UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

The picture I'm getting is you don't have any evidence.

Again ... I already gave you my evidence. Now you're going to say, oops I meant empirical evidence. And so on back to this post.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again ... I already gave you my evidence. Now you're going to say, oops I meant empirical evidence. And so on back to this post.

j.r.

Yes, you've given us your claim already. Do you have any evidence for your claim?

 

[AdMan]

Technically my brain would be empirical evidence because that's where the observed stimulus was recorded into my memory. So yes I "got some".

No, you don't.

 

[Resume]

Technically my brain would be empirical evidence because that's where the observed stimulus was recorded into my memory. So yes I "got some". As soon as Kurzweil figures out how to download memories, I'll be happy to pass them along to you.

j.r.

So you just have anecdotes then?

 

[Akhenaten]

Technically my brain would be empirical evidence because that's where the observed stimulus was recorded into my memory. So yes I "got some". As soon as Kurzweil figures out how to download memories, I'll be happy to pass them along to you.

j.r.

Drivel.

According to this half-baked and utterly pseudoscientific 'theory' the brains of millions upon millions of children contain empirical evidence of Santa Claus.

In short, you have no evidence and your demands that your silly stories be taken seriously are laughable, to say the least.

 

[Resume]

Again ... I already gave you my evidence. Now you're going to say, oops I meant empirical evidence. And so on back to this post.

j.r.

Alien spacecraft? No?

Lights in the sky? Shiny? Yes.

 

[GeeMack]

OK ... now we're getting someplace. Except that it did happen ... and the skeptic above can only deal with it by rejection of the data.

Is "data" another one of those terms "ufologists" dishonestly redefine to suit their preconceived notion that aliens exist? Because when it comes to the common definition of data, the one skeptics would tend to use, there has been no data presented yet to suggest anything at all actually happened. Anecdotes certainly aren't data. It's just a story, like I caught a ten pound bluegill.

It would be fair enough to say, "In my personal opinion I simply don't believe the story".

It is the skeptical, reality based thing to say there has been no objective evidence provided. Add to that the serious credibility concerns and in the final analysis, the anecdotes are worthless. But good try with that eliciting sympathy thing again, although you should know by now it doesn't work on skeptics.

I would have no problem with that. People can choose to deny the experiences of other people all they want.

That we don't accept it does not mean we deny it. But your persistence in trying to blame the skeptics for your failure is admirable, even if dishonest.

But after a while it becomes obvious that continued disbelief in the existence of the UFO phenomena is unreasonable. Even other skeptics here acknowledge that UFOs are real.

No, it's not disbelief, but your use of that dishonest fundamental Christian tactic is noted. It's a lack of belief. And...

Yes, UFOs are unidentified flying objects. Some of them are even real objects. All of them are unidentified. All skeptics acknowledged that. But if you're looking for some kind of meet-me-half-way thing where every now and then skeptics take your anecdotes as true stories, you're going to continue to be disappointed.

 

[GeeMack]

Again ... I already gave you my evidence. Now you're going to say, oops I meant empirical evidence. And so on back to this post.

No, you've made a claim. You haven't given any evidence. If you'd like some of these helpful cooperative skeptics to work with you on those definitions, just ask.

 

[ufology]

So you just have anecdotes then?

No. For me, I have my own firsthand experience, which falls outside the definiton of anecdotal:


an·ec·dot·al

[

ànnək dṓt’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànnək dṓtik] adjective

1.based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.​

j.r.​

​

 

[Resume]

Drivel.

According to this half-baked and utterly pseudoscientific 'theory' the brains of millions upon millions of children contain empirical evidence of Santa Claus.

In short, you have no evidence and your demands that your silly stories be taken seriously are laughable, to say the least.

The avatar, it is hysterical.

 

[Resume]

No. For me, I have my own firsthand experience, which falls outside the definiton of anecdotal:


an·ec·dot·al

[

ànnək dṓt’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànnək dṓtik] adjective

1.based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.​

j.r.​

​

Becomes an anecdote when you relate it. A story, a yarn, a tale that's tall perhaps.

 

[Paul2]

I see. You want empirical evidence.

Ufology, I don't want to toot my own horn, but did you see this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7460827#post7460827 ?

What do you think?

 

[GeeMack]

No. For me, I have my own firsthand experience, which falls outside the definiton of anecdotal:


an·ec·dot·al

[

ànn?k d?t’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànn?k d?tik] adjective

1.based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.​

j.r.​

​

So at the point where you choose to relate your anecdote it is definitively anecdotal. But we already knew that. And it's still not evidence, it's a claim.

 

[Akhenaten]

So you just have anecdotes then?

No. For me, I have my own firsthand experience, which falls outside the definiton of anecdotal:

<snip>

It's not firsthand for anyone else, is it, Mr Webster?

 

[RoboTimbo]

How do I nominate an avatar?

 

[Akhenaten]

How do I nominate an avatar?

I imagine you'd have to hope that someone posted the original drawing it was made from.

 

[carlitos]

...... data ........ data .......

We've all heard the axiom "the plural of anecdote is not data," but it takes real balls to assert that the singular of anecdote is data.

Perhaps you forgot because you're so invested in the idea that UFO = aliens. UFO doesn't even equal object. You have a faded memory of sitting on the couch listening to Zeppelin II or maybe Houses of the Holy and you saw a light through a window. That ain't data. Capisce?

As for Kurzweil, his keyboards made for some great Stevie Wonder tunes, but don't worry, your memory is still fallible and inaccurate like mine. Just today, I forgot the name of the double album I loved so much that I wore out the vinyl - "Original Musiquarium I." I was positive it was called Songs from the Key of Life, and my friend called me on it. My memory was wrong.

Memory ≠ data

 

[RoboTimbo]

I imagine you'd have to hope that someone posted the original drawing it was made from.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/AvatarGooseBlimpLarge.jpg[/qimg]​

Yeah, but who knows if that will ever happen?

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah, but who knows if that will ever happen?

Cheers, mate, and thanks. It's good to share the laughs, I reckon.

 

[ufology]

Becomes an anecdote when you relate it. A story, a yarn, a tale that's tall perhaps.

That's where you make the unfounded leap that science is always right and the margin of error in human perception and recall is 100% ... In actual fact, as was pointed out above, science has its share of failings and is not always reliable. Still, certain things like the workings of human vision and recall are well established scientific facts. That's how people are able to get things like driver's licenses, by taking visual, memory and skill tests.

Now I realize the above opens up the floor to bad driver jokes, but seriously, think of all the judgements based on observation and recall that are made reliably on a daily basis ... literally thosands of them. In real life, our senses provide a vast amount of useful and reliable data. Add to that, that not only are humans amazing processors of sensory data, we are also intelligent.

If we had to prove everything we experience scientifically every time we need to make a decision, we'd never get anything done. So why don't we do that? Because we are intelligent enough to figure our way through life without doing that, and most of the time we do a pretty good job.

Humans have accomplished a lot, we're amazing creatures, just ask any skeptic who has had to debunk alien pyramid builder mythology. When it comes to that you'll get no argument. So why in an era of enlightenment, where we're more educated than ever before, when it comes to UFOs, do humans suddenly go from being amazing primitives, to modern frail incompetent, idiots who are incapable of telling the difference between a bug on a window and an unknown form of flying craft? The answer is obvious ... it's the skeptical bias. If you set that bias aside for a moment, and just be fair minded and logical, you'd see that there is value in anecdotal eveidence.

j.r.