

[Jocce]

I don't see what new mundane explanations date and location will open up...

Because that makes it possible to investigate if known satellites were passing at that time and place.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be taking the lack of exact observations as evidence of lying... or something. Typically, though, most people who see something unexplained in the sky don't go into science-mode and record every minute detail about the sighting.

Not lying, but unreliable. Regarding "going into science mode" one would think that Rramjet of all people would understand the need of writing down some accurate detailed information about his own UFO case. Since he obviously have no detailed notes about the case one can only assume that he's going by his recollection of the event.

The point about old observations not being reliable seems like a bit of a stab in the dark to me as well. Besides the fact that not all nonmundane UFO observations are old, humans do have the ability to remember things that occurred in the past... contrary to popular belief in this thread. This amazing ability of memory is especially true in impactful events like a UFO sighting.

I'd like to see a reference to a scientific study that confirms this exceptional claim.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Yes, I am. I see it as the best, most methodological way to approach these cases - to first see if there are any plausible mundane explanations for the sighting as described. If so, the case can be discarded. If not, then the focus shifts from the observation to the credibility and reliability of the witness, i.e. the accuracy of the story.

Then you are simply going the pseudoscientific route. Anecdotes are unfalsifiable and therefore useless. You can question Rramjet about his sighting all you want, he will build his story so that it rules out any mundane explanation you can think of. If you think of a new one, he will invent new details that will nullify it.

Explain back to me what you understand about unfalsifiability of anecdotes so that I know that you understand it. Pseudoscientists like Rramjet in the pseudosciences like UFOlogy hang their hat on anecdotes.

 

[corbin]

No, it was not a vague implication that he forgot what he saw. It was an exact implication that his memory could be faulty, assuming that he isn't outright lying which is another mundane explanation that you've forgotten and which can't be eliminated. Try not to build too many strawmen.

See, I think its a bit dishonest to lump matters of witness credibility in with the observation itself. If you are proposing that the mundane explanation for this case is that Rramjet is lying, you should first admit that there are no mundane explanations for the sighting, and then say that he is lying.

An unknown person who claims to be a scientist but can't formulate a null hypothesis and doesn't understand the scientific method or burden of proof with a reputation for lying to support his pseudoalien agenda tells us a story about lights in the sky with no location, no date, no time, with two alleged unnamed co-claimants on an internet forum. Nope, I don't see any problem with there being sufficient information or reliability of the claimant. Do you?

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

A lot of people seem to be thinking that the burden of proof is on the person who presents the cases. It is not. The cases are the data, not a position. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim there IS a mundane explanation.

 

[Jocce]

Knowing the location and time still doesn't make his description fit the description of satellites or birds.

It adds no new information. It was never expected (at least it shouldn't be) that the location and time would allow you to correlate his observation to a passing satellite, because his observation doesn't look like a passing satellite.

I agree. It looks like 4 passing satellites.

But critically, the description of what he supposed SAW, is there.

The description of what he now remembers that he saw. Quite a big difference.

 

[corbin]

Because that makes it possible to investigate if known satellites were passing at that time and place.

As I said before, the description already precludes satellites. NO satellites fit the description of having 4 points of light, 2 oscillating.

Not lying, but unreliable. Regarding "going into science mode" one would think that Rramjet of all people would understand the need of writing down some accurate detailed information about his own UFO case. Since he obviously have no detailed notes about the case one can only assume that he's going by his recollection of the event.

Correct. A legitimate question of credibility.

I'd like to see a reference to a scientific study that confirms this exceptional claim.

They are on the Wiki page that I linked.

 

[corbin]

When do satellites pass 4 at a time?

 

[RoboTimbo]

See, I think a bit dishonest to lump matters of witness credibility in with the observation itself. If you are proposing that the mundane explanation for this case is that Rramjet is lying, you should first admit that there are no mundane explanations for the sighting, and then say that he is lying.

Why? The null hypothesis is that "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin". One mundane explanation is that the claimant is lying.

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

If Rramjet is trying to falsify the null hypothesis, then he has the burden of proof. We agree on this point.

A lot of people seem to be thinking that the burden of proof is on the person who presents the cases. It is not. The cases are the data, not a position. The burden of proof is on the person making the position claim there IS a mundane explanation.

No, nobody seems to think that. For some reason, you're trying to stand the null hypothesis on its head. I'll explain it again to you. The null hypothesis is that "All UFO sightings are mundane in origin". If you or Rramjet are making a claim that the explanation is non-mundane, you have the burden of proof. I'll be happy to explain it the same way as many times as you need.

 

[GeeMack]

So far about three explanations have been offered, and none of them seem to fit the description. One was "illuminated birds," another was "4 satellites flying together," and the last was a bunch of vague implications that the observer perhaps forgot what he saw.

Once more, the fact that you can't imagine several more mundane possibilities that would explain the alleged incident does not mean those possibilities don't exist. You are pursuing an argument from ignorance.

