UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

No-one has made the assumption that the null hypothesis has been proven. Posters here are saying that the null hypothesis "all UFOs are of mundane origin" has not been falsified. Do you see the difference?
Proven = something proven
Falsifies = something disproven

I really don't see how we can make this any simpler for you.

Tauri:

Again you must have missed the example I used from the person who insisted with such certainty that no world defense agencies have documents that would disclose the existence of aliens. That statement was defended with the null hypothesis by proposing that the null hypothesis is that they don't have such documents, and if it has not been falsified, then it must be true. That is not logical and constitutes and argument from ignorance. The same thing happened with a statement asserting with certainty that Earth has not been visited by aliens. The same fallacy applies there as well.

In the absence of such statements, the ill-advised null hypothesis is acceptable for those who prefer such a narrow view of the world. But do not make statements that suggest your null hypothesis has been proven. It has not. All you can do is reserve judgment ... beyond that it's bias. The only exception are actual scientific studies under controlled conditions where an extremely low percentage might allow for the assumption that a null hypothesis is false ... but that is still not the same as being certain.

 

[ufology]

So you're still not getting the concept of a null hypothesis then... go figure.

You can knock off your innuendos regarding my cognitive abilities. I'm the one explaining to you where you missed the relevant points.

 

[Stray Cat]

You can knock off your innuendos regarding my cognitive abilities. I'm the one explaining to you where you missed the relevant points. You obviously think you are smarter than you are and are blaming others for your failure to comprehend.

They aren't "innunendos", they are fully supported by your posts which are constantly showing you don't understand the concept of the null hypothesis.

 

[John Albert]

What the above is saying is exactly what I've been pointing out all along with respect to your pet hypothesis. You cannot assert that the null hyothesis has been proven true because it has not been proven false. Or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

It's not "our pet hypothesis." It's the null hypothesis for anybody trying to prove that UFOs are non-mundane, extraterrestrial or paranormal craft!

Geez, man! I can't believe that after all these weeks, with all of us giving countless explanations and examples, you still have no clue how a null hypothesis works or what it's intended for.

Do you have really, abysmally poor reading comprehension, or no grasp of basic logic? Or do you just assume you know more about everything than anybody else around here? Or do you simply refuse to trust anything we say?


Let me try to explain it, yet again:

Of course the null hypothesis has never been proven. It cannot possibly be proven. How are you going to prove that "all UFOs are of mundane origin"? It's not humanly possible, because there's no way of knowing about "all UFOs" in the first place!

The null hypothesis is an assumption that you're seeking evidence to disprove, not to prove. The whole point of a null hypothesis is to eliminate the researcher's own personal bias in evaluating the results of his work.

The null hypothesis is a status quo opinion, based on the established science, that you (the researcher) are hoping to overturn by means of your research. It is not intended to be provable; it is intended to be falsifiable. Falsifying the null hypothesis is supposed to be the goal of your research. Producing conclusive evidence to falsify the null hypothesis means you've succeeded in shattering a previously-held false assumption about reality, and therefore made a new discovery.

All it would take to succeed in falsifying the null hypothesis is to produce conclusive evidence of one single extraterrestrial / paranormal / non-mundane craft that is verifiable by other researchers, and you will have achieved the Holy Grail of UFOlogy. You'd be a worldwide celebrity, probably win a Nobel Prize, and get to visit the White House for gala dinners and all that fancy crap. The world would be your oyster. The credibility of UFOlogy would be respected, and you'd be a hero. Little children would dream of growing up to be a famous UFOlogist just like you.

Just one single alien spacecraft, J.R.

Just one is all it would take.

 

[23_Tauri]

ehcks:

Stop trying to change the topic and direct attention away from the bias of your fellow skeptics. It's not about me falsifying the null hypothesis. ....

Yes it is.

 

[Stray Cat]

Again you must have missed the example I used from the person who insisted with such certainty that no world defense agencies have documents that would disclose the existence of aliens. That statement was defended with the null hypothesis by proposing that the null hypothesis is that they don't have such documents, and if it has not been falsified, then it must be true.

No
It can 'safely be assumed' to be true, because that's what the evidence at present points towards it being. However a null hypothesis is designed specifically to be falsified, not defended.

That is not logical and constitutes and argument from ignorance. The same thing happened with a statement asserting with certainty that Earth has not been visited by aliens. The same fallacy applies there as well.

Again no.
The null hypothesis is not an argument from ignorance, it is a position based entirely upon the evidence at hand, at the present time.

In the absence of such statements, the ill-advised null hypothesis is acceptable for those who prefer such a narrow view of the world. But do not make statements that suggest your null hypothesis has been proven. It has not.

It can not be proven... it can safely be assumed to be true until it is falsified. It is designed to be falsified as easily as possible.

All you can do is reserve judgment ... beyond that it's bias. The only exception are actual scientific studies under controlled conditions where an extremely low percentage might allow for the assumption that a null hypothesis is false ... but that is still not the same as being certain.

Again no. There should never be an assumption that the null hypothesis is false. There should be evidence to support it's falsification.

 

[Pixel42]

So you're still not getting the concept of a null hypothesis then... go figure.

If nothing else this thread has provided an object lesson in how resistant someone can be to understanding a relatively simple concept when the retention of a cherished belief in which they are heavily emotionally invested is dependant on them not understanding it.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri:

Again you must have missed the example I used from the person who insisted with such certainty that no world defense agencies have documents that would disclose the existence of aliens. That statement was defended with the null hypothesis by proposing that the null hypothesis is that they don't have such documents, and if it has not been falsified, then it must be true.

What thread are you reading? The null hypothesis is:

All UFOs are of mundane origin.

Where did the fact that no publically available documents state unequivocally "OMG - aleeyuns!!" come into it?

That is not logical and constitutes and argument from ignorance. The same thing happened with a statement asserting with certainty that Earth has not been visited by aliens. The same fallacy applies there as well.

No-one here has stated that either:
a) there is no document in existence, whether published on the internetz or all to see or locked up in an MOD safe, that proves the existence of alien races visiting Earth; nor
b) no alien races have ever visited Earth.

People have said there's no evidence to assume either is true, some may have even been so bold as to suggest that belief in either a) or b) above is a bit silly but I think everyone here would be happy to accept either a) or b) or even both as true if the evidence was there to prove it. Which it isn't.

In the absence of such statements, the ill-advised null hypothesis is acceptable for those who prefer such a narrow view of the world. But do not make statements that suggest your null hypothesis has been proven.

I didn't. The null hypothesis can never be proven. How many times do we have to explain this to you?

It has not.

No, it's MORE than that, it NEVER can be.

All you can do is reserve judgment ... beyond that it's bias.

It's not bias to state that the null hypothesis 'all UFOs are of mundane origin' has never been falsified. I have never said anything over and above that.

The only exception are actual scientific studies under controlled conditions where an extremely low percentage might allow for the assumption that a null hypothesis is false ... but that is still not the same as being certain.

Whatie? Exception to what? It's not about low percentage. You only need ONE OCCURENCE to falisify the null hypothesis. ONE coin turning into ONE butterfly.

Sheesh.

 

[John Albert]

You only need ONE OCCURENCE to falisify the null hypothesis. ONE coin turning into ONE butterfly.

Just one single alien spacecraft, J.R., is all it would take.

Just one.

Don't disappoint us!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ufologists must have some amazing evidence somewhere that the UFOs aren't infact angels and fairies. That is to say if they don't think the null hypothosis is relevant, and can just assume an exotic cause, then unless they operate on a double standard, I can pluck any old explanation from the ether. As long as other people think it is real that makes it true right?

So faries it is, and until the ufologists prove it aint, then why should I listen? The null hypothosis and material evidence is not suitable for serious study of faries.

 

[edge]

What thread are you reading? The null hypothesis is:

All UFOs are of mundane origin.

Where did the fact that no publically available documents state unequivocally "OMG - aleeyuns!!" come into it?


No-one here has stated that either:
a) there is no document in existence, whether published on the internetz or all to see or locked up in an MOD safe, that proves the existence of alien races visiting Earth; nor
b) no alien races have ever visited Earth.

People have said there's no evidence to assume either is true, some may have even been so bold as to suggest that belief in either a) or b) above is a bit silly but I think everyone here would be happy to accept either a) or b) or even both as true if the evidence was there to prove it. Which it isn't.


