UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

It's just a shame that you dishonestly left out the important bit: "assertions that are capable of being proven false". How would your pseudoscientific hypothesis "Some UFOs are alien in origin" ever be falsified?

Robo:

You aren't dealing with the issue of Akhenaten's certain conclusion that no UFOs have shown themselves to be alien craft. I have just demonstrated using your own pet hypothesis that such a statement cannot be proven, and that simply because it has not been disproven does not mean that in reality alien UFOs have not shown themselves to people. The best you can do in the absence of evidence that meets your standards, is reserve judgement based on insufficient data.

Regarding the butterfly analogy you are still using. Again I will also point to the example of null hypothesis in Wikipedia where the examples used are of the probability of two coins having a 50% chance of landing either heads or tails. It has nothing to do with coins turning into butterflies. It is a false analogy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And you also dishonestly left out the other important bit "The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position."

Why did you leave out the important bits, ufology?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

You aren't dealing with the issue of Akhenaten's certain conclusion that no UFOs have shown themselves to be alien craft. I have just demonstrated using your own pet hypothesis that such a statement cannot be proven, and that simply because it has not been disproven does not mean that in reality alien UFOs have not shown themselves to people. The best you can do in the absence of evidence that meets your standards, is reserve judgement based on insufficient data.

The null hypothesis, which you apparently still can't understand even when it is simpled down for you, is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and it has never been falsified. You may wish to refer back to Wikipedia to help you understand it. There is no reserving judgment on whether coins turn into butterflies, we assume that they don't. That's what the null hypothesis says. You are welcome to believe that coins turn into butterflies but unless you come up with extraordinary evidence that it happens, you just have a belief. Showing me a butterfly and calling it evidence that coins turn into butterflies isn't enough.

Regarding the butterfly analogy you are still using. Again I will also point to the example of null hypothesis in Wikipedia where the examples used are of the probability of two coins having a 50% chance of landing either heads or tails. It has nothing to do with coins turning into butterflies. It is a false analogy.

Again, I'll remind you that you don't understand the null hypothesis, as you continue to prove. The hypothesis is: "Some flipped coins turn into butterflies", the null hypothesis is: "No flipped coins turn into butterflies". To prove your hypothesis that "some coins turn into butterflies", you only need one confirmed example of a coin turning into a butterfly to falsify the null hypothesis. How would you falsify the hypothesis? If you have no answer, then you are on your way to understanding the null hypothesis. How would you falsify the null hypothesis?

Now, rephrase it back to me in your own words so that I know that you understand it.

Refer back to Wikipedia and the bits that you dishonestly left out of your quoting.

 

[ehcks]

You don't try to prove the null hypothesis. Stop being daft. You disprove it by showing it is false in at least one instance.

In this case, you could disprove "All UFO's are of mundane origin" by showing that one UFO is an alien spacecraft. This disproof of the null hypothesis would prove your intended hypothesis by showing that at least one UFO was of alien origin.

Until you have an actual alien spacecraft, your intended hypothesis is to be assumed false, and the null hypothesis is assumed true.

Do you have an alien spacecraft?

 

[ufology]

The null hypothesis, which you apparently still can't understand.

Timbo:

So you insult my intelligence while hand waving on the issue with Akhenaten and illustrating that it is in-fact you who neither truly understands of appreciates the purpose of a null hypothesis or why it is ill suited to the study of UFOs. You are truly multi-talented.

 

[ehcks]

Timbo:

So you insult my intelligence while hand waving on the issue with Akhenaten and illustrating that it is in-fact you who neither truly understands of appreciates the purpose of a null hypothesis or why it is ill suited to the study of UFOs. You are truly multi-talented.

How is it ill-suited? It says that all UFOs are ordinary, mundane, bland, non-alien. If you can prove it wrong, you win. If you can find a UFO that does not have a mundane explanation, you win. You get fame, fortune, riches, Nobel prizes. Everything.

Do you have evidence of even a single UFO not being of a mundane origin?

 

[ufology]

How is it ill-suited? It says that all UFOs are ordinary, mundane, bland, non-alien. If you can prove it wrong, you win. If you can find a UFO that does not have a mundane explanation, you win. You get fame, fortune, riches, Nobel prizes. Everything. Do you have evidence of even a single UFO not being of a mundane origin?

