UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Resume:

I have already acknowledged several times that I don't have scientific proof, material or otherwise to present as evidence. That doesn't mean alien craft haven't visited Earth or aren't still here.

It does mean that the null hypothesis that all UFOs are of mundane origin is still intact.

Can we assume that you've finally acknowledged that as well or are there some more weasel words that you'll be posting anon to get out of doing so?

It just means that the evidence presented so far isn't good enough for you to accept.

It means that no evidence has been presented, Wilbur. No need to try and make it sound as though we share your subjectivity.

That's fine, I don't expect you or anyone else to blindly believe anything.

I think you do, but like most things you have a different understanding of blind belief to the rest of us.

 

[Akhenaten]

Truth in ufology's world is something quite detached from reality. Establishing the truth obviously does not mean the same thing to "ufologists" as it does to critically thinking people. The skeptics' position, quite contrary to ufology's, does not reject reality in order to maintain a belief in aliens.

So yeah, sure ufology, we'll acknowledge that you're hoping to establish the truth, your very own special pleading, argument from ignorance truth, a truth which by your own definition doesn't correspond with reality of any sort.

GeeMack:

You've taken a partial quote and posted it out of context to misrepresent my position. For the benefit of the readers, I was asked to describe a situation where truth doesn't correspond to objective reality, and I illustrated how it can occur.

Fiddlesticks.

And instead of banging on about doing things for the benefit of the readers, what about learning to quote properly so the poor bastiges can figure out who said what in these attempted retellings of yours?

The specific question was:

Q. Tell us about a situation where truth doesn't correspond to objective reality.

My answer was as follows:

A. Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

No context is required. The above is quite simply wrong.

As it happens, leaving out what you call context was doing you a favour.

Truth is about a said premise. For example, it is true that in Canada, 100 cents equals 1 dollar.

So far, so good.

So I'm presuming that what you really mean to ask is what situation could there be for a premise to be true outside the context of objective reality. In this case the answer would be a subjective situation, as described in my initial definition.

What a load of hooey. The question was perfectly clear until you added all that malarkey to it.

To provide another example, if you have any imagination, you could close your eyes and see a small pink elephant inside a brown room with hardwood floors. And when you see that small pink elephant in that brown room with hardwood floors, that small pink elephant is truly there in the imaginary room. After all, if it weren't there in the imaginary room we would have to say that it isn't true that it is there in the imaginary room.

That you think the above gobbledygook has anything to do with either the truth or with objective reality is symptomatic of the huge problems from which most of your arguments suffer. It's complete bollocks.

There are both objective and subjective truths.

Unfortunately for you and yay for the rest of us, the subjective truth that you subscribe to (the one with the pink elephants in it) has nothing to do with reality.

So as the readers can now see, you either don't comprehend the concept that truth corresponds to a given premise and that reality is a separate issue that provides context, making it either objective or subjective; or you do comprehend what was illustrated and have intentionally misrepresented my position. Please tell us all which one you prefer us to think?

What the readers can now see is exactly what they could see before - that for you, truth and reality are subject to exactly the same type of redefinition that you apply to just about everything else.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Resume:

I have already acknowledged several times that I don't have scientific proof, material or otherwise to present as evidence. That doesn't mean alien craft haven't visited Earth or aren't still here. It just means that the evidence presented so far isn't good enough for you to accept. That's fine, I don't expect you or anyone else to blindly believe anything.

It is very clear that your evidence bar is set so low as to accept near anything as being true. The only thing that prevents you from accepting fairies and unicorns is that they don't fit into your world view.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent:

In order to establish parameters, please choose an independent definition for the word "evidence" and include your references. Then we can discuss the evidence ( if any ).

I did that a few posts before you said that! Any recognised as valid by the conventions of the scientific method will do just fine. I even linked to the wiki description which is the loosest most general description around. To make it easier for you to wriggle around in thosedefinitions.

 

[23_Tauri]

Oh Sweet Baby Jeebus a-lying in the manger, are we really now bogged down in a debate about what is the definition of 'evidence'?

Look, you've made my kitty cry, folo

folo, why not just come up with some evidence instead of doing this lame semantic dance all the time. Here, I'll give you hand: an alien spaceship. That would constitute evidence of aliens visiting here in their spaceship. See, it really isn't that difficult.

 

[ufology]

It's 'granted', not 'grant it'.

Belonging to one of the other civilisations that we share the planet with, eh?

Does this have anything to do with the Space Fishes? I was lookinig forward to hearing more about those.

Akhenaten:

Granted or "grant it" ... whatever; and since we're being picky, you might want to check your spelling on "civilisations".

The interpretation of alien as being from outside of our human civilization implies that UFOs may come from a place on Earth not connected with human civilization ( any nation or culture known to exist on Earth ). I think the chance of this is unlikely because we have explored so much of the planet that we should have discovered them by now. However because we don't know for certain where UFOs originate, we can't rule it out either.

 

[ufology]

Oh Sweet Baby Jeebus a-lying in the manger, are we really now bogged down in a debate about what is the definition of 'evidence'?

Tauri:

I was asked for evidence, so I just asked you to define "evidence" so we have agreed parameters for discussion. Please provide your chosen definition along with references. It shouldn't be too hard. Go ahead and pick any independent dictionary you want ... I'm waiting.

 

[John Albert]

The interpretation of alien as being from outside of our human civilization implies that UFOs may come from a place on Earth not connected with human civilization ( any nation or culture known to exist on Earth ). I think the chance of this is unlikely because we have explored so much of the planet that we should have discovered them by now. However because we don't know for certain where UFOs originate, we can't rule it out either.

See, kids? This is the kind of nonsense you open yourself up to when you decide to believe any old story that comes along without any evidence to back it up!

 

[ufology]

It is very clear that your evidence bar is set so low as to accept near anything as being true. The only thing that prevents you from accepting fairies and unicorns is that they don't fit into your world view.

Sideroxylon:

In the past I've suggested possible explanations for sightings other than as UFOs ( alien craft ), so I've already proven your assumption wrong.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sideroxylon:

In the past I've suggested possible explanations for sightings other than as UFOs ( alien craft ), so I've already proven your assumption wrong.

And that is the approach I don't see enough of among the UFO "research" community. Your website doesn't reflect a rigorous and intellectually honest approach either. From a few unidentified lights in the sky as well as incredible and unverifiable stories of face to face or spiritual encounters, we arrive at the view the world has a long history of interaction with a pantheon of alien visitors, complete with government cover ups.

You come here and try to present the relatively sane face of UFO "research" but are very shy of the malarkey. It is easy to see how low your evidence bar is. Your website would be a very different place with the application of any kind of honest inquiry.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tauri:

I was asked for evidence, so I just asked you to define "evidence" so we have agreed parameters for discussion. Please provide your chosen definition along with references. It shouldn't be too hard. Go ahead and pick any independent dictionary you want ... I'm waiting.

And the definition has been posted! What are you still waiting for?

Any form accepted by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

"Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences.Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism."


When you are claiming to be waiting for something that has been posted already, that is what we call a "lie".

 

[Garrison]

Sideroxylon:

In the past I've suggested possible explanations for sightings other than as UFOs ( alien craft ), so I've already proven your assumption wrong.

Not when you once again try to slip in your UFO=Alien spacecraft nonsense you haven't. As long as you insist on that equivalence you aren't so much setting the bar low as laying it flat on the ground.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sideroxylon:

In the past I've suggested possible explanations for sightings other than as UFOs ( alien craft ), so I've already proven your assumption wrong.

Of course the sticking point is the fact you STILL insist that unidentified flying objects equate to alien craft, even in the sentence where you suggest other explanations. UFO does not mean "alien craft", alien craft means alien craft, UFO means anything yet to be identified.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri:

I was asked for evidence, so I just asked you to define "evidence" so we have agreed parameters for discussion. Please provide your chosen definition along with references. It shouldn't be too hard. Go ahead and pick any independent dictionary you want ... I'm waiting.

I don't need a dictionary, thank you.

Evidence for the existence of alien spaceships = an alien spaceship.

Simples.

 

[Agatha]

It's 'granted', not 'grant it'.

Belonging to one of the other civilisations that we share the planet with, eh?

Does this have anything to do with the Space Fishes? I was lookinig forward to hearing more about those.

Akhenaten:

Granted or "grant it" ... whatever; and since we're being picky, you might want to check your spelling on "civilisations".

The interpretation of alien as being from outside of our human civilization implies that UFOs may come from a place on Earth not connected with human civilization ( any nation or culture known to exist on Earth ). I think the chance of this is unlikely because we have explored so much of the planet that we should have discovered them by now. However because we don't know for certain where UFOs originate, we can't rule it out either.

Akhenaten spelled 'civilisations' correctly, so I am at a loss to know what you are on about. Particularly since he did make a typo that you didn't catch. If you use firefox, you'll find that misspellings are automatically underlined in red.

Tomtomkent has pointed out that the definition of 'evidence' has been posted more than once, what are you waiting for?

No amount of Rredefinition™ is going to turn Unidentified Flying Objects into alien craft; only evidence will do that. So far, there has been no evidence.

 

[23_Tauri]

And the definition has been posted! What are you still waiting for?

Any form accepted by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

"Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences.Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism."


When you are claiming to be waiting for something that has been posted already, that is what we call a "lie".

Thank you tomtomkent. That is very clear.

On the subject of the standard of evidence required, it might be worth folo learning something from the boffins at CERN today. Because the repercussions of what Dr Ereditato and his colleagues have observed are so immensely profound in terms of what we know about the universe and our current understanding of physics, the scientists are not satisfied to accept the evidence that they have so far collected as definitive proof that faster than light speeds are possible. This is despite the fact that they've shot neutrinos over to Italy sixteen thousand times. Sixteen thousand times, folo! And yet, these scientists are still not convinced. Why, becuase these guys are at the top of their game and they know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They won't be happy until other physicists can check for errors, repeat the experiments and get the same result. In the words of Dr Ereditato:

"My dream would be that another, independent experiment finds the same thing - then I would be relieved. But for now, we are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is crazy".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

See the stark contrast between this real science in action and the 'evidence' that is accepted by pseudoscientific UFOlogists who will accept anecdote as proof of the extraordinary (aliens visiting Earth).

'Nuff said.

 

[Stray Cat]

Akhenaten:

Granted or "grant it" ... whatever;

That's whichever.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whichever

 

[23_Tauri]

That's whichever.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whichever

Yeah, wha' evv-VARR........

 

[GeeMack]

When you are claiming to be waiting for something that has been posted already, that is what we call a "lie".

... and, in some people's worlds, appears to be the same thing as truth, since truth itself, from their perspective, doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality. I'd think being unwilling or unable to differentiate between what is true and what is not true, what is real and what is not, would be quite foreign to most folk's ways of thinking.

 

[edge]

So particles can travel faster than light?
So where could a person get one of these particle accelerators?
When traveling through rock they aren't affected, very interesting.
So how would this fit in with aliens?
Is this proof of what we will call Warp1 in the future?
Seems like the more we discover the more possible that aliens have been here.