I didn't. The null hypothesis can never be proven. How many times do we have to explain this to you?


No, it's MORE than that, it NEVER can be.


It's not bias to state that the null hypothesis 'all UFOs are of mundane origin' has never been falsified. I have never said anything over and above that.


Whatie? Exception to what? It's not about low percentage. You only need ONE OCCURENCE to falisify the null hypothesis. ONE coin turning into ONE butterfly.

Sheesh.

Your right till you see one yourself.
1. There exists an intelligence, of unknown origin and nature,
which is currently carrying out an agenda of experimentation,
manipulation, and/or resource acquisition using the human race,
or certain members thereof, as unwilling subjects.
2. The agenda given in assumption 1 is being carried out with the
use of highly advanced technology.
3. This technology appears to be, at least partially, based on
forms of energy, or energy-matter relationships, which are
currently unknown to, or unacknowledged, by classical physics.

To be mundan is exactly what the invaders would want you to think.

 

[Stray Cat]

Your right till you see one yourself.

No.
Just seeing something you can't identify or having an experience you can not explain doesn't lead you to the conclusion you claim.

 

[Marduk]

No.
Just seeing something you can't identify or having an experience you can not explain doesn't lead you to the conclusion you claim.

it does if like Edge you grew up watching "the invaders" and not going to science class

To be mundan is exactly what the invaders would want you to think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invaders

 

[Aepervius]

Aepervius

So you're trying to tell me that you know this because you've got the clearance to go into Space Command, NATO, MOD and view whatever files you want? Excuse me for being skeptical about that. You have no evidence in support of your position whatsoever. On the other hand, formerly secret documents have been released both voluntarily and via the FOIA ... huge numbers of them. Do you really think that they don't have more? Do you really think they would let you or I or anyone else waltz in and view them? You're simply in a state of denial.

Some of us worked as researcher, and had subject which had to do with military weapon, you realize that ? And we have had clearance to read more than you think. And it is all pretty boring, down to the earth.

The one in denial is you : read yourself again , you are pretending that SECRET document of which you do not know the content shows alien as existing. This is so bloody stupid on so many level. Replace alien by Dracula and you could make the same irrational reasonning.

Fact 1 : no document shown up to now has evidence of alien visiting earth.
Fact 2 : the other document content is unknown to you.
There is nothing else here to see.

Read a dictionary. Unknown means you can't conclude on it. But you seem to have a big problem with the U word. The U word is Unknown , and not U-alien. Not the same word.

 

[Aepervius]

Robo:

Nobody is claiming that military secrets prove UFOs are in reality alien craft. The point is that it was claimed with certainty that they don't, and no evidence was offered for that assertion. It is not I who has made a fallacious argument, but the poster who made that statement.

No it was not claimed that.

What was claimed is the one *I* personally saw were boring normal document pertaining to military or special infrastructure, and the one shown after FOI are exactly of the same clothing.

You are just reading in it what YOU WANT to read, not what we wrote.

*YOU* are the one which is pretending to know something you can#t possibly know, that the other document are shwoing alien visiting earth or whatnot.

Another null hypothesis for you : all document under secret clearance are all boring military, Espionage, and boring report people want to be buried out of strategic reason (and some of them to be able to hide their incompetence). No document has ever shown to show alien on earth.

But you dislike Null hypothesis, right ?

 

[RoboTimbo]

To anaswer the above and your other point on the documents. Not only have many documents been released under the FOIA, many were found and not released, therefore proving they have them but they aren't letting us see them.

Which documents and why were they not released? Absence of evidence is still not evidence of evidence, as you seem to think.

Returning to the definition, what we're seeing in post AFR 200-2 Feb. 05 1958 versions are watered down versions that brought the project inline with post Robertson Panel politics. Still, the intent of the screening process, when viewed in its historical context, was to eliminate as many known natural and manmade objects or phenomena as possible.

No, the 1958 version was an earlier version which has since been outdated and superseded.

