• 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.
23_Tauri said:
It's very important we get the semantics right, otherwise we won't know what we're discussing, will we? ;)
Click to expand...

in that case, are we talking about Musa acuminata, Musa balbisiana or hybrids Musa acuminata × balbisiana, perhaps you're using the fifties nomenclature Musa sapientum and Musa paradisiaca which have been phased out of general usage or perhaps this is a vague reference to Enset and Fe'i bananas, neither of which belong to the Musa genus. Either way, the term banana which is an almost meaningless popular name, is not an adequate description of whats being discussed
:D
 
Marduk said:
in that case, are we talking about Musa acuminata, Musa balbisiana or hybrids Musa acuminata × balbisiana, perhaps you're using the fifties nomenclature Musa sapientum and Musa paradisiaca which have been phased out of general usage or perhaps this is a vague reference to Enset and Fe'i bananas, neither of which belong to the Musa genus. Either way, the term banana which is an almost meaningless popular name, is not an adequate description of whats being discussed
:D
Click to expand...
fnitter.gif


Ah, that'll be an unidentified aerial Musa acuminata phenomenon when observed from a distance whilst still hanging from the banana tree.
 
Well until the fruit have been correctly identified for shape and genus, they could, I suppose just be classed as UFOs (Unidentified Fruit Objects)?
 
ufology said:
GeeMack:

It's not that I'm in dissagreement with what you are saying above. It's that it doesn't apply in the context I'm trying to get across. For example, we could say the same thing about unicorns. Although a few people claim to have seen them, unicorns probably don't exist, and a similar null hypothesis could be constructed. However the word "unicorn" still has a unique meaning and we don't need to wait to prove unicorns exist before defining what the word means. When we hear the word "unicorn" we visualize a particular mythological animal, not simply some vague four legged shape in the distance that could be a cow or a dog or almost anything.
Click to expand...
The null hypothesis is "There are no mythological creatures known as unicorns". Would you agree that that would be the correct null hypothesis? Do you assume that that null hypothesis is true? Why or why not?

Similarly the word "UFO" conjures up imagery of alien craft, and has done so ever since the word was invented. Tracing the word origin back we find that it was invented to replace the words "flying saucer", popularly believed to have been alien craft. Note here that I use the phrase "alien craft" synonymously with extraterrestrial spaceships or any other hypothesis that might be proposed to explain these craft other than as a natural or manmade objects or phenomenon. The typical shape is the ubiquitous domed saucer, but there are several others ( spheres, triangles, cylinders etc. ). Again, we are not talking about some vague shape in the distance that could be anything. We are conveying the idea that object we see is extraordinary and non-mundane.
Click to expand...
Similarly, the null hypothesis is "All UFOs are mundane in origin". You may wish to start a thread about Alien Space Ships so that this one won't be derailed. Alternatively, you could offer actual evidence that any UFOs have been Alien Space Ships. Right now there is none so the null hypothesis is "All UFOs are mundane in origin". You would agree that it would be pseudoscientific to think otherwise, yes?

As for scientifically proving these things exist, I agree that your take is reasonable within the parameters you set forth. Perhaps someday evidence that meets your criteria for acceptance will emerge. In the meantime, I choose to investigate and study the remaining evidence. I enjoy reading about UFO sightings and talking to people about their experiences. That doesn't mean I believe everything I'm told. But even what I consider to be highly contentious can be very interesting.
Click to expand...
You enjoy your fantasy. Yes, we know.

ufology, do you yet understand how the null hypothesis works or what its purpose is? Do you understand why the null hypothesis does apply to the claim that "Some UFOs are Alien Space Ships"?
 
RoboTimbo said:
ufology, do you yet understand how the null hypothesis works or what its purpose is? Do you understand why the null hypothesis does apply to the claim that "Some UFOs are Alien Space Ships"?
Click to expand...

its not the null hypothesis that hes having problems with. Its the concept of falsifiability
I've asked him three times if he understood it, my question was ignored twice and on the other occaison he thought it was a trick question

someone explain it to him
;)
 
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a null hypothesis. It means that the claim of guilt from the accuser is to be assumed wrong until he has enough evidence supporting him. And then they go to court where both sides show evidence.

The most general null hypothesis is "Any claim is assumed wrong until it's supported by enough evidence."

For any claim to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Sometimes, a claim isn't falsifiable, and you can instead invert it into the null hypothesis, which then can be falsified instead. If the inverse of a statement is false, the original statement is true.

Your claim is apparently "UFO means alien spacecraft." The only way UFO can mean alien spacecraft is if some UFOs actually are alien spacecraft, so your claim is really "Some UFOs are alien spacecraft. This claim can be shown true, but can not be falsified, so it's not a scientific claim. But remember, you claim must be assumed false until you have evidence. Its null hypothesis, the assumed falsity of your claim, is "No UFO is an alien craft," or more precisely "All UFOs are of mundane origin."

This null hypothesis is the inverse of your hypothesis, which means its properties are also inverted. Your claim can be proved but not falsified. Its null can not be proved, but can be falsified. This is important. Science doesn't prove anything, it falsifies statements until what's left is the most likely truth.

To falsify this null hypothesis, you just show one UFO that is an alien spacecraft. How you do this is another topic. Once you do, the null is falsified, and so your claim is shown to be true. And that's all you have to do. Find one alien spacecraft.
 
Marduk said:
its not the null hypothesis that hes having problems with. Its the concept of falsifiability
I've asked him three times if he understood it, my question was ignored twice and on the other occaison he thought it was a trick question

someone explain it to him
;)
Click to expand...

Sceptic teddy and his friends are on the train to Berkshire.
"Look," says one bear, "a black dog."
"Ah!" Declared Silver knowingly. "Everybody knows Berkshire Wolves are black. That isawolf."
"Oh!" Said the bears, not wanting sound silly. "Yes."
"But we need to test that!" Said Sceptic Ted. "At the moment we know there is one dog in Berkshire which appears black at this distance. We should first try to prove the idea it is a wolf false by seeing if there are other dogs, if any of those are black, and if there is evidence that we saw one of those. Then compare it to the evidence that what we saw was a wolf."
"Or a vampire?"
"Erm, shall we stick to dogs?"
 
Marduk said:
its not the null hypothesis that hes having problems with. Its the concept of falsifiability
I've asked him three times if he understood it, my question was ignored twice and on the other occaison he thought it was a trick question

someone explain it to him
;)
Click to expand...

Falsification is an important criteria for any useful hypothesis as one that can seemingly explain everything, actually explains nothing. Confirmation is cheap. It is easy to create narratives that accommodate all possible observations. Falsification is a way of sorting the wheat from the chaff - the science from the pseudoscience.

Karl Popper, who brought this problem to attention, gave this example:
I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behavior: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child). I could not think of any human behavior which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact—that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed—which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favor of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.
Click to expand...
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

I have a question, though. Could someone explain why/ or if it is the case that falsifiable hypotheses - those that tell us the way the world should not be on making new observations - are more useful in science? How is it that this sort can lead to technological applications?
 
Ufology

falsifying god

God created the world
the bible proves it because God wrote the bible
therefore by using the bible alone you cannot prove God a false concept
now if you turn that on its head
God didn't create the world
the bible which then because of the inversion becomes worthless can't prove it
so you look at the other evidence
which overwhelmingly shows that the creation of the world was a natural process
now if the original premise was true, all the things we see in nature, all the mountains, the cosmos, the air we breathe, the water we drink etc etc would all point to a divine creator because there was no evidence that they could have arisen naturally, this would then show that even when inverted the original premise "God exists" is still true

so the people who use the bible as proof of god are not being scientific
those that are not using the bible but still believe, they are using faith, which still isn't scientific, but at least its understandable and worthy of respect as a personal choice.
This is the approach that you should take, admit there is no solid evidence but that you have faith that some day there will be
no one here could then deny you your personal faith in the future
;)

ask yourself this simple question
a man approaches you and tells you that he has met god, that he has talked to him
that God is called Tangaroa and that only polynesian peoples worship the true lord, that he is the real true God
would you believe that Tangaroa was the true God, just because one man has offered anecdotal evidence of his existence
No, neither would we
:p
you are currently that man here
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
GeeMack:

It's not that I'm in dissagreement with what you are saying above. It's that it doesn't apply in the context I'm trying to get across. For example, we could say the same thing about unicorns. Although a few people claim to have seen them, unicorns probably don't exist, and a similar null hypothesis could be constructed. However the word "unicorn" still has a unique meaning and we don't need to wait to prove unicorns exist before defining what the word means. When we hear the word "unicorn" we visualize a particular mythological animal, not simply some vague four legged shape in the distance that could be a cow or a dog or almost anything.

Similarly the word "UFO" conjures up imagery of alien craft, and has done so ever since the word was invented. Tracing the word origin back we find that it was invented to replace the words "flying saucer", popularly believed to have been alien craft. Note here that I use the phrase "alien craft" synonymously with extraterrestrial spaceships or any other hypothesis that might be proposed to explain these craft other than as a natural or manmade objects or phenomenon. The typical shape is the ubiquitous domed saucer, but there are several others ( spheres, triangles, cylinders etc. ). Again, we are not talking about some vague shape in the distance that could be anything. We are conveying the idea that object we see is extraordinary and non-mundane.
Click to expand...
Tosh and piffle. That is the worst analogy I've read in a long while. The equivalent would be "unidentified grazing ungulate", not "unicorn". We say unicorn because we can identify it by characteristics particular to that beast, most notably its unicorn's horn.
 
Marduk said:
Ufology

falsifying god

so the people who use the bible as proof of god are not being scientific
those that are not using the bible but still believe, they are using faith, which still isn't scientific, but at least its understandable and worthy of respect as a personal choice.
This is the approach that you should take, admit there is no solid evidence but that you have faith that some day there will be
no one here could then deny you your personal faith in the future
;)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I still have a problem with "worthy of respect as a personal choice" when the special pleading and arguments from ignorance are used to take advantage of other people.
Televangelists may or may not believe the bilge they spout, but the fact that they manipulate other people for their own gain is despicable, regardless.

Likewise UFO authors and so forth who use dishonest argument in an effort to drum up more business. As with the televangelists, it may be good business, being what sells, but it's still despicable behavior.
 
TjW said:
I'm sorry, I still have a problem with "worthy of respect as a personal choice" when the special pleading and arguments from ignorance are used to take advantage of other people.
Televangelists may or may not believe the bilge they spout, but the fact that they manipulate other people for their own gain is despicable, regardless.

Likewise UFO authors and so forth who use dishonest argument in an effort to drum up more business. As with the televangelists, it may be good business, being what sells, but it's still despicable behavior.
Click to expand...

okay
addendum
TJW will not respect your faith in the future for real Alien evidence
:D
I would though
;)

23_Tauri said:
Tosh and piffle. That is the worst analogy I've read in a long while. The equivalent would be "unidentified grazing ungulate", not "unicorn". We say unicorn because we can identify it by characteristics particular to that beast, most notably its unicorn's horn.
Click to expand...
would this be a good time to mention that Unicorns only exist in the first place because a greek traveller (Cosmas Indicopleustes) created them through an anecdote of a misidentified sculpture he saw of a gazelle in profile ?
and that the evidence for their existence since then was fabricated purely for personal gain ?
probably not at all like "flying saucers"
:D
 
Last edited:
I'm perfectly willing to respect evidence. Just not the personal choice of fleecing the gullible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom