UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

Robo:

The point I'm making is that assuming the null hypothesis is true unless proven false is a mistake. In fact it is the same mistake as the argument from ignorance ( claiming something is true unless it is proven false ). To clarify further:

From Wikipedia:

"If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; that the observed dataset provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one."
​

So again, the most you can do is reserve judgment and keep doing whatever you're doing until it's proven false. In the quote above the "regime" they were talking about is medication. They aren't assuming their reason for continuing the medication is true, they simply don't have evidence to say it's not, so maintain the status quo. And even if assumption of truth were allowed ( which it's not ), that is still far from claiming it is true with certainty.

The above demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the concept of the null hypothesis, what its purpose is, how it is derived, and how it applies to the claim that Earth is being visited by aliens.

So again, I suggest that you get your facts straight before judging other's abilities to understand concepts.

RoboTimbo, by virtue of his clear understanding of the concept and purpose of the null hypothesis, has his facts straight.

 

[ufology]

Ufology, do you understand why any scientific claim must be falsifiable or not
a simple yes/no answer will suffice
thanks

The above is a loaded question. Please rephrase it.

 

[23_Tauri]

Aepervius:

Well then let's just have another look and clear this up then: To quote:

"Just because there are a few secret hidden from public knowledge, does that not mean that those secret pertain to alien or whatnot. The "secrets" I have been privy to, and signed NDA, were about technology usable for military, and the other I can see would be about infrastructure, tactic, and so forth. There is nothing extraordinary here and nothing about alien. absolutely nothing."

You do have comprehension problems. No one else on this board reads Aepervius' post (above) and thinks he is referring to all the documents in all the world. It is as clear as the nose on my face that Aepervius is referring to the documents that he had been privy to. Those were his words. That's what he meant. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do you misquote him?

I grant that you use the phrase, "The secrets I have been privy to." for the first part, and I'll asume you're telling the truth that you were actually privy to such documents. The part where you went off the rails seems to be here in this part:

"... and the other I can see would be about infrastructure, tactic, and so forth. There is nothing extraordinary here and nothing about alien. absolutely nothing."
​

So the question is:

1. Did your use of the word "other" mean the other documents you were not privy to ( as is implied )? If not, please explain.
2. Did your use of the word "here" not also refer to the documents you were not privy to? ( as is implied ). If not, please explain.

Oh, so even you didn't misread it, you're just pretending now that Aepervius' post was ambiguous to cover your earlier deceit. That's what it looks like to me, anyway.

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray:

Your assertions are not fully supported. However mine are, with references to both the definition and the innapropriate usage. By contrast, you simply hand wave on the references and definition and proclaim the reverse. If you think you are so right then get the examples I used and explain it rather than making unfounded comments.

There is no need for me to do anything, You're doing a great job of demonstrating you don't understand the concept of the null hypothesis without my help.

I was just pointing it out to you. If you'd like me stop pointing it out, start understanding it correctly.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Stray:

Your assertions are not fully supported. However mine are, with references to both the definition and the innapropriate usage. By contrast, you simply hand wave on the references and definition and proclaim the reverse. If you think you are so right then get the examples I used and explain it rather than making unfounded comments.

Your assertations about UFOs aren't supported.

But hey, I'll ask plainly; do you not understand the null, or are you deliberately trying to redefine it? Are you silly or dishonest?

 

[ufology]

Where is your evidence that documents confirming alien visits to earth are hidden?

Jocce:

I'm not claiming that documents confirming alien visits to Earth are being hidden. I'm claiming that UFO reports and other relevant documents are being withheld. I also give the opinion that the world's military infrastructure has the means to do the tracking and investigation of UFOs and that they probably have evidence the skeptics would accept. I don't make this as a scientific claim. It is merely my opinion.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Jocce:

I'm not claiming that documents confirming alien visits to Earth are being hidden. I'm claiming that UFO reports and other relevant documents are being withheld. I also give the opinion that the world's military infrastructure has the means to do the tracking and investigation of UFOs and that they probably have evidence the skeptics would accept. I don't make this as a scientific claim. It is merely my opinion.

They aren't hidden. Just secret.

Just for the record, this post seems todirectly contradict what you have claimed, andargued against.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

The point I'm making is that assuming the null hypothesis is true unless proven false is a mistake. In fact it is the same mistake as the argument from ignorance ( claiming something is true unless it is proven false ). To clarify further:

No, assuming the null hypothesis is true until it is falsified is the correct position to take. And it is nothing like an argument from ignorance. If you don't understand fallacies, you really shouldn't try to explain them to people who do. You should simply continue to use them.

From Wikipedia:

"If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; that the observed dataset provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one."

Ah good, you need to actually pay attention to the bolded part because you've mentally skipped over it. Read it and paraphrase it back to me so that I'll know you understand that, at least.