Ehcks:

This has been discussed before and is always ignored. A review of the null hypothesis as described on the Wikipedia website clearly states that is was devised by a statistician for use in scientific work under controlled conditions. The coin toss is a prime example. Medical case studies are another. UFOs provide no such controlled conditions by which data can be gathered and analyzed. Indeed the skeptics here will tell you that there is no data.

UFO sightings are seemingly random transient events that defy controlled conditions and therefore using the null hypothesis under such circumstances is a misapplication ... dare I say pseudoscience. Consequently, other methods of study are more suited. If you search, you will notice that I started a thread called Critical Thinking in Ufology. This method of analysis is much better suited to ufology and I had hoped that it would yield some quality commentary, however it was ultimately derailed by the skeptics here and closed.

 

[Akhenaten]

Timbo:

Again you start with the innuendo. I understand the null hypothesis just fine.

It's rather obvious, despite your protestations, that that you don't even understand the idea of a null hypothesis, let alone the specific one that we're referring to in relation to UFOs.

It is not appropriate for the study of UFOs, but since you are so are fond of it, I quoted the independent reference ( Wikipedia ) where it says that is important to realize that the null hypothesis can never be proven, yet that is what Akhenaten does with such certainty when he says, no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft ... ever.

The null hypothesis, ufology, is that all UFOs are of mundane origin.

Stating the obvious truth that no UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft is nothing more than pointing out that the null hypothesis has yet to be disproven.

It's nothing to do with me, ufology. Reality is quite capable of speaking for itself.

When someone (and it's quite clearly not going to be you) produces some irrefutable evidence of an alien flying saucer then the null hypothesis will be disproven and my statement of observable reality will no longer be valid.

Akhenaten's statement is an obvious conclusion that the null hypothesis has been proven.

No, it is not, and your claim here simply reiterates your own misunderstanding of what a null hypothesis is.

Simply because the null hypothesis has not been disproven does not mean it has been proven.

Yes, I know. That's what makes your straw man so - strawwy.

How long are you going to go on defending Akhenaten's position when he has admitted he doesn't even consider himself to be a skeptic?

It's not Akhenaten's Position™, ufology. It's reality.

No UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft.​

Argue with reality all you like. No skin off my nose.

As for the nonsense about not considering myself to be a skeptic, my advice to you is to have a look at what I actually said and consider it in light of the fact that I've established my credentials here over the course of four years and 16,000 posts as someone who doesn't believe in anything without evidence.

Your continuing attempts at ad hominem and well-poisoning on the basis of a throwaway comment that I refuse to be labelled as a skeptic are making you look even more foolish than your quasi-religious devotion to the idea that the skies are swarming with flying saucers.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Ehcks:

This has been discussed before and is always ignored. A review of the null hypothesis as described on the Wikipedia website clearly states that is was devised by a statistician for use in scientific work under controlled conditions. The coin toss is a prime example. Medical case studies are another. UFOs provide no such controlled conditions by which data can be gathered and analyzed. Indeed the skeptics here will tell you that there is no data. UFO sightings are seemingly random transient events that defy controlled conditions and therefore using the null hypothesis under such circumstances is a misapplication ... dare I say pseudoscience. Consequently, other methods of study are more suited. If you search, you will notice that I started a thread called Critical Thinking in Ufology. This method of analysis is much better suited to ufology and I had hoped that it would yield some quality commentary, however it was ultimately derailed by the skeptics here and closed.

What is it about the idea of a null hypothesis that makes it only suited for controlled experiments and not transient phenomena like UFOs?

 

[Akhenaten]

Robo:

You aren't dealing with the issue of Akhenaten's certain conclusion that no UFOs have shown themselves to be alien craft.

It's reality, ufology. I might be flattered that you want to credit me with creating it but one outlandish fantasy per thread is enough, I think.

I have just demonstrated using your own pet hypothesis that such a statement cannot be proven . . .

You've demonstrated nothing more than you know how to build straw men. Nobody is trying to prove the null hypothesis. Nobody is claiming that such a thing can be done.

Except you.

