UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Robo ...

Perhaps the skeptics have considered all sides of the issue. But what about the people who unlike you don't have it all figured out.

Why do you continually strawman people? I never said I had it all figured out but you attributed that to me for... what reason?

Should they not be free to review whatever information is available on all sides of the issue and discover all these amazing truths for themselves?

Which amazing truths are you referring to? I encourage people to look at the crap out there that pseudoscientists are referring to as "evidence" and use critical and rational thinking to recognize it as crap.

Why do you want skeptics to look at the crap that you refer to as evidence and not call it crap? Why do you want to make them follow your lead? Aren't they free to have their own opinions?

 

[carlitos]

Anyone wanting to learn about UFOs and the "UFO phenomenon" would certainly benefit from reading this thread.

ufology seems to forget that part of the purpose of the JREF is to teach people about critical thinking and the scientific method.

 

[Paul2]

Ufology, the point we skeptics are trying to make here is that a search for the truth is not based just on people having a desire for the truth, seeking out facts, and then coming to a conclusion. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes, but our point is that it doesn't go far enough to really get at what the truth is, because the truth can be exceedingly tricky sometimes (most of the time?).

So, for instance, a firm and clear understanding of the null hypothesis, contrary to your attempt at creating one for UFOs, is very important, for instance. People of good will searching for the truth just can't make up any null hypothesis they feel like.

This mini-thread goes back exactly and precisely to this exchange:

"Unidentified" (as in Unidentified Flying Object) doesn't rule aliens out.

However, 'Evidence' makes it very unlikely.

Stray ...

I can accept that from your point of view you find the evidence to be insuficient. But let me ask you this: Given the interest in the topic by so many people, should they not be allowed to explore the topic and form their own opinions?

What can it possibly mean, logically and properly, to accept evidence as insufficient "but" people should be allowed to form their own opinions? As if whatever opinion they come up with is valid? Of course that's absurd, but then why is important that we allow people to form their own opinions? Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that's meaningless and, more importantly useless in applying strict evidence and good scientific process in order to come to the truth.

Your reply to Stray is similarly useless. It doesn't matter that everyone can have their own opinion. What matters is using a good and solid process to come to a conclusion, if possible.

 

[ufology]

Why do you continually strawman people? I never said I had it all figured out but you attributed that to me for... what reason?


Which amazing truths are you referring to? I encourage people to look at the crap out there that pseudoscientists are referring to as "evidence" and use critical and rational thinking to recognize it as crap.

Why do you want skeptics to look at the crap that you refer to as evidence and not call it crap? Why do you want to make them follow your lead? Aren't they free to have their own opinions?

Robo ...

OK let's say that you didn't mean by the statement "Skeptics have looked at all sides of the issue" to mean the same as they have it all figured out. Should people who are interested in UFOs not be able to explore the subject matter for themselves, discover for themselves what other people's views are, and decide for themselves whether or not it's "crap" ( your words )?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Should they not be free to review whatever information is available on all sides of the issue and discover all these amazing truths for themselves?

Hmmmm....What do you mean by "amazing truths"? Are we talking about facts or are we talking about your interpretation of them, which you then define as "amazing truths"? As always, I despise people who use the term "truth" in just about anything they say because that term is highly subjective. Just present THE FACTS and nothing more. Then people can determine for themselves what is true and what is not.

FACT: After over sixty years of research and tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of UFO reports, not one has ever been shown to be an alien spaceship.

FACT: After over sixty years of research and tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of UFO report, we have learned is a great percentage (75-95% depending on who you listen to) of these reports involve people who have simply misidentified natural or man-made objects and tend to exaggerate on what they report they saw.

FACT: After over sixty years of research and tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of UFO report, we have learned that a certain small percentage involves people who like to tell tall tales and lie about what they saw.

FACT: After over sixty years of research and tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of UFO report, we have learned a certain percentage (5-25% depending on who you listen to) of these reports involve reports that no postive identification can be made.

