UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

blimey, I have never heard anyone say that before at this forum
its usually a class 1 argument

Oh I think there is a misunderstanding ... I wasn't "arguing" anything.

j.r.

 

[23_Tauri]

............... On the other end of the spectrum are the witnesses who know from firsthand experience that some UFOs are alien craft.....

Wow. I can't believe you're still saying this after - ooh - how many weeks have you been here?

Edited to delete an uncivil attack on another poster

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

These witnesses, did they do the Richard Dreyfuss thing then, and get carried on board?

Because the skeptics refuse to consider anecdotal evidence, the gulf between the believers and the skeptics will remain in place until those mothership cruises I mentioned become readily available. Until then nobody can win this debate.

No, skeptics just accept anecdotal evidence for the what it is: unreliable, but sometimes a good story.

But to be honest, in terms of evidence, yes, something as extraordinary as the mothership(s) coming down a la Skyline would be required. Because ECREE. Failing that, a crashed alien spacecraft. Note, that's an actual crashed alien spacecraft, not a story (anecdote) about some army types coming and retrieving a crashed alien spacecraft from the desert and hauling it off to Area 51, never to be seen again except in a grainy youtube video.

Perhaps some progress could be made if some of the more open minded skeptics were to agree to evaluate individual cases to determine how reasonable they are.

I think you'll find most skeptics are open-minded, that how they manage to consider all possible explanations for unexplained objects in the sky, instead of reaching one conclusion (aleeyns) and then pulling up the mental drawbridge.

That is the reason I came to the JREF forum, but to date no such skeptics have come forward to offer any genuine and constructive help in this regard. Rather, my efforts have evoked far more mockery and ridicule than anything else. It's been highly adversarial and a real disappointment.

This help from an open-minded skeptic, what does it look like to you? On the UFO's The Research, The Evidence, I see lots of help. It looks like putting forward plausible alternative explanations for lights in the sky, gooses and such like, including maps showing where gooses have been spotted, lists of satellite data, and even some nice pictures.

(ETA: not that the Cape gooses was your sighting, but you get m'drift)

 

[catsmate]

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Zombie-Thread-Poster.jpg

Excellent.

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Zombie-Thread-Poster.jpg[/qimg]

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well the above doesn't seem really coherent ... I'm not really sure there is anything meaningful to comment on.

You might want to comment on the references to your fallible memory which you claim is infallible.

And all those asterisks ... my my. Well let's see ... I'm a knower and a believer and the above poster is what exactly ... mad at me? Why? I dunno ... maybe because he can't convince me I didn't see what I saw. People who know and believe are never going to buy into your "mundane" paradigm.

Yes, not everyone has critical thinking skills, especially when they claim their memory is infallible after it has been proven just the opposite.

We know the truth. We don't need skeptics or the government or some psychoanalyst to explain to us that we don't really know what we know and didn't see what we saw.

j.r.

It sounds here as if you are equating "knowers" with "believers", and I would agree with you. People who simply "believe" with no evidence that there are aliens flying in spaceships in close proximity to our world but claim to "know". Where wold you put that type of thinking on the Marduk scale?

 

[R.A.F.]

...as mentioned in previous posts, there is a wider reality beyond what goes on in the laboratory.

That's all in your head....why should anyone be interested in your personal fantasies??

 

[ufology]

Wow. I can't believe you're still saying this after - ooh - how many weeks have you been here?

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Uncivil attack on another poster deleted.

These witnesses, did they do the Richard Dreyfuss thing then, and get carried on board?

No, skeptics just accept anecdotal evidence for the what it is: unreliable, but sometimes a good story.

But to be honest, in terms of evidence, yes, something as extraordinary as the mothership(s) coming down a la Skyline would be required. Because ECREE. Failing that, a crashed alien spacecraft. Note, that's an actual crashed alien spacecraft, not a story (anecdote) about some army types coming and retrieving a crashed alien spacecraft from the desert and hauling it off to Area 51, never to be seen again except in a grainy youtube video.

I think you'll find most skeptics are open-minded, that how they manage to consider all possible explanations for unexplained objects in the sky, instead of reaching one conclusion (aleeyns) and then pulling up the mental drawbridge.

This help from an open-minded skeptic, what does it look like to you? On the UFO's The Research, The Evidence, I see lots of help. It looks like putting forward plausible alternative explanations for lights in the sky, gooses and such like, including maps showing where gooses have been spotted, lists of satellite data, and even some nice pictures.

(ETA: not that the Cape gooses was your sighting, but you get m'drift)

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Reference to uncivil attack deleted

Nice flip-flop on what evidence would be required. Genuine constructive skeptics are open minded as you say, but I've met none here. The so-called open mindedness here excludes the possibility that an extraordinary experience could be true and I've been the target of both ridicule and mockery, justified nonetheless in the name of science and skepticism, and the constructive networking I came to this forum to initiate has been torched and satirized.

Mind you some of the satire has been pretty creative, and I'm good natured enough to have had a laugh or two myself. Some of Stray Cat's works are fine additions to skeptic culture, but like I said before, it's worn pretty thin where serious discussion is concerned.

j.r.

 

[Agatha]

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Reference to uncivil attack deleted.

Nice flip-flop on what evidence would be required. Genuine constructive skeptics are open minded as you say, but I've met none here. The so-called open mindedness here excludes the possibility that an extraordinary experience could be true and I've been the target of both ridicule and mockery, justified nonetheless in the name of science and skepticism, and the constructive networking I came to this forum to initiate has been torched and satirized.

Mind you some of the satire has been pretty creative, and I'm good natured enough to have had a laugh or two myself. Some of Stray Cat's works are fine additions to skeptic culture, but like I said before, it's worn pretty thin where serious discussion is concerned.

j.r.

You know what we need to evidence that extraordinary experience?

For all your calls for open-mindedness, you don't seem to have grasped two fundamentally important truths. Firstly, knowledge and belief are not the same thing; and secondly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Reference to uncivil attack deleted.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement.

Nice flip-flop on what evidence would be required.

How is that a flip-flop? We've discussed it enough in other threads that we would love to see some real evidence such as an alien raygun, alien spaceship, or alien body.

Genuine constructive skeptics are open minded as you say, but I've met none here.

No, you've interacted with numerous ones here. To a person, they've all said that they are open minded to the possibility of alien visitation, if there were evidence of it. It's the close-minded creduloids who refuse to produce that evidence.

The so-called open mindedness here excludes the possibility that an extraordinary experience could be true and I've been the target of both ridicule and mockery, justified nonetheless in the name of science and skepticism, and the constructive networking I came to this forum to initiate has been torched and satirized.

Again, no, to everything you've mischaracterized there. Open-mindedness does not exclude that possibility. We're just waiting for the first ever bit of evidence to show that it has ever happened. And no, it is not you who has been the target of mockery, it is your close-mindedness, logical fallacies, and lack of critical thinking in refusing to accept that your memory could be fallible when it is proven beyond any doubt to be very, very fallible. We're still waiting for that extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claim. As you know, anecdotes are unfalsifiable so you'll need actual evidence to falsify the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

Mind you some of the satire has been pretty creative, and I'm good natured enough to have had a laugh or two myself. Some of Stray Cat's works are fine additions to skeptic culture, but like I said before, it's worn pretty thin where serious discussion is concerned.

j.r.

Again, no. What has worn thin is your insistence on believing that you you saw aliens, your insistence on us believing that you saw aliens, and yet you only have your fallible memories of it which have been proven to be in error.

What's also worn thin is your refusal to answer substantive questions.

 

[23_Tauri]

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Reference to uncivil attack deleted.

Ouch!

Nice flip-flop on what evidence would be required. Genuine constructive skeptics are open minded as you say, but I've met none here. The so-called open mindedness here excludes the possibility that an extraordinary experience could be true

No it doesn't. Not with me, anyway. I'm open to the possibility of UFOs being alien in origin, but I haven't seen (in my own sightings) or read anything to persuade me that what I saw or what other people saw was something non-alien. Their observation, interpretation and recall of the event made me/them think that they saw something with characteristics that it didn't have, and they therefore concluded that what they saw was something out of this world when it wasn't. Or they were playing with wing mirrors. Simples.

and I've been the target of both ridicule and mockery, justified nonetheless in the name of science and skepticism, and the constructive networking I came to this forum to initiate has been torched and satirized.

