UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

hang on a minute, when did someone establish 50 years ago that a UFO was a structured extra terrestrial vehicle ?

 

[Agatha]

It is possible that I could give a lab 50 samples of DNA and that something would happen in the analysis to give one of them an unknown reading ... expecially if it were a hair sample. So DNA proves nothing, metal fragment samples prove nothing, photos prove nothing, video proves nothing, only if the aliens grant someone a license to sell mothership cruises could I provide material evidence ... but so what? ... the margins of error in anecdotal evidence are not 100%, and given the number sightings, it is reasonable to accept that UFOs are, as was established about 50 years ago, structured craft of unknown origin.

j.r.

Noooooo! What you have is a whole bunch of claims, none of which falsify the null hypothesis. And sing it with me, children...

All UFO sightings are of mundane origin

When was it established, and by whom, that UFOs (by definition, UNidentified) are structured craft of unknown origin?

 

[Resume]

It is possible that I could give a lab 50 samples of DNA and that something would happen in the analysis to give one of them an unknown reading ... expecially if it were a hair sample. So DNA proves nothing, metal fragment samples prove nothing, photos prove nothing, video proves nothing, only if the aliens grant someone a license to sell mothership cruises could I provide material evidence ... but so what? ... the margins of error in anecdotal evidence are not 100%, and given the number sightings, it is reasonable to accept that UFOs are, as was established about 50 years ago, structured craft of unknown origin.

j.r.

Now you're just pulling stuff out of your duct.

ETA: Not that you haven't shown flashes of this before.

Come to think of it, it's all you have.

 

[Stray Cat]

the margins of error in anecdotal evidence are not 100%, and given the number sightings, it is reasonable to accept that UFOs are, as was established about 50 years ago, structured craft of unknown origin.

Again the sums don't add up.
Out of all the things that people see in the sky and do recognise, and then all the things they don't recognise that are later found to be of mundane origin, what's left (Unidentified things that people report seeing) sound about right for the percentage of fallabilities in all their different forms.

 

[carlitos]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

The plural of anecdote is not data.​

​

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is possible that I could give a lab 50 samples of DNA and that something would happen in the analysis to give one of them an unknown reading ... expecially if it were a hair sample. So DNA proves nothing,

Tell Rramjet, he believes a blond hair found wrapped around a guy's johnson could have come only from a PseudoAlien.

metal fragment samples prove nothing,

You should coordinate with Rramjet, he claims there is trace evidence that can only have come from PseudoAliens.

photos prove nothing,

You haven't discussed this with Rramjet at all, have you.

video proves nothing,

I agree, so why does Rramjet claim that there is video of PseudoAliens that could not possibly be of mundane origin?

only if the aliens grant someone a license to sell mothership cruises could I provide material evidence

What an odd thing to say. We've discussed such things as alien raygun, alien body or alien spaceship being extraordinary evidence. This is the first I've heard of cruises.

... but so what? ... the margins of error in anecdotal evidence are not 100%,

What percentage are they? And you'll need to provide a link to the research showing it.

and given the number sightings, it is reasonable to accept that UFOs are, as was established about 50 years ago, structured craft of unknown origin.

Guess how many sightings of Santa Claus there are every year. NORAD tracks his sleigh every December 25. Let's see you top that.

j.r.

And you forgot FLIR. LOL!

 

[ufology]

Is it Data or Information ... What's The Big Difference?

According to my dictionary, the term "data" is synonymous with "information" ... but technically, the dictionary defines data as, "information, that is often ( suggesting but not always ), obtained from experiments or surveys. So I suppose that if one wants to be really picky about word usage, they should use the word "information" in a general sense, and "data" only when they are referencing statistical information, or information from some experiment.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

According to my dictionary, the term "data" is synonymous with "information" ... but technically, the dictionary defines data as, "information, that is often ( suggesting but not always ), obtained from experiments or surveys. So I suppose that if one wants to be really picky about word usage, they should use the word "information" in a general sense, and "data" only when they are referencing statistical information, or information from some experiment.

j.r.

And "anecdote" for your story.

 

[Marduk]

And "anecdote" for your story.

and "lying" for some other people

 

[carlitos]

According to my dictionary...

It's funny, but the only time anyone around here has to refer to dictionaries, they seem to be dodging real questions and arguing about semantics. I have participated in months-long discussions with intellectually-honest people and no one ever consulted a dictionary. Does this give you pause?

 

[tsig]

Why is ufology attacking this straw man with such fervor? No one is dismissing "the phemenon," either lazily or aloof-ly. The phenomenon is that of man seeing or imagining or inventing things and going "OMG!! Aliens!".

In boxing you only fight those in your weight class, same in UFOlogy.

 

[ufology]

It's funny, but the only time anyone around here has to refer to dictionaries, they seem to be dodging real questions and arguing about semantics. I have participated in months-long discussions with intellectually-honest people and no one ever consulted a dictionary. Does this give you pause?

Unless James Randi has paid out the million dollar prize for telepathy lately, it appears that language is still our primary means of communication, and therefore semantics plays a part in the precision, so if someone is going to say that anecdote doesn't represent data, then it isn't me that's being picky, but the skeptic who posted that comment, and all I did was acknowledge it with a definition for the sake of clarity. Why would you have a problem with that? Or are you suggesting that maybe the skeptic shouldn't have been so picky?

