UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

When you say that we are promoting that science is infallible and that human experience as completely useless. Your right about one thing your memory isn't that good.

When I say "promoting it" I mean that the infallibility of science is constantly implied by the persistence of statements that proclaim anecdotal evidence is useless, and that only scientific conclusions should be believed. This tactic paints the same portrait without explictly stating it.

j.r.

 

[Jocce]

When I say "promoting it" I mean that the infallibility of science is constantly implied

You mean like this:

Of course science is fallible. Who said it wasn't? Science is all about trying to demonstrate errors in earlier science, and get to better solutions.

I think you're subject to what is commonly referred to as selective perception.

 

[ufology]

You mean like this: I think you're subject to what is commonly referred to as selective perception.

Speaking of "selective perception", the poster's example was one of maybe two comments where it has actually been admitted that science is fallible since I started posting here. The rest of the time it's exactly like I said. Constant technocratic propoganda and denial of the value of the human experience.

j.r.

 

[Pixel42]

That's pretty much how I remember the entire saga taking place. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about the sequence or chronology of any of this.

My memory is that he originally posted his story in the Extraterrestrials thread, one of several he bumped when the "Is ufology a pseudoscience" thread got locked for a while. The mods moved some posts to this thread, and the rest to AAH.

But I could be wrong.

ETA: This GeeMack post on the 23rd July from the AAH thread split from Extraterrestrials quotes part of his UFO story, so that's definitely where he originally posted it. He later posted it again in another thread (I think that was the Knowers/Believers thread) and those posts too got moved to this thread.

 

[Jocce]

Speaking of "selective perception", the poster's example was one of maybe two comments where it has actually been admitted that science is fallible since I started posting here. The rest of the time it's exactly like I said. Constant technocratic propoganda and denial of the value of the human experience.

Where has it been said that science is infallible?

Anecdotes are claims, not evidence because human perception is fallible. Science tries to correct previous knowledge. I see nothing wrong with these statements.

 

[ufology]

My memory is that he originally posted his story in the Extraterrestrials thread, one of several he bumped when the "Is ufology a pseudoscience" thread got locked for a while. The mods moved some posts to this thread, and the rest to AAH.

But I could be wrong.

I pursued the topic on the Knowers/Believers vs Skeptics thread specifically because I could state from firsthand knowledge that I know alien craft exist and have been seen flying around the Earth's atmosphere, whereas here I'm expected to discuss evidence and proof, which is a different concept altogether.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Where has it been said that science is infallible?

Anecdotes are claims, not evidence because human perception is fallible. Science tries to correct previous knowledge. I see nothing wrong with these statements.

Anecdotes are evidence ... just not physical empirical evidence, and since it has been admitted that science is also fallible then according to the logic above, scientific claims should not be considered as evidence either. What it boils down to is the margin of error between anecdotal evidence and scientific study.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've watched the video and It's entertaining ... it's also a complete misrepresentation to say that eye-witnesses in general jump to the conclusion of extraterrestrial spaceships every time they see an unidentified light.

You might be right. Maybe it's only eye-witnesses that really, really, want to see flying saucers that jump to the ET conclusion when they see an unidentified light.

I'm sure glad I'm not one of those foolish people.

His portrayal of the term "unidentified" in the context of UFO is also misrepresented.

Piffle.

I don't know what's worse - the tortured phrasing or the special pleading - but in combination they're just plain ugly.

]His concept of memory is misrepresented with respect to ufology in that he uses the example of passed down memories as retold by multiple people to reach a conclusion that eye-witness testimony is "the worst kind of evidence", when in fact, most UFO reports and studies on file are from first-person sources and passed to others in hard copy or digital form which preserves the original information.

More special pleading? Is that the fallacy du jour or something?

His presentation that human are "poor data taking devices" and "that's why we have machines", is an example of the technocratic propoganda that we regularly see in skeptics. Machines fail all the time and lose data or garble it up. Machines are also fallible.

Next time you want to record a sound, or take a picture, try using a human being instead of a digital recorder or a camera. Then post the recorded data here and we'll discuss the matter further.

I loved his comment that "Photoshop probably has a UFO button".

No, it's a plugin.

I agree that the evidence for establishing the reality of UFOs does not presently meet the standards of evidence required by scientists in a lab e.g. objective physical evidence such as an "alien ash try". However labs aren't where all science is done, and the pursuit of knowledge can also take place outside of a lab and outside of the scientific method through the use of observation, philosophy, experience, and critical thinking.

Did you think nobody would notice your substitution of 'pursuit of knowledge' for 'science' in mid-sentence?