Oh please, put the violin away. I remember from when I believed that crop circles were made by aliens and that the world was ruled by a race of lizard people, that I would get extremely defensive when people took the piss out of my beliefs and had a joke at my expense. Now, I don't think you've been the target of unacceptable ridicule here. Indeed, I think most people have been very helpful. Look at Wollery's posts, for example. But, I do know how emotional and hurt one can feel when one's nearest and dearest snigger into there cornflakes when one goes on about crop circles being made by aliens because they have to be, because humans just couldn't make them, because "I know, because I've seen crop circle with my own eyes and they defy rational explanation!"

Sound familiar?

 

[ufology]

You know what we need to evidence that extraordinary experience? For all your calls for open-mindedness, you don't seem to have grasped two fundamentally important truths. Firstly, knowledge and belief are not the same thing; and secondly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

From a scientific perspective, the point of view that only extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies only to extraoridinarily prejudiced scientists, otherwise all you need is the same kind of evidence as you would for anything else. As for the rest ( knowledge and belief ), what's your point? If someone has a truly extraordinary experience, then they have knowledge of that expereince. What they believe about that experience is something that requires an interpretation of the experience.

Certainly the interpretation of an experience can be called into question, but the experiences themselves do happen, and the people who know them to be true don't have to convince anyone else. They are part of the human race just the same. Furthermore, when mundane explanations fail to provide a rational explanation, then it is perfectly reasonable to consider the non-mundane. So rather than resort to mockery and ridicule, it would be far more constructive to say that scientific skepticism can't be applied to the issue anymore, and to switch gears and apply non-scientific skepticism and critical thinking. Leave the mockery, ridicule and prejudice out of it.

I'll also add that the elitist attitude so prevalent here is as evidenced by common statements such as, "you don't seem to have grasped ... this or that ... some simple concept" are no more than subtle flames that attack the arguer not the argument. Skepticism does not make anyone intellectually superior, so you can climb down off that horse.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

From a scientific perspective, the point of view that only extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies only to extraoridinarily prejudiced scientists, otherwise all you need is the same kind of evidence as you would for anything else.

Why do you believe that to be true?

As for the rest ( knowledge and belief ), what's your point? If someone has a truly extraordinary experience, then they have knowledge of that expereince. What they believe about that experience is something that requires an interpretation of the experience.

Yes. And it's the interpretation that can be fallible. Perception and memory are both problematic when it comes to reliability, as you know given your own demonstrated memory problems. And we know what starting with your conclusion means, right?

Certainly the interpretation of an experience can be called into question, but the experiences themselves do happen, and the people who know them to be true don't have to convince anyone else.

Yes, they can be called into question. Especially when someone applies their personal belief system to their memory of an alleged incident. And you remember what starting with your conclusion means, right?

They are part of the human race just the same.

Um, ok. Were you starting to build another little strawman there?

Furthermore, when mundane explanations fail to provide a rational explanation, then it is perfectly reasonable to consider the non-mundane.

Fantastic! So give us an unfalsifiable anecdote that defies rational explanation.

So rather than resort to mockery and ridicule, it would be far more constructive to say that scientific skepticism can't be applied to the issue anymore, and to switch gears and apply non-scientific skepticism and critical thinking. Leave the mockery, ridicule and prejudice out of it.

j.r.

No, sometimes when the person who can't or won't think critically simply won't abandon their illogically held position, then mockery and ridicule of their illogic and lack of critical thinking is the last resort. When a person abandons their ridiculous ideas, then there is nothing left to ridicule, you would agree.

 

[ufology]

Why do you believe that to be true?

Yes. And it's the interpretation that can be fallible. Perception and memory are both problematic when it comes to reliability, as you know given your own demonstrated memory problems. And we know what starting with your conclusion means, right?