Simply because later versions don't go into the same detail as earlier versions doesn't mean they wanted to investigate birds, planets, blowing garbage or any other mundane objects any more than they did before. In other words, so what if they don't list every possible mundane object on the planet? We still know what screening was intended for ... to separate UFOs from every known natural or manmade object or phenomena as much as possible.

No, the later version goes into more detail, giving a guideline for some obvious mundane explanations that don't need to be reported. Almost as if they knew there were creduloids out there wanting to define alien spaceships into existence.

And yes we can safely presume the above with 100% confidence. What do you think would happen if a USAF pilot chose to report a blowing piece of tin foil as a UFO and used the excuse, "Well it doesn't say not to report them." Get the point?

No, creduloid pseudoscientists assume the above with 100% confidence, like any other religion. Do you really think a pilot would see and recognize a bit of blowing tinfoil and report it as a UFO? Why would the pilot lie like that?

Now, if what they were looking for wasn't anything manmade, and it wasn't anything natural, what else could they have been looking for? The only thing left is unnatural and non-manmade ... and if we didn't make it who did? The only thing left to conclude is something alien, at least to our experience and understanding. This does not necessitate the inclusion of E.T. but it certainly excludes human civilaztion, and that still makes it alien to us.

No, the only thing left to conclude in 1958 is that it's Russian. They were actually still part of human civilization in 1958. So are you saying that Russia is not part of civilization? <- That was a strawman. How did you like it?

Now the other crucial point I'm making is that this doesn't prove that the objects in those reports were actually alien craft. All it proves is what they were looking for were alien craft. Again this speaks to the meaning of the word UFO. It is not and never has been a word that was intended to simply mean what the separate definitions of the words that formed the acronym are defined as. It is a complete misrepresentation to claim that any such definition is accurate. The word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft. It always has and it always will.

UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. If someone has identified an alien spaceship, that would no longer be Unidentified. You might be confusing "UFO" with the term "Alien Space Ship".

 

[RoboTimbo]

You do make some good points sometimes though, and I respect your opinion that so far as you're concerned, you choose to assume no alien craft have ever been seen, at least until such time as your null hypothesis is proven false ... or perhaps the day you see one for yourself. All I ask in the meantime is that you don't confuse your fair assumptions with certain proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It isn't his null hypothesis, it is reality's null hypothesis. Is that why you don't "believe" in it? You should not confuse your unevidenced assumptions with reality, you know.

Now that you have again shown that you have no comprehension about what a null hypothesis is or what it does, how can we make it simpler for you to understand? You still need to give your own example. I think that would aid in your comprehension.

 

[Resume]

To be mundan is exactly what the invaders would want you to think.

Please look at this flashy thingee . . .

 

[Aepervius]

Tauri:

Again you must have missed the example I used from the person who insisted with such certainty that no world defense agencies have documents that would disclose the existence of aliens. That statement was defended with the null hypothesis by proposing that the null hypothesis is that they don't have such documents, and if it has not been falsified, then it must be true. That is not logical and constitutes and argument from ignorance. The same thing happened with a statement asserting with certainty that Earth has not been visited by aliens. The same fallacy applies there as well.

Nobody said that, and if you are speaking of my post, you are MISQUOTING it.

I said that all document I had access to are mundane, and all document released up to today are mundane, and NONE of them showed alien visitation, and by definition those which are secret, nobody knows about them except if they had been involved in the document redaction or reading.

That is way way different than what I bolded from your post.

*YOU* are the one pretending that *POSSIBLY* there is alien document in the secret one. The same innane reasoning can be held and say , "possibly there are Big foot document in the secret one" or even "possibly in the secret document dracula is mentionned".

The bottom line is that secret document= mundane is the null for the same reason that "all sighting=mundane origin even if origin not found" is the null.

Saying it is the null is way way different than saying it *CANNOT* be other than mundane.

Now we are waiting with baited breath (hehe) that you falsify both those null.

 

[Astrophotographer]

To be mundan is exactly what the invaders would want you to think.

So, what you are saying here is that the "invaders" are trying to appear as mundane objects like airplanes, balloons, meteors, stars, satellites, etc.? If this is true, how can you tell the difference? What is the difference between UFOs that mimic stars and star that is misperceived as a UFO (this is just like the invisible dragon in the garage!)? Which is more likely?