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

Unless James Randi has paid out the million dollar prize for telepathy lately, it appears that language is still our primary means of communication, and therefore semantics plays a part in the precision, so if someone is going to say that anecdote doesn't represent data, then it isn't me that's being picky, but the skeptic who posted that comment, and all I did was acknowledge it with a definition for the sake of clarity. Why would you have a problem with that? Or are you suggesting that maybe the skeptic shouldn't have been so picky?

j.r.

he's suggesting that people only look up precise definitions when they have no evidence with which to continue a conversation, so they go all semantical instead as if they hope that a better understanding of a word will suddenly show that they are right
it won't, but I don't blame you for trying

 

[ufology]

he's suggesting that people only look up precise definitions when they have no evidence with which to continue a conversation, so they go all semantical instead as if they hope that a better understanding of a word will suddenly show that they are right
it won't, but I don't blame you for trying

It seems to me more like he was trying to be picky about me accepting anecdotal evidence as data. To which I responded that if he wants to be picky then it's only considered data under certain circumstances, but otherwise it's synoymous with information. Or are you suggesting that anecdotal evidence isn't information?

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

It seems to me more like he was trying to be picky about me accepting anecdotal evidence as data. To which I responded that if he wants to be picky then it's only considered data under certain circumstances, but otherwise it's synoymous with information. Or are you suggesting that anecdotal evidence isn't information?

j.r.

its information or data depending on how it was collected and what use it was put to, but thats irrelevant as it would still be next to worthless data or information in either case

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence that may be true but cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.[1][2]

Also, anecdotal evidence can be inaccurate, sometimes based on anecdotes, second-hand accounts of events or hearsay.[1]

Anecdotal evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, can be used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". While the evidence is true, it does not warrant the conclusion made from it.

Conclusions made from anecdotal evidence might not be untrue, but they are unreliable because they don't follow from the evidence and might easily be incorrect.

 

[GeeMack]

its information or data depending on how it was collected and what use it was put to, but thats irrelevant as it would still be next to worthless data or information in either case

It seems ufology, who is insistent that "ufology" isn't in any way, shape, or form to be confused with science lest it fall into the category of pseudoscience, wants desperately to consider his anecdotes as data, because then it's not just a stupid story but has some semblance of scientific validity. Darn those "ufologists" and that argument by dishonesty stuff.

It's a campfire story, ufology, plain and simple. It's probably fun for kids, but as far as its relationship with reality, it might as well be made up from scratch. There is no evidence to support it, and the story isn't backed by a mote of credibility.

 

[ufology]

its information or data depending on how it was collected and what use it was put to, but thats irrelevant as it would still be next to worthless data or information in either case

Thank you for you clarification and reference. The only problem is that you make the presumption that anecdotal evidence is always "next to worthless", which I've demnostrated isn't true using logic and fact based on the known parameters of human perception and recall. The fact is that anecdotal evidence generally has significant value in the information it contains.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

Thank you for you clarification and reference. The only problem is that you make the presumption that anecdotal evidence is always "next to worthless",

as far as evidence goes, it is almost the very worst kind, hence "next to", the worst kind is "hearsay", if you were up in court charged with murder and the only evidence is "anecdotal", then you have nothing to worry about. If the evidence was empirical, you're doing life
this is a very simple concept, you are not too stupid to understand it, the reason that you can't understand it, is because you just don't want to. Everyone here can see that but you
wake up and smell the coffee

which I've demnostrated isn't true using logic and fact based on the known parameters of human perception and recall. The fact is that anecdotal evidence generally has significant value in the information it contains.

j.r.

no, this is just where your opinion differs from the scientifically minded who's opinions on this matter are unanimous
let me clarify that for you
this means you are not scientifically minded
ok.

 

[ufology]

as far as evidence goes, it is almost the very worst kind, hence "next to", the worst kind is "hearsay", if you were up in court charged with murder and the only evidence is "anecdotal", then you have nothing to worry about. If the evidence was empirical, you're doing life
this is a very simple concept, you are not too stupid to understand it, the reason that you can't understand it, is because you just don't want to. Everyone here can see that but you
wake up and smell the coffee


no, this is just where your opinion differs from the scientifically minded who's opinions on this matter are unanimous
let me clarify that for you
this means you are not scientifically minded
ok.

OK ... let's imagine a crime then ... let's say a hit and run, and let's say you saw it happen and describe the car anecdotally as a blue Honda with the Kansas license plate KIG 435, driven by a middle aged woman with blonde hair. Are you seriosly going to say that your evidence won't be taken seriously by the police or the court? Would you just not bother reporting it because you think it wouldn't make any difference ... surely you wouldn't be that idotic ... or maybe you would ... you're acting like you would when you say if the "only evidence is "anecdotal", then you have nothing to worry about". I would think that if the driver knew you had that info, they would have plenty to worry about.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

OK ... let's imagine a crime then ... let's say a hit and run, and let's say you saw it happen and describe the car anecdotally as a blue Honda with the Kansas license plate KIG 435, driven by a middle aged woman with blonde hair. Are you seriosly going to say that your evidence won't be taken seriously by the police or the court? Would you just not bother reporting it because you think it wouldn't make any difference ... surely you wouldn't be that idotic ... or maybe you would ... you're acting like you would when you say if the "only evidence is "anecdotal", then you have nothing to worry about". I would think that if the driver knew you had that info, they would have plenty to worry about.

j.r.

do you know what a straw man is ?

so the police take that evidence and they look for corroborating data, the car would be dented, the listed driver would have no alibi, that evidence is what the conviction would be based on.

your actual equivalent would be that they find the driver has a solid alibi, the car isn't damaged and the man is convicted anyway, that would be exactly like the ufology that you propose, all talk and no trousers

you can't think for a minute that perhaps, the car was stolen by a blonde haired woman completely invalidates your information can you


without corroboration anecdotal evidence is not good enough to prove anything
get that through your head will you, your inability or unwillingness to accept simple facts is making you seem unhinged and won't change anyones opinion in the real world
and, I have to say, reading your posts with their mind numbingly repeated fallacies, special pleading, pseudoscience and dishonest tactics is getting tedious