Yes, they can be called into question. Especially when someone applies their personal belief system to their memory of an alleged incident. And you remember what starting with your conclusion means, right?

Um, ok. Were you starting to build another little strawman there?

Fantastic! So give us an unfalsifiable anecdote that defies rational explanation.

No, sometimes when the person who can't or won't think critically simply won't abandon their illogically held position, then mockery and ridicule of their illogic and lack of critical thinking is the last resort. When a person abandons their ridiculous ideas, then there is nothing left to ridicule, you would agree.

Q. Why do I believe that from a scientific perspective, the point of view that only extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies only to extraoridinarily prejudiced scientists, otherwise all you need is the same kind of evidence as you would for anything else?

A. Genuine science is unbiased. The evidence is neither "extaraordinary" or "ordinary" ... it speaks for itself, only the prejudices of those privy to it will prevent it from being accepted. This is the same reasoning the skeptics use to criticize those who don't accept science ... it is akin to the mirror of prejudice in Occam's Razor.

We agree on the interpretation of experience issue.

As for an anecdote example. I used my own experience and when no explanation could be offered as to how the object I saw could go from a dead stop to cover a distance of over 25 Km in about 1 second, the result was mockery and ridicule and an attack on non-relevant details of the story and my character. Plus I was baited with questions on how I might hypothetically explain it and those were used out of context agianst me elsewhere.

Lastly ... no I definitely would not agree that mockery and ridicule are valid forms of skeptical inquiry and never will. Furthermore, the JREF has an educational outreach program and the fact that you suggest it would be acceptable here is deplorable. Young people are often drawn to strange ideas, but to mock and ridicle them into submission would be nothing less than cyber-bullying. I'll also add, since you missed it, that skepticism does not make anyone intellectually superior, so you can climb down off that horse.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Q. Why do I believe that from a scientific perspective, the point of view that only extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies only to extraoridinarily prejudiced scientists, otherwise all you need is the same kind of evidence as you would for anything else?

A. Genuine science is unbiased. The evidence is neither "extaraordinary" or "ordinary" ... it speaks for itself, only the prejudices of those privy to it will prevent it from being accepted. This is the same reasoning the skeptics use to criticize those who don't accept science ... it is akin to the mirror of prejudice in Occam's Razor.

Genuine science has a null hypothesis. You've never accepted that. If you want to discuss the difference between ordinary and extraordinary, take it to the appropriate thread where Rramjet had it handed to him.

We agree on the interpretation of experience issue.

I knew we would.

As for an anecdote example. I used my own experience and when no explanation could be offered as to how the object I saw could go from a dead stop to cover a distance of over 25 Km in about 1 second, the result was mockery and ridicule and an attack on non-relevant details of the story and my character. Plus I was baited with questions on how I might hypothetically explain it and those were used out of context agianst me elsewhere.

No, actually. You've told an untruth there. There were many explanations offered. What you meant to say is that you didn't want to believe any of them. The result was not ridicule and mockery of anything except your close-minded determination to embellish your story as each explanation was offered. Do you see now why unfalsifiable anecdotes are useless as evidence for extraordinary claims?

Lastly ... no I definitely would not agree that mockery and ridicule are valid forms of skeptical inquiry and never will. Furthermore, the JREF has an educational outreach program and the fact that you suggest it would be acceptable here is deplorable. Young people are often drawn to strange ideas, but to mock and ridicle them into submission would be nothing less than cyber-bullying. I'll also add, since you missed it, that skepticism does not make anyone intellectually superior, so you can climb down off that horse.

j.r.

You've also called genuine questions about your ideas, your logical fallacies and your uncritical thinking "mockery" when it wasn't. I have no idea what high horse you are talking about.

 

[carlitos]

Well the above doesn't seem really coherent ... I'm not really sure there is anything meaningful to comment on. And all those asterisks ... my my. Well let's see ... I'm a knower and a believer and the above poster is what exactly ... mad at me? Why? I dunno ... maybe because he can't convince me I didn't see what I saw. People who know and believe are never going to buy into your "mundane" paradigm. We know the truth. We don't need skeptics or the government or some psychoanalyst to explain to us that we don't really know what we know and didn't see what we saw.

j.r.

Re-reading my post, and it still seems reasonably coherent to me. Not my best writing, but hey, whatever.

ufology, above you indicate various beliefs. There is a "wider reality." You know "the truth." You "know what you saw" and you know that it's not of this earth (not mundane).

Please explain how your beliefs are different from the beliefs of claimed witnesses to:

• Ghosts
• Virgin of Guadalupe
• Jesus
• Werewolves
• Bigfoot
• Lady of Fatima
• Chupacabra

Thank you.

 

[23_Tauri]

From a scientific perspective, the point of view that only extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies only to extraoridinarily prejudiced scientists, otherwise all you need is the same kind of evidence as you would for anything else. ....

Nooo, no no no. To save you from reading the whole of the ECREE thread, I'll repeat here a post I read there (can't remember who it was, but sorry for plagarising) which will explain why the evidence required for some claims is not the same as that required for others.

Say I tell you that I had a cheese sandwich for my lunch today and I show you the scrunkled piece of cellophane wrapping in my otherwise empty lunchbox as evidence that I did indeed have a cheese sandwich for lunch today. You'd probably accept that on the basis of this evidence that my cheese-munching claim was true.

Now, imagine I said to you that I ate a cheese sandwich for my lunch today whilst sitting on the moon. As evidence of this clearly more extraordinary claim I show you not just my empty lunchbox but also a lump of rock, which I say is moonrock. Now, in this scenario, would you accept without need of any further evidence that I did indeed have my lunch on the moon today? No, I wager you'd want more evidence than a lump of alleged moon rock before believing my story.

See how the extraordinary claim requires the more extraordinary evidence?

 

[23_Tauri]

Um, ok. Were you starting to build another little strawman there?

Strawmen are part of the human race too!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Strawmen are part of the human race too!

But in the Wizard of Oz, he didn't have a brain.

 

[carlitos]

As for an anecdote example. I used my own experience and when no explanation could be offered as to how the object I saw could go from a dead stop to cover a distance of over 25 Km in about 1 second, the result was mockery and ridicule and an attack on non-relevant details of the story and my character.

• You blinked
• There were two lights
• You are simply mistaken
• Your eyes fooled you
• A car went by and headlights reflected on the window
• You are lying
• You made it up
• You had a minor seizure
• You were contact-high and didn't realize it
• Airplanes
• Fireflies at 25 feet, not aliens at 25km
• Window was dirty

There, now people don't have to flip back any pages to see that, indeed, explanations were offered. As a bonus, all of the explanations that I just cited are known to exist.

 

[ufology]

Genuine science has a null hypothesis. You've never accepted that. If you want to discuss the difference between ordinary and extraordinary, take it to the appropriate thread where Rramjet had it handed to him.

I knew we would.

No, actually. You've told an untruth there. There were many explanations offered. What you meant to say is that you didn't want to believe any of them. The result was not ridicule and mockery of anything except your close-minded determination to embellish your story as each explanation was offered. Do you see now why unfalsifiable anecdotes are useless as evidence for extraordinary claims?

You've also called genuine questions about your ideas, your logical fallacies and your uncritical thinking "mockery" when it wasn't. I have no idea what high horse you are talking about.

You're rebuttal on the "extraordinary claims" issue does not address the issue but dodges it completely.

Regarding your "explanations" ... go ahead and refresh my memory. What were they? I don't actually reacall any explanations for what I saw, just assertions that I didn't actually see what I saw or was somehow mistaken ... those aren't explanations. And of course now you are asserting that I embellished my story, which isn't true either.

Your proclaimations are misrepresentations. I've seen no demonstration explaining or outlining these so-called logical fallacies or uncritical thinking. The mockery has also been obvious ... not so much by you but in the graphical representations, and the high horse I'm talking about is the prevalent attitude that the skeptics are smarter than everyone else and are the only ones who seem to "get" the concepts you are talking about.

j.r.