The last FACT does not mean there is proof of alien spaceships. It only means that a probable source was not identified. The reasons can be many and one of the more likely ones is the witness exaggerated the characteristics of his sighting so much that the source could not be identified. I can give many examples of this but we have been down this path before (rinse, lather, and repeat).

 

[TjW]

Should people not be free to examine the available information and determine for themselves from multiple sources who is making up facts and who isn't?

What does this question have to do with anything being discussed in this thread? Anything. Anything at all. One single thing.

According to the title, the thread is about "The Research, the Evidence."
The majority conclusion has been that the research attempting to show visitation by alien species is shoddy, and the evidence for the same to be lacking.

There has been nothing in this thread about limiting a person's ability to do shoddy research, nor has there been anything about limiting a person's ability to come to irrational conclusions by reaching those conclusions without the benefit of evidence.

If your intent was simply to be offensive to those who try and think rationally by suggesting that we are trying to limit your freedom, why, then, congratulations.

If you're genuinely curious, I would suggest you start a separate thread in Religion and Philosophy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo ...

OK let's say that you didn't mean by the statement "Skeptics have looked at all sides of the issue" to mean the same as they have it all figured out.

You're the one who brought up looking at both sides of the issue. Were you saying that you thought you had it all figured out?

Should people who are interested in UFOs not be able to explore the subject matter for themselves, discover for themselves what other people's views are, and decide for themselves whether or not it's "crap" ( your words )?

Why do you continue to whinge about this? Who is stopping anyone? Having your beliefs challenged and you not being able to defend them is not persecution or subjugation.

As for the crap that has been presented in this thread as "evidence", people aren't born knowing about logical fallacies. You provide a valuable service by presenting it so that we can show exactly where it is fallacious. Thank you for your contribution.

 

[ufology]

Ufology, the point we skeptics are trying to make here is that a search for the truth is not based just on people having a desire for the truth, seeking out facts, and then coming to a conclusion. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes, but our point is that it doesn't go far enough to really get at what the truth is, because the truth can be exceedingly tricky sometimes (most of the time?).

So, for instance, a firm and clear understanding of the null hypothesis, contrary to your attempt at creating one for UFOs, is very important, for instance. People of good will searching for the truth just can't make up any null hypothesis they feel like.

This mini-thread goes back exactly and precisely to this exchange:

What can it possibly mean, logically and properly, to accept evidence as insufficient "but" people should be allowed to form their own opinions? As if whatever opinion they come up with is valid? Of course that's absurd, but then why is important that we allow people to form their own opinions? Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that's meaningless and, more importantly useless in applying strict evidence and good scientific process in order to come to the truth.

Your reply to Stray is similarly useless. It doesn't matter that everyone can have their own opinion. What matters is using a good and solid process to come to a conclusion, if possible.

Paul ...


Q. Quote: "... but then why is important that we allow people to form their own opinions?"

A. Forming opinions based on our studies and experience is all part of the learning process and must be allowed ... it is essential. It doesn't matter if people get some things wrong, so long as they remain open to evolving and learning from the errors.


Quote: "It doesn't matter that everyone can have their own opinion."

Response: Again it is exceedingly important for people to have their own opinion. You certainly do, and during our recent discussion here I've gained some recent respect for both your opinion and the the way you have presented yourself. However the full range of this topic intersects with a wide variety of subject matter, and gaining a good overall knowledge requires taking in all sides. Is it therefore not reasonable to offer a means for those who are interested in ufology a way to access and explore those various facets?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul ...


Q. Quote: "... but then why is important that we allow people to form their own opinions?"

A. Forming opinions based on our studies and experience is all part of the learning process and must be allowed ... it is essential. It doesn't matter if people get some things wrong, so long as they remain open to evolving and learning from the errors.


Quote: "It doesn't matter that everyone can have their own opinion."

Response: Again it is exceedingly important for people to have their own opinion. You certainly do, and during our recent discussion here I've gained some recent respect for both your opinion and the the way you have presented yourself. However the full range of this topic intersects with a wide variety of subject matter, and gaining a good overall knowledge requires taking in all sides. Is it therefore not reasonable to offer a means for those who are interested in ufology a way to access and explore those various facets?

This dishonest tactic is known as "cherry picking" and is looked on with disdain.

 

[Marduk]

It doesn't matter if people get some things wrong, so long as they remain open to evolving and learning from the errors.

therein lies the rub, the second someone believes that a UFO is an alien spaceship without any credible evidence, thats when their minds close

 

[ehcks]

Some things are accepted truths taken for granted. We might not know exactly how gravity works, but we know that it does. We do well to ignore people making up crazy alternatives to gravity.

We know evolution works. We would do well to ignore people with crazy alternatives to that.

We know that there is no evidence of alien life. This is a bit different because it's something that doesn't exist vs something that does. Also, alien life is almost a certainty, we just haven't seen any. However, until we do see some evidence that aliens exist, we can't use aliens as an explanation for anything.

If you have no evidence that UFOs are alien craft, claiming that UFOs are alien craft is a blatant lie. We would do best to ignore a blatant liar making crazy alternatives with no evidence to the null hypothesis "All UFOs are of mundane origin".

 

[ufology]

You're the one who brought up looking at both sides of the issue. Were you saying that you thought you had it all figured out?


Why do you continue to whinge about this? Who is stopping anyone? Having your beliefs challenged and you not being able to defend them is not persecution or subjugation.

As for the crap that has been presented in this thread as "evidence", people aren't born knowing about logical fallacies. You provide a valuable service by presenting it so that we can show exactly where it is fallacious. Thank you for your contribution.

Timbo ...

The incorrect presumption you and the other skeptics are making is that I came here to convince you your point of view is "wrong" and to get into an adversarial debate with you over it. I came here to do exactly what you say above, present various bits of evidence so that you can provide your "valuable service".

For example, if the response to the MIG video hadn't included the slight and the disrespect it showed, it would have been an excellent example of helping me to determine that the video is most probably a fabrication. It's now on my list to add to my website as a hoax, but why does our cooperation have to be so filled with hostility?

What I'm trying to make happen is that in addition to the various other articles, books and videos and so on that I offer, I'd like to add fair minded skeptical viewpoints as well. If in the process I can help raise some awareness about the efforts that the JREF does, so much the better.

You may also want to note that what skeptical titles I could find that are stocked and shipped from amazon are included in my catalog, along with straight ahead science, including popular astronomy, cosmology and other intersting stuff. I think an interest in ufology can lead to a very healthy interest in mainstream science. Carl Sagan himself had a keen interest in UFOs in his younger days.

My server usually delivers to over 2000 unique hosts per month and I usually get over 3000 page requests per day. I know this isn't a lot, but even if only a few hundred people are actually looking, it can still make a difference from a research point of view to have the constructive views of skeptics presented. Why would you not want that to be included in the range of views I present? Can we not make more of an effort to approach this from that perspective? I really don't like feeling depressed about my visits every time I come here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo ...

The incorrect presumption you and the other skeptics are making is that I came here to convince you your point of view is "wrong" and to get into an adversarial debate with you over it. I came here to do exactly what you say above, present various bits of evidence so that you can provide your "valuable service".

You are all over the place with this. What does this have to do with the post you quoted?

For example, if the response to the MIG video hadn't included the slight and the disrespect it showed, it would have been an excellent example of helping me to determine that the video is most probably a fabrication. It's now on my list to add to my website as a hoax, but why does our cooperation have to be so filled with hostility?

I don't recall the exchange. Can you post a link or quote the hostility?

As for the video, what was your null hypothesis concerning it? Did you ask that the source of it provide evidence that it wasn't a hoax so that you could try to falsify the scientific null hypothesis "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"? Or did you come here and demand that skeptics debunk it knowing that even that couldn't falsify your unfalsifiable pseudoscientific null hypothesis "Some UFOs are of alien origin"?