I agree that some amateur astronomers have seen UFOs and that because they are better at identifiying anomalous objects than the average person, it is more likely that the incidence of them reporting UFOs is lower than in untrained people. However not all sightings are at night and there isn't much for an astronomer to see in the daytime except for the Sun and Moon and the odd planet or passing space station. So they aren't usually looking at the sky as intently during the day.

You should have quit while you were ahead. The struck-out bit is non sequitur nonsense.

 

[Akhenaten]

When you say that we are promoting that science is infallible and that human experience as completely useless. You're right about one thing - your memory isn't that good.

When I say "promoting it" I mean that the infallibility of science is constantly implied by the persistence of statements that proclaim anecdotal evidence is useless, and that only scientific conclusions should be believed. This tactic paints the same portrait without explictly stating it.

j.r.

Whoosh!

 

[Aepervius]

Ufology I see that you did not comment on instant speed change and the needed acceleration.

 

[Akhenaten]

Speaking of "selective perception", the poster's example was one of maybe two comments where it has actually been admitted that science is fallible since I started posting here. The rest of the time it's exactly like I said.

If you weren't in such a mad rush to produce an answer - any answer, no matter how poorly thought out - to so many posts and actually took the time to read what people are posting then perhaps you wouldn't look so much as though you were suffering from selective perception.

Constant technocratic propoganda and denial of the value of the human experience.

Melodrama much?

 

[Akhenaten]

I pursued the topic on the Knowers/Believers vs Skeptics thread specifically because I could state from firsthand knowledge that I know alien craft exist and have been seen flying around the Earth's atmosphere, whereas here I'm expected to discuss evidence and proof, which is a different concept altogether.

No, you did it because of a misconception that different threads have different rules of evidence dependent upon the wording of the title and that your Volksblimp story would somehow carry more weight in a thread that mentioned knowers/believers. Doing a flounce because all the bilge was pumped into one hold hasn't helped your case either, I might add.

 

[Akhenaten]

Where has it been said that science is infallible?

Anecdotes are claims, not evidence because human perception is fallible. Science tries to correct previous knowledge. I see nothing wrong with these statements.

Anecdotes are evidence ... just not physical empirical evidence, and since it has been admitted that science is also fallible then according to the logic above, scientific claims should not be considered as evidence either.

Are you hoping against hope that rearranging all the words will somehow turn your special pleading and weasel wording into a valid argument?

Jocce was correct - anecdotes are claims - and your attempts to gainsay this are as futile as they are transparent.

And what's this 'scientific claims' guff all about? Care to give us an example of what you mean by that term?

What it boils down to is the margin of error between anecdotal evidence and scientific study.

Too much boiling down, I think. Whatever your intended meaning was with this 'conclusion', it appears to have evaporated.

 

[Jocce]

Anecdotes are evidence ...

Ok then,. You owe me 100K. <--- Look, there's evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

Anecdotes are evidence ...

Ok then,. You owe me 100K. <--- Look, there's evidence.

I remember that. <--- Reduced margin of error.

 

[Stray Cat]

I'd forgotten but now you've reminded me, it's true. <--- Self corrected accurate memory.

 

[Resume]

I pursued the topic on the Knowers/Believers vs Skeptics thread specifically because I could state from firsthand knowledge that I know alien craft exist and have been seen flying around the Earth's atmosphere, whereas here I'm expected to discuss evidence and proof, which is a different concept altogether.

j.r.

You don't think this "knowing" has any bearing on the way you remember your alleged sighting?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Anecdotes are evidence ... just not physical empirical evidence, and since it has been admitted that science is also fallible then according to the logic above, scientific claims should not be considered as evidence either. What it boils down to is the margin of error between anecdotal evidence and scientific study.

j.r.

Can you give an example of an anecdote that is also evidence? And an example of a "scientific" claim?

 

[Resume]

Anecdotes are evidence ... just not physical empirical evidence, and since it has been admitted that science is also fallible then according to the logic above, scientific claims should not be considered as evidence either. What it boils down to is the margin of error between anecdotal evidence and scientific study.

j.r.

What is this blather?

 

[RoboTimbo]

When I say "promoting it" I mean that the infallibility of science is constantly implied by the persistence of statements that proclaim anecdotal evidence is useless, and that only scientific conclusions should be believed. This tactic paints the same portrait without explictly stating it.

j.r.

Has that been your perception of the discussion? Or has that been your memory of the discussion? How did your memory self-correct to derive that from what was actually said and meant?

In what context has the statement "anecdotal evidence is useless" been used? Was it in the context of someone claiming they ate a hamburger for lunch or was it in the context of someone claiming they ate a hamburger on Mars for lunch?

Do you see now why every time you post, you provide evidence that memory and perception are very, very fallible?

So, what corroborating evidence do you have that your memory of your perception of your sighting decades ago is infallible?