So again, the most you can do is reserve judgment and keep doing whatever you're doing until it's proven false. In the quote above the "regime" they were talking about is medication. They aren't assuming their reason for continuing the medication is true, they simply don't have evidence to say it's not, so maintain the status quo. And even if assumption of truth were allowed ( which it's not ), that is still far from claiming it is true with certainty.

So you're reserving judgment about coins turning into butterflies and fairies in the garden then? If not, why not?

So again, I suggest that you get your facts straight before judging other's abilities to understand concepts.

Yes, and it is a goofy thing for you to suggest. I'd suggest that you make a token effort to understand and really comprehend the null hypothesis which you obviously have no grasp on even now.

 

[Marduk]

The above is a loaded question. Please rephrase it.

it a simple enough question only paranoia would make someone think otherwise
do you understand what falsifiability is ?
yes/no

 

[John Albert]

The point I'm making is that assuming the null hypothesis is true unless proven false is a mistake. In fact it is the same mistake as the argument from ignorance ( claiming something is true unless it is proven false ).

This is wrong.

A proper null hypothesis is supported by current scientific theory and knowledge. It already has the majority of evidence on its side.

An argument from ignorance says, "x is true unless you prove that it isn't."

The argument from ignorance is an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the person making the claim, onto the person challenging it. On the other hand, the whole point of a null hypothesis is to keep the research honest by ensuring that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.


Here's an example to illustrate the difference:

Alex and Beth both share a belief that faeries are living at the bottom of their garden.

Because that claim runs contrary to accepted wisdom and knowledge, the onus is on those two individuals to provide evidence to back it up.

Alex goes around town, boldly proclaiming his belief in faeries as the gods' own truth, challenging all skeptics with the assertion: "I know that faeries exist, so I don't have to provide evidence. I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes, and my firsthand experience is the best evidence there is. Therefore, you must prove me wrong!"

Beth adopts a different tactic. She decides to perform an experiment to prove these faeries exist. She uses an appropriately simple and falsifiable null hypothesis: "There are no faeries living at the bottom of my garden." Then she designs and sets up an experiment to falsify the null hypothesis, and thereby disprove the non-existence of garden faeries. All it will take is for her to capture conclusive, verifiable evidence of one single faerie to falsify the null hypothesis and forever change the scientific opinion regarding faeries.

Now, which of these two persons is engaging in an argument from ignorance fallacy, and which is pursuing the matter through proper, honest research toward advancing human knowledge?

So again, the most you can do is reserve judgment and keep doing whatever you're doing until it's proven false.

Alternatively, if you're smart you might recognize that what you've been doing all along hasn't been working. You might then decide to use your intellect to figure out a more effective approach to the problem. In so doing, you might actually devise a successful strategy by which evidence can be obtained to falsify the null hypothesis. That's how science is done. It involves hard work, not just sitting on one's ass waiting around for public opinion to change.

Ever hear the old saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results"?

 

[ufology]

The above demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the concept of the null hypothesis, what its purpose is, how it is derived, and how it applies to the claim that Earth is being visited by aliens.

RoboTimbo, by virtue of his clear understanding of the concept and purpose of the null hypothesis, has his facts straight.

Wow ... GeeMack ... welcome back! It's been a while. I hope everything has been OK for you and we can carry on ... hopefully not where we left off. I extend the offer that we shake and agree to be gentlemen ... what do you say?

Regarding the null hypothesis. If you want to oppose the explanation of the null hypothesis I posted, then take it up with Wikipedia. They are where I borrowed the quotes from. Or perhaps you could prove my assumption false by posting a contradicting explanation from another reputable and independent source.

BTW: A better choice of avatar this time around. It's not as likely to color people's views so much.

 

[Wudang]

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis

http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html

 

[Jocce]

Jocce:

I'm not claiming that documents confirming alien visits to Earth are being hidden. I'm claiming that UFO reports and other relevant documents are being withheld.

Exactly. You are claiming that reports about alien visits are being withheld. You're the one who claims that UFO=alien so I can't interpret it in any other way. Or are you now changing your definition?

I also give the opinion that the world's military infrastructure has the means to do the tracking and investigation of UFOs and that they probably have evidence the skeptics would accept. I don't make this as a scientific claim. It is merely my opinion.

So now it's just your opinion that they probably have evidence of aliens visiting earth? Can you please make up your mind. Is it your opinion or an undeniable fact?

 

[ufology]

... A proper null hypothesis is supported by current scientific theory and knowledge. It already has the majority of evidence on its side.

An argument from ignorance says, "X is true because you can't prove that it isn't." ...

Mr. Albert:

Assuming the null hypothesis is true because it has not been proven false is exactly the same logic as the argument from ignorance you posted.

I backed up my statements with independent quotes and definitions, not faerie stories. Furthermore a null hypothesis may have no evidence whatsoever on its side to begin with, simply a supposition on what seems to be common sense. Practically speaking I would however conceed that in most cases it probably does have the majority of circumstantial evidence on its side ( scientific or otherwise ).

Now instead of merely posting "you're wrong" denials, try posting some independent corroborating evidence that demonstrates the Wikipedia explanation I quoted is wrong.

 

[carlitos]

A cherry-picked sentence from wikipedia talking about a medical protocol. How relevant and honest.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Jocce:

I'm not claiming that documents confirming alien visits to Earth are being hidden. I'm claiming that UFO reports and other relevant documents are being withheld.

You are quite confused. You have attempted to redefine UFO to mean aliens so which is it? You are claiming documents are being withheld or you are not claiming documents are being withheld?

I also give the opinion that the world's military infrastructure has the means to do the tracking and investigation of UFOs and that they probably have evidence the skeptics would accept. I don't make this as a scientific claim. It is merely my opinion.

Your opinion that fairies live in your garden and that coins turn into butterflies are equally valid to the above opinion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Mr. Albert:

Assuming the null hypothesis is true because it has not been proven false is exactly the same logic as the argument from ignorance you posted.

You can stop proving that you have no comprehension concerning what a null hypothesis is. Everyone is willing to concede that you do not understand it and it looks unlikely that you ever will.

I backed up my statements with independent quotes and definitions, not faerie stories. Furthermore a null hypothesis may have no evidence whatsoever on its side to begin with, simply a supposition on what seems to be common sense. Practically speaking I would however conceed that in most cases it probably does have the majority of circumstantial evidence on its side ( scientific or otherwise ).

No, you tried to back it up with cherry picked phrases which you didn't understand and thought supported your point. They actually prove you have no comprehension of what a null hypothesis is.

Now instead of merely posting "you're wrong" denials, try posting some independent corroborating evidence that demonstrates the Wikipedia explanation I quoted is wrong.

They've now been posted. Do you think your comprehension ability concerning what a null hypothesis is will improve after you've read those?

 

[John Albert]

Assuming the null hypothesis is true because it has not been proven false is exactly the same logic as the argument from ignorance you posted.

You're wrong again. The null hypothesis, "All UFOs are of mundane origin" is not assumed to be true because it has not been proven false.

It is assumed to be true because all UFO cases to date which have been "solved" were found to have resulted from mundane causes, whereas not a single UFO has ever been discovered to be of extraterrestrial / paranormal / call-it-what-you-will "non-mundane" origin.

I backed up my statements with independent quotes and definitions, not faerie stories.

I was hoping you'd at least appreciate the Black Sabbath reference.

The "faerie story" was simply an application of a well-worn analogy to the concept of the null hypothesis.

It doesn't matter what the subject is. All that matters is that it represents an obvious challenge to the established science. Are you really so incapable of abstract thinking that you can't even extrapolate from such a direct analogy as that?

Furthermore a null hypothesis may have no evidence whatsoever on its side to begin with, simply a supposition on what seems to be common sense. Practically speaking I would however conceed that in most cases it probably does have the majority of circumstantial evidence on its side ( scientific or otherwise ).

So now the guy who has thus far stubbornly refused to grasp the basic underlying concepts of hypotheses, has all of a sudden become the expert on null hypotheses?

Then why don't you do as I did above, and provide an example of how a null hypothesis might be used in a simple scientific experiment? Be sure to explain the purpose it serves in countering the researcher's own personal biases.

Now instead of merely posting "you're wrong" denials, try posting some independent corroborating evidence that demonstrates the Wikipedia explanation I quoted is wrong.

I'm not here to mince words with you. I just explained in plain language, with clear logic, why you're wrong. I even gave an example to illustrate why your approach is wrongheaded and what the proper approach would be, should you ever develop an interest in conducting honest research instead of trolling skeptics' forums on the Internet.

 

[GeeMack]

Regarding the null hypothesis. If you want to oppose the explanation of the null hypothesis I posted, then take it up with Wikipedia. They are where I borrowed the quotes from. Or perhaps you could prove my assumption false by posting a contradicting explanation from another reputable and independent source.

Your interpretation is wrong, your assumption is incorrect, your quotes were dishonestly selected and presented, and your argument has failed. The claim is that some things which appear to be flying objects but which have not been identified as some particular known thing (unidentified flying objects, UFOs), are some sort of alien or extraterrestrial craft. Because of the claim -- because of the claim -- the null hypothesis is...

All UFOs are of mundane origin.​

Like it or not, that's where we start. It's just how explaining reality works. It's not really open to interpretation whether intentionally dishonest, due to problems understanding, because of confirmation bias, or otherwise. If those making the claim that some UFOs are alien craft are unable to falsify the null hypothesis, then it stands as-is.

 

[Marduk]

ufology
do you understand what falsifiability is ?
yes/no