<snipped other website commercial interruption>

 

[Marduk]

The incorrect presumption you and the other skeptics are making is that I came here to convince you your point of view is "wrong" and to get into an adversarial debate with you over it. I came here to do exactly what you say above, present various bits of evidence so that you can provide your "valuable service".

we did, it was lightning bugs
you ignored the facts
thats why no one is interested in any more of your "various bits of evidence"
I find it difficult to believe that you aren't aware of your own cognitive dissonance and the fact that ultimately there is no difference in your approach to Ufology than any other believers. Its fail all round

 

[Marduk]

I have seen the real deal and they are amazing in their physics
They have exactly what we need and lack.

critical thinking skills, the facts, Evidence of their existence ??

None of them or hardly any of them are even willing to post their own picture in their profile, I wonder why that is?

None of them have a dog

 

[ufology]

You are all over the place with this. What does this have to do with the post you quoted?


I don't recall the exchange. Can you post a link or quote the hostility?

As for the video, what was your null hypothesis concerning it? Did you ask that the source of it provide evidence that it wasn't a hoax so that you could try to falsify the scientific null hypothesis "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"? Or did you come here and demand that skeptics debunk it knowing that even that couldn't falsify your unfalsifiable pseudoscientific null hypothesis "Some UFOs are of alien origin"?

The post requesting an opinion is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7538922&postcount=11509

Astro who posted the response a couple of posts later, and his info was very helpful, but the slight was the comment, "My goodness. You are gullible aren't you?" and that was uncalled for. I hadn't made any claim about the video one way or another. I simply asked politely for a skeptical opinion about the video. The other recent attacks aginst me and what I do were by other posters. A couple of them have thankfully been moved off the thread.

I believe that with the constructive help of the people here, I can be a positive agent for change regarding the way that people in general who are interested in the topic of UFOs can conduct their personal research ( informal ) to include a skeptical point of view. But I'm going to have a hard time advocating the JREF given what I've been experiencing. If we can't figure out how to peacefully and constructively coexist, the "valuable service" you offer isn't going to reach anyone but other skeptics with same opinions, and those who are already leaning away from where you want them to be are only going to be further polarized.

I know there must be others besides yourself out there who are reading this and understand what I'm trying to say. Your suggestions and those of anyone else who has an idea to make this happen would be welcomed.

 

[Archer17]

ufology, it appears to me that you're looking for rapprochement on a premise that you and others sympathetic to the ETH provide no actual evidence for. Oh, you can try to redefine what constitutes "evidence" but it's a fool's errand because you fail to appreciate what most here require to consider ET a viable component of any UFO sighting. You should know what that is by this point and why you've fallen way short here. The best I've seen from anyone trying replace the "U" in UFO with "extraterrestrial-controlled" is an argument for the 'U' designation itself as if that's supposed to be good enough. It's not. You gotta properly respect the 'U' and if you want to replace it you need to provide something that doesn't take a belief-system to "work" - it has to stand on it's own merits. If I tell someone they saw Venus I need to direct them to sky charts that show where/when Venus was visible. If I tell them they saw or might've saw ET I need to show them ET. Nothing less. Get my drift?

 

[Paul2]

Q. Quote: "... but then why is important that we allow people to form their own opinions?"

A. Forming opinions based on our studies and experience is all part of the learning process and must be allowed ... it is essential. It doesn't matter if people get some things wrong, so long as they remain open to evolving and learning from the errors.


Quote: "It doesn't matter that everyone can have their own opinion."

Response: Again it is exceedingly important for people to have their own opinion. You certainly do, and during our recent discussion here I've gained some recent respect for both your opinion and the the way you have presented yourself. However the full range of this topic intersects with a wide variety of subject matter, and gaining a good overall knowledge requires taking in all sides. Is it therefore not reasonable to offer a means for those who are interested in ufology a way to access and explore those various facets?

Ufology, your points here are trivial and non-controversial, except they are so in exactly not the sense that I meant when I mentioned peoples' opinions.

Regarding an individual's development, mistakes will obviously happen and hopefully progress will be made. But the larger issue is the proper intellectual principles by which we distinguish hoaxes and misperceptions from accurate conclusions, for which an individual's process and correction of mistakes is largely (note that limitation) irrelevant.

Furthermore, it does matter that people get things wrong, even if it is inevitable. People getting things wrong can and does lead to horrible consequences, this is blindingly obvious, I hope.

 

[Akhenaten]

The post requesting an opinion is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7538922&postcount=11509

Astro who posted the response a couple of posts later, and his info was very helpful, but the slight was the comment, "My goodness. You are gullible aren't you?" and that was uncalled for.

When someone who has already demonstrated an ardent willingness to believe that aliens in flying saucers are zipping about the place turns up with a YouTube of yet another silly story it seems more than reasonable to assume there's some gullibility at work. If you recognised that the video was an obvious fake yourself or knew, as any seasoned ufologist should have, that it had already been thoroughly debunked then why would you have any need to be asking here for an opinion about it?

JAQing is a familiar technique used by believers in all manner of things here. If you don't want to be called on it, don't do it.

Having said that, however, it had more of the appearance of a failed attempt to change the subject than anything.

I hadn't made any claim about the video one way or another. I simply asked politely for a skeptical opinion about the video.

Good old plausible deniability again. It becomes more transparent the more times you try it, you know.

I believe that with the constructive help of the people here, I can be a positive agent for change regarding the way that people in general who are interested in the topic of UFOs can conduct their personal research ( informal ) to include a skeptical point of view.

Not until you develop a skeptical point of view yourself. I see no signs whatsoever of that happening.

But I'm going to have a hard time advocating the JREF given what I've been experiencing.

Failing to gain the endorsement of someone who is unable to grasp the null hypothesis that all UFOs are of mundane origin is something that the JREF will just have to cope with as best it can. I think it will survive.

If we can't figure out how to peacefully and constructively coexist, the "valuable service" you offer isn't going to reach anyone but other skeptics with same opinions, and those who are already leaning away from where you want them to be are only going to be further polarized.

Yet another believer come to tell us how we're doing it all wrong. And only the 457th one this year!

I know there must be others besides yourself out there who are reading this and understand what I'm trying to say.

Yep. You're trying to say that a balanced view would be one where claims both pro and con the existence of flying saucers are given equal weight.

As if.

Your suggestions and those of anyone else who has an idea to make this happen would be welcomed.

Start with the list of questions in Post #11523.

 

[Akhenaten]

Timbo ...

The incorrect presumption you and the other skeptics are making is that I came here to convince you your point of view is "wrong" and to get into an adversarial debate with you over it.

Au contraire. My presumption is that you were hoping to be able to add phrases like "my work in conjunction with the JREF" to your flying saucer club website.

I've thought so ever since I read this in one of the many zombie threads you resurrected when you first arrived here. (This one was "What Can/Should the JREF Do?")

Well if all goes well here I wouldn't mind networking closer with the JREF. I know that many skeptics consider UFOs to be too woo-woo to take seriously, but I believe this can change in a positive way, and that with the right kind of presentation and networking it could be mutually beneficial.

j.r.

This little exchange, on the same day, didn't help:

I don't know if anyone here remembers the Cosmos series . . .

Has it somehow escaped your notice that this is page 107 of a thread which for the past 10 months and in its own meandering way has discussed nothing else but what is arguably the most famous quotation from Cosmos?

I just need 50 posts to get my avatar. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to post another reply.

j.r.

I came here to do exactly what you say above, present various bits of evidence so that you can provide your "valuable service".

You don't have any evidence.

For example, if the response to the MIG video hadn't included the slight and the disrespect it showed, it would have been an excellent example of helping me to determine that the video is most probably a fabrication. It's now on my list to add to my website as a hoax, but why does our cooperation have to be so filled with hostility?

What cooperation? That which you would like to pretend exists so that you can use it as an endorsement by this forum of your beliefs?

That pretence all by itself is going to generate hostility.

Anita Ikonen tried exactly the same strategy and it didn't end well.

<commercial snip>

Why would you not want that to be included in the range of views I present?

Because endorsing the activities of believers is antithetical to the reasons we're here in the first place.

Can we not make more of an effort to approach this from that perspective?

Accroches-toi à ton rêve.

I really don't like feeling depressed about my visits every time I come here.

Maybe you're just in the wrong sub-forum. Humor might serve your purpose better.