• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
edge said:
If you load Google Chrome the spell checker in the forum works then, only problem is I didn't like Google Chrome.

The IEspell didn't work for me, I use Word.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that this forum even had a spell checker. I'm looking at the buttons and don't see it. My browser just automatically puts these lines under misspelled words in text fields, regardless of what website I visit.

Apologies for the derail, but I'm off to figure out how to import an 80MPG diesel from the UK.
 
Akhenaten said:
"Gubmint secrets" = "OMG . . . aliens!" ???

Does this supersede "unidentified" = "OMG . . . aliens!" or is it just an additional meaning?
Click to expand...
That would make the 'government secret UFO files' into the 'alien alien files' wouldn't it?

Unless we've also redefined 'files' to mean 'aliens' too... I've lost track of this rapid changing language :boggled:
 
As was mentioned previously, the whole mess started out to track potential exotic weapons, aircraft and surveillance during the Cold War. Not aliens, "aliens" or even “aliens.”
 
Yep, most the fmous groups, like RAF section 2, who were there to investigate UFOs, probably expected to find more earthly kinds of flying objects that most folk wouldn't recognise. Planes from other nations, spy balloons, the likes of those. There are far more mundane reasons for secrecy.
 
And the redacted parts of released documents are redacted to comply with the data protection act, which in some cases is in conflict with the freedom of information act, thereby making it necessary to withold certain bits of personal data.
 
Stray Cat said:
And the redacted parts of released documents are redacted to comply with the data protection act, which in some cases is in conflict with the freedom of information act, thereby making it necessary to withold certain bits of personal data.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is often the case. For example, the reason the Met wont hand over their files on informants from 1888 to Trevor Marriot a writer hoping to prove a sailor was Jack the Ripper, has nothing to do with unusual conspiracies, but the perfectly mundane reason that giving away the names and addresses of informers, no matter how long after the fact, gives the impression that secrecy has a shelf life, and may deter modern informers or whistleblowers.
 
Can you be specific? When does science not require a null hypothesis?
Click to expand...

When it's using an exploratory methodology. Require a falsified null hypothesis before conducting every observation and you're bound to miss the gorilla.

Biology is the king of this type of science: you're studying a chaotic system with more interactions than you can imagine. Just pointing out that something unexpected is happening is perfectly publishable.

I'm sure you can staple on a null hypothesis after the fact - "Our null hypothesis is 'woozits never interact with greebles' and oh would you just look at that" - but that's always rung hollow to me.


Also, methods papers. Scientists are basically just advertising their tools to other scientists. Again, I suppose you could ram in a null hypothesis of "it doesn't work any better," but while methods papers do need to falsify that, it's not really the established aim.


This isn't applicable to the ufo situation because it's not a novel phenomenon. We can already study UFOs, and every one we've gotten a good look at has turned out to have a mundane origin. No reason to suppose the others aren't mundane as well.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
When it's using an exploratory methodology. Require a falsified null hypothesis before conducting every observation and you're bound to miss the gorilla.

Biology is the king of this type of science: you're studying a chaotic system with more interactions than you can imagine. Just pointing out that something unexpected is happening is perfectly publishable.

I'm sure you can staple on a null hypothesis after the fact - "Our null hypothesis is 'woozits never interact with greebles' and oh would you just look at that" - but that's always rung hollow to me.


Also, methods papers. Scientists are basically just advertising their tools to other scientists. Again, I suppose you could ram in a null hypothesis of "it doesn't work any better," but while methods papers do need to falsify that, it's not really the established aim.


This isn't applicable to the ufo situation because it's not a novel phenomenon. We can already study UFOs, and every one we've gotten a good look at has turned out to have a mundane origin. No reason to suppose the others aren't mundane as well.
Click to expand...

For most the examples you give there would be a null hypothosis of no observable change.
 
Stray Cat said:
That would make the 'government secret UFO files' into the 'alien alien files' wouldn't it?

Unless we've also redefined 'files' to mean 'aliens' too... I've lost track of this rapid changing language :boggled:
Click to expand...


AlienDictionary.jpg
 
It's a catch-all because anything different can falsify it. It's vague because it doesn't give any indication what that thing might be or how that thing might be different.

Since from a hypothesis-driven standpoint the falsification of the null is the only thing an experiment tells you, null hypotheses like that effectively tell you nothing. Might as well drop the charade and admit you're just looking at the data to find new hypotheses to test.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
It's a catch-all because anything different can falsify it. It's vague because it doesn't give any indication what that thing might be or how that thing might be different.

Since from a hypothesis-driven standpoint the falsification of the null is the only thing an experiment tells you, null hypotheses like that effectively tell you nothing. Might as well drop the charade and admit you're just looking at the data to find new hypotheses to test.
Click to expand...

How can you have ANY observation if you do not know if anything changed? The null hypothosis is no measurable effect. If you want to drop it, tough. You are observing any effects, ergo SOMETHING has to have changed. So the null remains "No change".
 
Marduk said:
are we reading the same thread
http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/9112-UFOS-the-Research-the-Evidence./page3?p=123482
from what I can see, everyone (including Rramjet) is telling you that you can't redefine terms to suit yourself and Rramjet is attempting to steer the conversation around to the Tehran UFO incident, that's one of his favourites you know. Its been done to death earlier in this thread

:p
Click to expand...

This is an accurate characterization of that thread. I won't quote the specifics, rules and all...

On edit, since ufology is a member here, I think I can quote him.

ufology said:
In the end I suppose we could simply narrow the whole thing down to:

UFO: craft of alien origin.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
That null hypothesis may be a catch-all, but, in principle it's still there, even if it isn't used in a practical sense.

ufology's point was that the null hypothesis isn't proper in principle (even though he never used those words, that's what it amounts to).

Also: pointing out that something happened may be publishable, but a mere observation is not a hypothesis. Once you attempt an explanation/hypothesis, then the null hypothesis kicks in, doesn't it? And ufology is certainly attempting an explanation for the mere observation of those funny lights he saw.
 
True enough, I suppose, but then every argument made by anyone would involve falsifying the null hypothesis that they were wrong. I was specifically referring to the divide between exploratory and hypothesis-driven methodologies.

A quick google search turned up a cute tizzy with more carefully worded arguments about the distinction:
http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php/11-2008-animalcules-and-forum/512-forum
http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php/02-2009-letters/49-defining-descriptive-research
http://www.microbemagazine.org/inde...-driven-research&catid=142:letters&Itemid=180
 
Beelzebuddy said:
True enough, I suppose, but then every argument made by anyone would involve falsifying the null hypothesis that they were wrong. I was specifically referring to the divide between exploratory and hypothesis-driven methodologies.

A quick google search turned up a cute tizzy with more carefully worded arguments about the distinction:
http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php/11-2008-animalcules-and-forum/512-forum
http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php/02-2009-letters/49-defining-descriptive-research
http://www.microbemagazine.org/inde...-driven-research&catid=142:letters&Itemid=180
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but not knowing what the effect will be does not mean the null stops being the yardstick. I can see your point, but the Null is there even if not referred to.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Can we agree to kind of mostly agree?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Especially as none of the examples you describe can be applied to the model of ufology that does not "need" the null.

By definition the Null is sorely and desperately required by ufology. They need to prove that there is an exotic explanation for at least one UFO to allow anything in the "discipline" to stand against any scrutiny.

Given the amount of scenery chewing insane crap that clings to the very term "alien" they need to be absolutely perfect in methodology to be taken seriously. They have to show that all evidence is valid and testible, reliable and of good quality simply to prove they are not the random ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ who have assumed aliens are real and are cherry picking anything to support their fantasy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom