UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Toke]

I still don't really get this "two sides" business?
Is there two sides to physics?
Is there two sides to curing illness?
Is there two sides to evolution?

I have a real problem with this one too.
The idea that we are all entitled to having our own opinions sounds really nice, it just happen to be mostly touted by people who are demonstratively wrong and/or conmen.

 

[Archer17]

The above isn't quite the case. Im seeking rapprochement on a premise that those who are interested in UFOs should be offered the opportunity to review all the aspects of the subject matter ( ufology ), and from that make up their own minds. In the effort to facilitate this, I operate a ufology interest website and I want to be able to provide as part of the resources there, constructive evaluations of various cases from fair minded skeptics. I had thought the JREF would make an excellent source in this regard. Unfortunately, even though there is potential, the adversarial atmosphere is self defeating. Can this barrier be overcome? Most people I discuss this with feel my efforts are naive and the idea is unrealistic. Is that true? Should that stop me from trying? I say it's worth a try because there is so much good to be gained if it works. How can we make this work? Any suggestions?

You don't seem to get it. The 'U' in UFO is nothing more than insufficient data. Unidentified doesn't mean ET, Valee's "djinn," or name your notion. How can you properly investigate something that is no longer there?

What passes for ufological investigation is primarily confirmation bias and is predicated on the mistaken notion that there is some kind of global interconnectedness with UFO reports when the only real commonality is the letter U. Take a gander at a couple UFO databases out there and see if folks are looking at the same object(s).

I find it amusing when I ask a "believer" what planet their "UFOs" come from because in their answer (or more accurately, their non-answer) lies the key to their flawed reasoning.

 

[R.A.F.]

Marduk ...

The above is an exaggeration applied to a whole group of people whom you don't know and such comments only further alienate ( pardon the pun ) the believers and consequently they are even less likely to benefit from skeptical insights.

So if we only "coddle" believers, they will "listen to reason"?

What a naive viewpoint.

 

[Stray Cat]

and that I knew it was real because I had touched it's horn, would you believe me?

On that statement alone, Yes, I would.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

This thread has been nothing but pseudoscientists throwing out case after case of alleged UFO sightings and calling on skeptics to debunk each and every one of them. If you have a different goal in mind than to be a pseudoscientist who throws out cases to be debunked, you have to say so up front. But here's the rub: the pseudoscientists have always said, "Nuh uh, can't be that." no matter what mundane explanation was given. So, no more of that. The null hypothesis is "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin". It doesn't matter which mundane explanation you want to apply to it because we know the mundane exists. I'm not going to try to debunk each and every unfalsifiable anecdote out there. You make the claim that there are aliens, you have the burden of proof to prove there are aliens. So far, there haven't been aliens. You make an extraordinary claim, you have the burden to provide extraordinary evidence. Can you see that an unfalsifiable anecdotal claim does not meet that minimum criteria?

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.

You are correct, you could be a positive agent for change in showing people how fallacious thinking works and getting them to think critically, even about their own favorite woo. And it was you who I said was providing a valuable service by throwing out these anecdotes and showing how easy it is for someone to gullibly believe them. Unfortunately, you think the only people who should look at both sides are the skeptics. Nothing in your closed mind has changed.

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.

You haven't listened so far. Here's your chance. Adopt the null hypothesis that "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin" and then try to falsify it. Give up the pseudoscientific one that is unfalsifiable "Some UFOs are alien spaceships". Or is it just the skeptics who you want to change?

 

[John Albert]

I think we need a few hard-liners out there like yourself

"Hard-liners"?!? When did sober rationality suddenly become a radical, hard-line stance?

I conceed that it could be true that no UFOs reported so far were alien craft.

Congratulations, J.R., you're making progress!

Am I correct in believing that this concession extends to your own sighting experiences as well?

However let me ask you this: Although you default to your null hypothesis

He defaults to it because that's what it's there for: to be defaulted to, until some evidence can be produced that reliably proves it wrong.

...do you also acknowledge that some UFO reports could have been alien craft and there simply isn't enough evidence...?

I do.

It's also hypothetically possible that UFOs are the result of gods, angels, ghosts, time traveling Nazis, creatures surfacing from deep within the Hollow Earth, sky-fishes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Pleasure Ships of the Sex Goddesses, cryptozoological gooseblimps, and any other unfounded, unprovable explanations.

Depite all that, if some real evidence were to arise that conclusively indicates that intelligent ET exists and has been visiting our planet I'd most certainly be willing to admit that some UFO reports could have been alien craft.

...to prove it to your satisfaction?

(emphasis mine)

See, this is where your reasoning broke down.

This is not a matter of RoboTimbo's satisfaction. When I'm looking at a claim regarding the physical world, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I better ask RoboTimbo's opinion about this" (Sorry, Robo).

These matters are not determined by any one person's opinion. This is not a cult of personality wherein some leader charismatically states an opinion and we're all are bound in faith to accept it as dogma. Personal opinions carry no weight where objective reality is concerned. Knowledge of the material world is determined through the evaluation of measurable, verifiable and repeatable evidence.

Uninformed personal opinions have no bearing on reality. Anecdotes are mere claims, not evidence. If you go around making conclusive claims about the nature of the Universe on the basis of hearsay and personal authority, that's called pseudoscience.

 

[ufology]

We didn't show up at your website and claimed: NaH, Nah, Nah all you believe is stupid!

The above makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[ufology]

This thread has been nothing but pseudoscientists throwing out case after case of alleged UFO sightings and calling on skeptics to debunk each and every one of them. If you have a different goal in mind than to be a pseudoscientist who throws out cases to be debunked, you have to say so up front. But here's the rub: the pseudoscientists have always said, "Nuh uh, can't be that." no matter what mundane explanation was given. So, no more of that. The null hypothesis is "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin". It doesn't matter which mundane explanation you want to apply to it because we know the mundane exists. I'm not going to try to debunk each and every unfalsifiable anecdote out there. You make the claim that there are aliens, you have the burden of proof to prove there are aliens. So far, there haven't been aliens. You make an extraordinary claim, you have the burden to provide extraordinary evidence. Can you see that an unfalsifiable anecdotal claim does not meet that minimum criteria?


You are correct, you could be a positive agent for change in showing people how fallacious thinking works and getting them to think critically, even about their own favorite woo. And it was you who I said was providing a valuable service by throwing out these anecdotes and showing how easy it is for someone to gullibly believe them. Unfortunately, you think the only people who should look at both sides are the skeptics. Nothing in your closed mind has changed.

You haven't listened so far. Here's your chance. Adopt the null hypothesis that "All UFO sightings are of mundane origin" and then try to falsify it. Give up the pseudoscientific one that is unfalsifiable "Some UFOs are alien spaceships". Or is it just the skeptics who you want to change?

Quote: "Unfortunately, you think the only people who should look at both sides are the skeptics. Nothing in your closed mind has changed."

Response: So you think that me coming here to ask skeptics for opinions on cases ( The MIG video as a recent example ), so that I could get their evaluations and post them on my website constitutes me thinking that the only people who should look at both sides are the skeptics. Perhaps you haven't actually been to my website, but it's a UFO interest group. If I didn't want the people there to look at the skeptical side, why would I be attempting to create a liaison in order to provide that opportunity? You've obviously been blinded by your bias and have just proven that it is not my mind that is closed, but yours.

 

[23_Tauri]

This is not a matter of RoboTimbo's satisfaction. When I'm looking at a claim regarding the physical world, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I better ask RoboTimbo's opinion about this" (Sorry, Robo)

I do.

 

[Akhenaten]

We didn't show up at your website and claimed: NaH, Nah, Nah all you believe is stupid!

The above makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, it does, actually. Perhaps what you meant to type was "I don't understand gambling_cruiser's post", which is a whole 'nother thing.