If there is sufficient information, then you must indeed choose between one of those two positions. The only case where you don't is if there is not sufficient information.

There is not sufficient information. We don't even have objective evidence to suggest Rramjet didn't make up the whole thing. He has used much of his time in this thread destroying any credibility he may have had when he started it 9,000+ posts ago.

Note: There not being sufficient information doesn't mean that the observer didn't record every minute detail about the sighting. Insufficient information concerns the visual observation itself, and perhaps also information necessary to rule out specific mundane causes.

And you still seem to be under the impression that the burden of proof rests with the skeptics. It is not our responsibility to propose and then eliminate every conceivable mundane possibility. The claimant, Rramjet in this case, is responsible for objective verifiable evidence that what he saw was some particular thing. His abject failure to do so anywhere in this lengthy thread is telling. His argument claiming to have eliminated all conceivable mundane explanations is a lie. He followed that with some contorted illogic claiming that aliens is the remaining plausible explanation. When considered rationally, that is obviously a nonsensical position.

But let's say hypothetically that every conceivable mundane possibility actually has been considered and eliminated...

​

... that still wouldn't lead to the explanation being aliens. What that would lead to is every conceivable non-mundane explanation being equally as valid as any other. It would be a free-for-all. To say every plausible mundane explanation has been eliminated would be the quintessential argument from ignorance. To suggest that line of illogic brings us to the alien/ET explanation would be just plain stupid.

 

[Stray Cat]

See, I think its a bit dishonest to lump matters of witness credibility in with the observation itself. If you are proposing that the mundane explanation for this case is that Rramjet is lying, you should first admit that there are no mundane explanations for the sighting, and then say that he is lying.

The possibility that Rramjet is lying (and I'm not saying he is lying), is one of the those mundane explanations that can not be ruled out.

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

Yes, and Rramjet is making the claim that this UFO sighting can not be explained my mundane causes, he need to prove this with evidence.
But he can't of course, so he shifts the burden of proof.

A lot of people seem to be thinking that the burden of proof is on the person who presents the cases. It is not. The cases are the data, not a position. The burden of proof is on the person making the position claim there IS a mundane explanation.

There is no data, there is a story.
There is a position, it is Rramjets construction
There is a burden of proof, it too belongs to Rramjet to support his story with proof.

 

[corbin]

Then you are simply going the pseudoscientific route. Anecdotes are unfalsifiable and therefore useless. You can question Rramjet about his sighting all you want, he will build his story so that it rules out any mundane explanation you can think of. If you think of a new one, he will invent new details that will nullify it.

Explain back to me what you understand about unfalsifiability of anecdotes so that I know that you understand it. Pseudoscientists like Rramjet in the pseudosciences like UFOlogy hang their hat on anecdotes.

Uh, anecdotes are indeed unfalsifiable but that only means that they can't prove things.

It does not follow from that that they are useless.

You use them in a statistical analysis and end up with a probability... they are not useless by any stretch.

 

[Paul2]

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim there IS a mundane explanation.

How many times do we have to say that no one here on the skeptic side is (or should be) making a positive claim that there IS a mundane explanation, as distinct from the idea that there still might be a mundane explanation.

One need only say that there might be a mundane explanation. That is not a claim that can be proved. Rather, it is like the null hypothesis because neither are a positive claim. The person making the positive claim must provide the evidence. Otherwise, there might still be mundane explanation, even if ones we can think of are ruled out.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Uh, anecdotes are indeed unfalsifiable but that only means that they can't prove things.

It does not follow from that that they are useless.

You use them in a statistical analysis and end up with a probability... they are not useless by any stretch.

No, they are actually useless for proving extraordinary claims such as Rramjet's pseudoaliens are visiting us. How many pseudoaliens have been confirmed as a result of anecdotes?

As Carl Sagan so rightly said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Do you see why it is pseudoscientific to want to use anecdotes?

 

[corbin]

Would you accept the null hypothesis to be made specific to a single case?

"'Case X' UFO sighting is of mundane origin."

Is this an acceptable null hypothesis?

 

[Stray Cat]

]You use them in a statistical analysis and end up with a probability... they are not useless by any stretch.

Yes, you take inherently unreliable anecdotes and your statistical study will have unreliable results, which will serve a lot of use to show how unreliable anecdotes are, unless you also have physical evidence to support the anecdotes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Would you accept the null hypothesis to be made specific to a single case?

"'Case X' UFO sighting is of mundane origin."

Is this an acceptable null hypothesis?

Not much point, is there? Case X is in the set of all cases which the null hypothesis applies to. Why is that not acceptable to you?

 

[Stray Cat]

Would you accept the null hypothesis to be made specific to a single case?

"'Case X' UFO sighting is of mundane origin."

Is this an acceptable null hypothesis?

If the null hypothesis is "All UFO cases are mundane in origin" (which is what it is) surely that would include "Case X"?

 

[corbin]

The null hypothesis that you have all agreed upon is provable. The alternative is unprovable.

Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?