. . . and that simply because it has not been disproven does not mean that in reality alien UFOs have not shown themselves to people.

Ooh look! A new entry in the English/Uflogogese dictionary - 'alien UFOs'.

Do you know what an oxymoron is, ufology? I think you should look it up.


In any case, you're now using an outright misstatement of what's been said, and that is quite dishonest of you.

Nobody knows whether alien UFOs flying saucers have shown themselves to people or not. Nobody but your strawman is making such a claim.

You're trying claim that

No alien craft has ever shown itself.​

and

No UFO has ever shown itself to be an alien craft.​

are equivalent statements.

They aren't.

The best you can do in the absence of evidence that meets your standards, is reserve judgement based on insufficient data.

When you say 'reserve judgement' what you really mean is that we should regard the existence and non-existence of flying saucers as being equally likely.

Your need to believe no doubt blinds you to the absurdity of adopting this as the default position, or null hypothesis as we've been calling it.

Regarding the butterfly analogy you are still using. Again I will also point to the example of null hypothesis in Wikipedia where the examples used are of the probability of two coins having a 50% chance of landing either heads or tails. It has nothing to do with coins turning into butterflies. It is a false analogy.

As someone who's religiously devoted to the analogy that UFO = "OMG . . . aliens!" you don't get a vote.

 

[Akhenaten]

Timbo:

So you insult my intelligence while hand waving on the issue with Akhenaten and illustrating that it is in-fact you who neither truly understands of appreciates the purpose of a null hypothesis or why it is ill suited to the study of UFOs. You are truly multi-talented.

Oh, bollocks.

We use null hypotheses on an almost continuous basis to go about our daily lives.

It's a null hypothesis that a piano isn't going to fall on your head when you walk out of the back door. It's a null hypothesis that there are no tigers roaming the streets of Calgary. It's a null hypothesis that no UFOs are alien flying saucers.

Is your default position that there's an equal likelihood that a piano will/won't fall on you as walk out the door, ufology?

The null hypothesis is that you will reject this explanation.

 

[23_Tauri]

Timbo:

So you insult my intelligence while hand waving on the issue with Akhenaten and illustrating that it is in-fact you who neither truly understands of appreciates the purpose of a null hypothesis or why it is ill suited to the study of UFOs. You are truly multi-talented.

If anyone reading this thread thought that ufology understands the purpose of a null hypothesis before he wrote this statement, I imagine that nobody is under any such illusions now.

As Ahenhaten Akinoten Akhenaten has said, the null hypothesis applies to everything. You're asking for special pleading for UFOlogy, and that ain't gonna work.

 

[Akhenaten]

If you search, you will notice that I started a thread called Critical Thinking in Ufology. This method of analysis is much better suited to ufology and I had hoped that it would yield some quality commentary, however it was ultimately derailed by the skeptics here and closed.

I don't have to search to know that the thread of which you speak was not closed at all, but was simply merged with the "Is ufology a pseudoscience?" thread, because the two threads were covering the same ground.

Should I post a link to this OP you made in the still very much open-for-comments thread or will you be retracting the above false statement and making a general apology to the participants?

Oh. I seem to have posted the link subconsciously. Bummer


ETA: Aberhaten made me do it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo:

So you insult my intelligence while hand waving on the issue with Akhenaten and illustrating that it is in-fact you who neither truly understands of appreciates the purpose of a null hypothesis or why it is ill suited to the study of UFOs. You are truly multi-talented.

No, you are incorrect. I don't insult your intelligence, I do point out that you remain ignorant of the concept of a null hypothesis, despite the numerous times it has been explained to you, despite you looking it up in Wikipedia and posting your cherry picked (what a surprise) phrases from there.

I'll explain it to you again. You try to prove your hypothesis by falsifying the null hypothesis. Your hypothesis is: "Some UFOs are alien in origin". The null hypothesis is then: "All UFOs are of mundane origin". You would prove your hypothesis that some UFOs are alien in origin by simply falsifying the null hypothesis by providing one confirmed UFO of alien origin.

I'll try to simple it down for you again. Let's say that your hypothesis is that some flipped coins turn into butterflies on the way down. Your hypothesis can be worded thus: "Some flipped coins turn into butterflies". The null hypothesis of that would be: "No coins turn into butterflies". You could easily falsify the null hypothesis by showing one confirmed case of a coin turning into a butterfly. You can never prove that "No coins turn into butterflies" (the null hypothesis) because you can never observe all coins. Do you see why the null hypothesis is assumed to be true? Do you see why you could easily falsify it with just one confirmed event?

Now, you think of an example from everyday life and post it here so that everyone can see that you do understand the null hypothesis. Until you do, insulting your intelligence is going to be like trying to figure out how telekinesis works.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ehcks:

This has been discussed before and is always ignored. A review of the null hypothesis as described on the Wikipedia website clearly states that is was devised by a statistician for use in scientific work under controlled conditions. The coin toss is a prime example. Medical case studies are another. UFOs provide no such controlled conditions by which data can be gathered and analyzed. Indeed the skeptics here will tell you that there is no data.

You may want to think about why there is no data to examine.

UFO sightings are seemingly random transient events that defy controlled conditions and therefore using the null hypothesis under such circumstances is a misapplication ... dare I say pseudoscience.

You could dare say it, but it would be a goofy thing to say. Starting with your conclusion of OMG PseudoAliens is pseudoscience. Having no aliens to show for 60 years of floundering and thinking about it is pseudoscience.

Consequently, other methods of study are more suited. If you search, you will notice that I started a thread called Critical Thinking in Ufology. This method of analysis is much better suited to ufology and I had hoped that it would yield some quality commentary, however it was ultimately derailed by the skeptics here and closed.

Actually, it was merged with another thread because you derailed it. Think about the thread title and how every post of yours was off topic.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Timbo:
Again you start with the innuendo. I understand the null hypothesis just fine. It is not appropriate for the study of UFOs.

The null hypothestis is "Not appropriate".
Really?
So that means it is not a "study", or science, or in any way based on logic.

It is stuff you like that you want to believe in for your own happiness. Good for you. Now stop pretending it is in any way real, science, or based on evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

. Consequently, other methods of study are more suited. If you search, you will notice that I started a thread called Critical Thinking in Ufology. This method of analysis is much better suited to ufology and I had hoped that it would yield some quality commentary, however it was ultimately derailed by the skeptics here and closed.

Yet by refusing to recognise the need for a null, your thinking is not critical. It is based upon a special pleading that UFOlogy is exempt from the most basic principle of logic. At best you are heavily biased by the assumption that at least some sightings MUST be of non-mundane origin.

It does not matter which method of analysis you use, be it a physical study of tangible evidence, a meta-study of witness statements, a mass survey, double blinded trial, or anything else, you still have prove your theory against a null. All valid methods compare to a null.

Having had a quick look the merged thread your "derailment" appears to be sceptics actually applying critique to your critical thinking. How can critical thinking be derailed by the act of being critical?

 

[23_Tauri]

Look ufology, the null hypothesis "all UFOs are of mundane origin" is there to help you! We're not trying to catch you out or trick you with it. Its mere existence gives you the opportunity to falsify it by providing evidence that UFO's are alien spaceships. Do you understand this?

And to clarify, it's not RoboTimbo's null hypothesis, it's not Aberaeron's Abergwyngregyn's Akhenaten's null hypothesis, it is THE null hypothesis.

 

[edge]

Interesting story. U2s had a maximum speed of about 500MPH. They had really long wings for high altitude flight and going too fast would break them apart. They weren't meant for speed and certainly could not go straight up.

Interestingly the skeptics claim there wasn't anything that they could find to my story and so far no response to my response, they just keep cackling about semantics.
The story is with multiple eyewitnesses and is the real deal along with my other observances.
But they are hung up on what UFOs means?
Strange that?

I wonder what the U2s slowest speed is?
UFOs means alien to us and our technology.
Mundane means an explanation was achieved, unknown means alien to us, alien can only be 5 or 6 things that are left as an explanation whether it's speculation or not.
They do match with what we have seen and know.

 

[edge]

What other sorts of things did they use their telescopic vision for?

Why reply when you can't follow.
The people, [our family], are the family of people working at that Nike Missile base, do you read the links when posted, or are you just being a S.A.?