 

[Akhenaten]

Lern 2 kwote.

Quote: "Unfortunately, you think the only people who should look at both sides are the skeptics. Nothing in your closed mind has changed."

Response: So you think that me coming here to ask skeptics for opinions on cases ( The MIG video as a recent example ), so that I could get their evaluations and post them on my website constitutes me thinking that the only people who should look at both sides are the skeptics.

I don't know what's worse, the almost incomprehensible run-on sentence or the pathetically weak straw man argument, but the combo is a total loser.

0/10

Perhaps you haven't actually been to my website, but it's a UFO interest group.

With its very own definition of UFO.

If I didn't want the people there to look at the skeptical side, why would I be attempting to create a liaison in order to provide that opportunity?

If you're so keen to have your club members get the skeptical side of things just post a hyperlink to this thread.

We'll do the rest.

You've obviously been blinded by your bias and have just proven that it is not my mind that is closed, but yours.

You wish.

 

[ufology]

I still don't really get this "two sides" business?
Is there two sides to physics?
Is there two sides to curing illness?
Is there two sides to evolution?

If you are a serious researcher into any subject, you won't give any credence or endorsement to nonsense written about that subject. And yet, here you are advocating that nonsense should be available to your audience and then some of the nonsense could be countered by the views of fair minded sceptics...

This is where the null hypothesis "all UFO's are mundane in origin" saves a lot of time (we really don't want to be looking into every single silly claim made by people who constantly over the past 60 odd years have shown a complete inability to adhere to scientific methodology). It would be more beneficial to the wider audience to teach them this null hypothesis and explain to them how, by falsifying it (showing just one single UFO report to be conclusively alien in origin), they would be using the most efficient method. Also they would be using a method that has worked extremely well for many centuries in allowing the human race to discover and exploit countless things that otherwise would still be attributed to the beardy bloke who lives in the clouds.

OK fine, I'll just say, "The skeptics have already determined that every possible case represents a mundane object and therefore they have no comment."

 

[Akhenaten]

OK fine, I'll just say, "The skeptics have already determined that every possible case represents a mundane object and therefore they have no comment."

Is it International Straw Persons and Sour Grapes Day or something? Why didn't I get the memo?

The words you're pretending to quote above aren't just a misrepresentation of sceptics position, they're a complete fabrication.

Or is that really what you think is being said here? That would actually be worse, so I'll be charitable and say that I hope not.

 

[23_Tauri]

OK fine, I'll just say, "The skeptics have already determined that every possible case represents a mundane object and therefore they have no comment."

That's not what the skeptics are saying at all! Where do you get this stuff, ufology?

Skeptics say "we are open to the possibility that UFO sightings might represent non-mundane objects, and to that end we welcome evidence that would lead us to that conclusion".

That's why most posters here endorse RoboTimbo's workable null hypothesis of "all UFO sightings are of mundane origin". The mere formulation of a null hypothesis demonstrates that one is open to the possibility of that null hypothesis being falsified. That Pseudoblobologists UFOlogists won't even entertain the notion of having a null hypothesis indicates that they're the ones that are close-minded to alternative explanations.

 

[Stray Cat]

OK fine, I'll just say, "The skeptics have already determined that every possible case represents a mundane object and therefore they have no comment."

Yes, you could "just say" that... it'd fit right in alongside the rest of your inaccurate assumptions.

 

[ufology]

Uninformed personal opinions have no bearing on reality. Anecdotes are mere claims, not evidence. If you go around making conclusive claims about the nature of the Universe on the basis of hearsay and personal authority, that's called pseudoscience.

