UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Actually I said, "The probablility that it was manmade is almost zero, and when you go back to the late 1940s and 50s, there is simply no way we had that kind of technology then ... so far as I know, we still don't."

Because I made no absolute statement, and instead used the words "probablity" and "almost zero" and "as far as I know", I can abosultely know that what I said is true based on my firsthand experience and the examination of available data on known manmade craft.

j.r.

Good, wouldn't you agree then that the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

hasn't been falsified in this thread?

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually ... human memory is self correcting.

<waffle>

Rubbish. It's exactly the opposite. Self-deluding, IOW.

 

[AdMan]

Actually ... human memory is self correcting. How many times have you forgotten some bit of trivia, only to search your memory and have it surface in the near future? Additionally, it is self correcting using the most sophisticated data processor known ... our brain's capacity for reasoning and logic ... when something slips our mind, we can use related memories and intelligent investigation to restore lost memories. For example, let's say you forgot what year some personal event happened ( perhaps the year you graduated ), you can use your memory to correlate other events from the same year, for example a hit song, movie or major public event, establish the year of those events, and restore the memory of the year you graduated from that ... never having needed to lookup the actual information from the yearbook.

j.r.

You keep displaying your misunderstanding of how memory works.

It is not "self-correcting". You may remember something you initially couldn't remember, but that is not self-correcting, it is just finding a memory you initially couldn't find.

If memory is "correcting" at all, it just means that whenever you remember an event, or whenever you recount it, you mold it, again and again. And each time it is slightly different. The more you recall and recount a memory, the more it changes.

I would point you again to the many links posted here to studies on the fallibility of human memory, but you've proven that you have no real interest in learning about it, sadly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually ... human memory is self correcting. How many times have you forgotten some bit of trivia, only to search your memory and have it surface in the near future? Additionally, it is self correcting using the most sophisticated data processor known ... our brain's capacity for reasoning and logic ... when something slips our mind, we can use related memories and intelligent investigation to restore lost memories. For example, let's say you forgot what year some personal event happened ( perhaps the year you graduated ), you can use your memory to correlate other events from the same year, for example a hit song, movie or major public event, establish the year of those events, and restore the memory of the year you graduated from that ... never having needed to lookup the actual information from the yearbook.

j.r.

How do you explain your mis-perceiving or mis-remembering the word "some" earlier in the thread. It was repeated quite a few times and you still missed it. You missed it on the same day while it was still on the same page.

Maybe there's something wrong with your most sophisticated processor?

 

[Stray Cat]

Actually ... human memory is self correcting.

Not reliably, unless you have external physical information with which to check it.

How many times have you forgotten some bit of trivia, only to search your memory and have it surface in the near future?

That's not self correcting, that's remembering, spot the difference?

Additionally, it is self correcting using the most sophisticated data processor known ... our brain's capacity for reasoning and logic

So complex in fact that it fools its self and the end user doesn't realise it sometimes. And if you want to see how well the most complex processor known operates in it's capacity for reasoning and logic, you only have to read some YouTube comments to see that it's not a given that every processor actually does much processing.

when something slips our mind, we can use related memories and intelligent investigation to restore lost memories.

That's really not the way it works at all. You are not restoring lost memories, you are at best recreating a fresh memory based upon the little bits you can already remember. This is exactly why memory recalled anecdotes deteriorate in accuracy over time.

For example, let's say you forgot what year some personal event happened ( perhaps the year you graduated ),

Or perhaps the year you saw a UFO in the mountains.

you can use your memory to correlate other events from the same year, for example a hit song

Maybe a Led Zep album

movie or major public event, establish the year of those events, and restore the memory of the year you graduated from that ... never having needed to lookup the actual information from the yearbook.

Yes, and if you can't remember correctly the year you graduated (or which song you were listening to), then the exercise in trying to remember stuff you've forgotten using only your memory as reference is a bit of a crap way of doing it.

 

[Resume]

Actually ... human memory is self correcting.

j.r.

Yes, it corrects itself to fit whatever delusion you care to imagine, turning a firefly into an alien starship just for example.

 

[ufology]

Weasel words aside, it's just an anecdote, and not a very good one at that.

Why persist?

How much of a mystery does one need? Sure it's an annecdote, but the sighting was moved over here from the Knowers/Believers vs Skeptics thread ... so I never presented it as "proof" in the first place. As for how "good" it is, the object did something that so far as anyone here knows, is impossible for a manmade object. What more do you need? A Close Encounters sized mother ship story? If you want that lookup the JAL sighting.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Yes, it corrects itself to fit whatever delusion you care to imagine.

The above is a sliced misrepresentation by omission, the omission being the examples everyone is familar with of how our memory is in fact self correcting.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Not reliably, unless you have external physical information with which to check it.

That's not self correcting, that's remembering, spot the difference?


So complex in fact that it fools its self and the end user doesn't realise it sometimes. And if you want to see how well the most complex processor known operates in it's capacity for reasoning and logic, you only have to read some YouTube comments to see that it's not a given that every processor actually does much processing.


That's really not the way it works at all. You are not restoring lost memories, you are at best recreating a fresh memory based upon the little bits you can already remember. This is exactly why memory recalled anecdotes deteriorate in accuracy over time.

Or perhaps the year you saw a UFO in the mountains.