Mr. Albert: Anecdotal evidence falls within the scope of evidence, just not the kind of evidence you will accept because you see it as fallible, and by extension imply that science isn't, even though every scientific experiment has a margin of error, and science has made plenty of mistakes and has had its share of frauds and quacks. The conclusions of science are based on the probability that given the same coinditions the same result will occur each time, but probabilities are not certainties, and unpredictable things do happen. Anecdotes arise from people's sensory experiences, which have known parameters and margins of error. Therefore it has been established by the same science you hoild so dear that first hand accounts from average healthy people contain a reasonable amount of accurate information. You choose not to accept that fact, and that's your right. However I choose to also consider what real people tell me, not just what comes out of a lab. You consider that a weakness but I consider it a strength ... too bad you can't see it.

 

[ufology]

Yes, you could "just say" that... it'd fit right in alongside the rest of your inaccurate assumptions.

Stray ... I was just going by what you seemed to be saying. What part did I get wrong?

 

[ufology]

That's not what the skeptics are saying at all! Where do you get this stuff, ufology?

I got it from this post here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7543196&postcount=11627


To Quote: "If you are a serious researcher into any subject, you won't give any credence or endorsement to nonsense written about that subject. And yet, here you are advocating that nonsense should be available to your audience and then some of the nonsense could be countered by the views of fair minded sceptics ... This is where the null hypothesis "all UFO's are mundane in origin" saves a lot of time ..."

The poster who wrote the above obviously thinks it's all "nonsense" and suggests defaulting to the position that all UFOs are mundane in origin.

If I'm wrong perhaps the poster can tell me what parts of the subject aren't nonsense?

 

[Akhenaten]

Mr. Albert: Anecdotal evidence falls within the scope of evidence, just not the kind of evidence you will accept because you see it as fallible, and by extension imply that science isn't, even though every scientific experiment has a margin of error, and science has made plenty of mistakes and has had its share of frauds and quacks.

You already tried this vacuous argument once and it was shredded. Are you hoping for a different result this time around?

The conclusions of science are based on the probability that given the same coinditions the same result will occur each time, but probabilities are not certainties, and unpredictable things do happen.

Ooh goody! We haven't had a new definition all day!

Nice try, ufology, but I'm fairly sure we'll be sticking with the commonly accepted meaning of 'repeatability'.

Anecdotes arise from people's sensory experiences, which have known parameters and margins of error.

Drivel.

Therefore it has been established by the same science you hoild so dear that first hand accounts from average healthy people contain a reasonable amount of accurate information.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but there's no way to tell which is which, especially after 60 years.

You know this, and to attempt the same previously refuted argument is extremely dishonest of you.

You choose not to accept that fact, and that's your right. However I choose to also consider what real people tell me, not just what comes out of a lab.

A pseudoscientist's gotta do what a pseudoscientist's gotta do, I suppose.

You consider that a weakness but I consider it a strength ... too bad you can't see it.

That's why you'll never cross the divide that separates believers from sceptics.

 

[23_Tauri]

Mr. Albert: Anecdotal evidence falls within the scope of evidence, just not the kind of evidence you will accept because you see it as fallible, and by extension imply that science isn't, even though every scientific experiment has a margin of error, and science has made plenty of mistakes and has had its share of frauds and quacks. The conclusions of science are based on the probability that given the same coinditions the same result will occur each time, but probabilities are not certainties, and unpredictable things do happen. Anecdotes arise from people's sensory experiences, which have known parameters and margins of error. Therefore it has been established by the same science you hoild so dear that first hand accounts from average healthy people contain a reasonable amount of accurate information. You choose not to accept that fact, and that's your right. However I choose to also consider what real people tell me, not just what comes out of a lab. You consider that a weakness but I consider it a strength ... too bad you can't see it.

You really need to read this thread:

Help! Looking for documented cases that show how unreliable eyewitness testimony is.

It got resurrected a couple of days ago and I thought it quite timely.

It's not just "Mr Albert" who sees such evidence as fallible. I think you'll find that the reason "Mr Albert" and the rest of us see eyewitness testimony aka anecdotal evidence as fallible is because it is. And no, science is not fallible in the same way as eyewitness testimony aka stories aka someone's recall of an event that witnessed and then told to another aka anecodotal evidence.