Maybe a Led Zep album

Yes, and if you can't remember correctly the year you graduated (or which song you were listening to), then the exercise in trying to remember stuff you've forgotten using only your memory as reference is a bit of a crap way of doing it.

The above is simply mincing words ... the self correcting mechanisms in our memory ... whether you call them self-remembering or recreating fresh accurate memories, still amount to self-correction. The self-correcting mechanisms of science can be criticized in the same way ... they aren't really self-correcting, they are creating a whole new experiment to fix the error.

j.r.

 

[Resume]

The above is a sliced misrepresentation by omission, the omission being the examples everyone is familar with of how our memory is in fact self correcting.

j.r.

Bare assertion.

 

[AdMan]

The above is simply mincing words ... the self correcting mechanisms in our memory ... whether you call them self-remembering or recreating fresh accurate memories, still amount to self-correction. The self-correcting mechanisms of science can be criticized in the same way ... they aren't really self-correcting, they are creating a whole new experiment to fix the error.

j.r.

Wow. I don't think you thought this thoroughly before you posted. Comparing misremembered memories to scientific experiments makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Akhenaten]

How much of a mystery does one need? Sure it's an annecdote, but the sighting was moved over here from the Knowers/Believers vs Skeptics thread ... so I never presented it as "proof" in the first place.

Why does proof need scare quotes?

As for how "good" it is, the object did something that so far as anyone here knows, is impossible for a manmade object.

Nobody here knows any such thing.

What more do you need? A Close Encounters sized mother ship story? If you want that lookup the JAL sighting.

Does it come with evidence?

 

[Resume]

The above is simply mincing words ... the self correcting mechanisms in our memory ... whether you call them self-remembering or recreating fresh accurate memories, still amount to self-correction. The self-correcting mechanisms of science can be criticized in the same way ... they aren't really self-correcting, they are creating a whole new experiment to fix the error.

j.r.

You don't understand how memory works. You don't understand how science works. Pseudoscience you have covered.

 

[ufology]

Sounds pretty absolute to me.

For technology back in the 40s and 50s ... yes that is absolute with respect to the context of what was being discussed. I also don't care to discuss the ontology as it would become a matter of philosophy rather than pragmatism.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is simply mincing words ... the self correcting mechanisms in our memory ... whether you call them self-remembering or recreating fresh accurate memories, still amount to self-correction. The self-correcting mechanisms of science can be criticized in the same way ... they aren't really self-correcting, they are creating a whole new experiment to fix the error.

j.r.

Recreating fresh accurate memories? Do you know what that is called?

 

[ufology]

You don't understand how memory works. You don't understand how science works. Pseudoscience you have covered.

The above adresses the arguer not the argument and presents no useful information at all while at the same time implying the arguer has some limited capacity for understanding. Such posts constitute subtle flames and do not contribute constructively to the discussion. Nor do they enhance the credibility of the skeptics who post them.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above is simply mincing words ... the self correcting mechanisms in our memory ... whether you call them self-remembering or recreating fresh accurate memories, still amount to self-correction.

Utter bollocks. We make up new memories alright, but your assertion that those memories are accurate, and that this filling in the blanks amounts to self-correction is absolutely ridiculous.

The self-correcting mechanisms of science can be criticized in the same way ... they aren't really self-correcting, they are creating a whole new experiment to fix the error.

Spoken like a true pseudoscientist.

 

[AdMan]

You don't understand how memory works. You don't understand how science works. Pseudoscience you have covered.

The above adresses the arguer not the argument and presents no useful information at all while at the same time implying the arguer has some limited capacity for understanding. Such posts constitute subtle flames and do not contribute constructively to the discussion. Nor do they enhance the credibility of the skeptics who post them.

j.r.

I think it's plain that in these last few posts you have demonstrated that you don't really understand either human memory, science, or both.

Pointing this out is not a personal attack, IMO.

 

[Stray Cat]

The above is simply mincing words

Project much?

the self correcting mechanisms in our memory ... whether you call them self-remembering or recreating fresh accurate memories, still amount to self-correction.

No.
Without verification from external sources, you have no idea if your memory is accurate or not. This is not to say that it is always inaccurate, but there is no objective way to verify it's accuracy without external sources. If you have an inaccurate memory (say you misremember someone's name, that's not forget someone's name but have a distinct memory of it being a name which it isn't), there is nothing in your memory that you can reference to correct it. The only way to correct it is to wipe the incorrect memory when you actually physically find out what the person's name really is.

The self-correcting mechanisms of science can be criticized in the same way ... they aren't really self-correcting, they are creating a whole new experiment to fix the error.

Again you misrepresent what is being said.
It's not mechanisms of science which are self correcting. It is the continual process of scientific method which in the long term corrects mistakes by excepting contrary evidence from other sources. It doesn't look inwards and correct itself, it looks outwards for contrary evidence.

 

[ufology]

Utter bollocks. We make up new memories alright, but your assertion that those memories are accurate, and that this filling in the blanks amounts to self-correction is absolutely ridiculous.
Spoken like a true pseudoscientist.

We retreive lost memories and refresh our memories using our brains capacity to so on a regular basis. Furthermore they are very often completely accurate. So why does the above poster call it ridiculous? Notice there are no reasons given. Only proclaimations of "bollocks" and deragatory labeling without any supporting rationale. The poster's comment is utterly worthless.

j.r.