UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[aggle-rithm]

I've already given my own evidence and referenced evidence by others, so you are just plain wrong about me not having evidence.

No meaningful evidence.

So why not just come right out and say there isn't any evidence anywhere ...

No meaningful evidence anywhere.

 

[John Albert]

Mr. Albert,

I've already given my own evidence and referenced evidence by others, so you are just plain wrong about me not having evidence. So why not just come right out and say there isn't any evidence anywhere ... that's what you really mean right? None of the written records we have from eyewitnesses count as evidence for you ... none ... right?

You've told stories. Stories are claims, not evidence.

I have no idea if there is any actual evidence out there somewhere, but I haven't seen it. Not being a religious/superstitious/overly credulous person, I have no other choice but to assume no evidence exists until I see some. Stories, anecdotes, accounts, etc. do not stand as evidence for themselves.

The way you're addressing this argument, it's as if you think it hasn't already been explained to you countless times in this very thread, among others (the "Is Ufology a Pseudoscience" thread also comes to mind). The issue has been thoroughly addressed, but you stubbornly refuse to learn.

Critical thinking requires that claims be supported by evidence. Believing a story without evidence does not constitute a critical approach.

Tauri,

...your "witch" [/I]analogy is a strawman argument ... so weave some more baskets with it.

It's not a strawman argument, it's an analogy.

You should first learn the definitions of logical fallacies before you go around accusing others of committing them. I can't believe that after all the instances where your own logical fallacies have been pointed out to you—including references to definitions, complete with examples and everything—you still haven't bothered to learn how to identify even the most basic of them.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Mr. Albert,

I've already given my own evidence and referenced evidence by others, so you are just plain wrong about me not having evidence. So why not just come right out and say there isn't any evidence anywhere ... that's what you really mean right? None of the written records we have from eyewitnesses count as evidence for you ... none ... right?

No. You made a claim. You can not substantiate your "testimony" and you have changed each and every "calculation", ergo it can not be relied upon. It is not evidence. NOT EVIDENCE! How can you not get that by now?

Millions of people see UFOs. Some of them may even think it was aliens. But millions of people think folks in the middle ages believed the world was flat, despite this being a myth created in the Victorian age. Millions of people thinking they saw something means nothing. Because it's not evidence.

 

[ufology]

No they are not. They are CLAIMS not EVIDENCE.
Once again (amazing how ufology has never bothered to debate where he has a problem understanding this):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Now we see the poster above using the classic tactic of moving the goalposts from "evidence" to "scientific evidence". Please note that the thread topic does not specify "scientific evidence" only "evidence", so the attempt at moving the goal posts with respect to the parameters of this thread is not valid.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tauri,

Exactly ... it's not amazing to you. And your "witch" analogy is a strawman argument ... so weave some more baskets with it.

So when somebody claims to have seen a witch that is dumb. They have no evidence. But when they claim to have seen a UFO or alien, that is entirely different?

Nope, not sure how that is a strawman. Witch trials sometimes even tried to corroborate evidence. More than ufology has done.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Now we see the poster above using the classic tactic of moving the goalposts from "evidence" to "scientific evidence". Please note that the thread topic does not specify "scientific evidence" only "evidence", so the attempt at moving the goal posts with respect to the parameters of this thread is not valid.

Moving the goalposts? That is the same link that has been posted by me before. And before that. So back when you asked what we meant by evidence that was the answer. This is meant to be a surprise? After all the times it has been explained, after all the times folks have said that stories are not evidence, how far have the goal posts moved? As they seem to be sitting exactly where they were left before.


But prey tell, what discipline allows unverifiable annectdotes as evidence? Not testimony, not signed and sworn statements, but good old stories? Go ahead, show me please. Don't try and fob it off as "oral history", "sociological research," or anything else. Those have to be recorded and documented, which as far as I can tell no ufologist has ever got right.

 

[ufology]

So when somebody claims to have seen a witch that is dumb. They have no evidence. But when they claim to have seen a UFO or alien, that is entirely different?

Nope, not sure how that is a strawman. Witch trials sometimes even tried to corroborate evidence. More than ufology has done.

Tomtomkent,

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


In the comeback, UFOs were replaced by "witches" a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition. This is a very clear strawman. Now Tomtomkent is denying the strawman and using it again. Denial is another common tactic. Typical ... typical ... typical ...

 

[John Albert]

That wasn't a strawman. It was an analogy, and quite an apt one at that.

If it were a strawman, she would have framed it as an argument against something which you never said in the first place. She did not do that. All she did was present an example of an analogous historical situation where public hysteria was mishandled with credulity through official channels.

If you feel Tauri's analogy is a false one, then you ought to provide relevant points of reasoning to demonstrate where her analogy differs from the situation it's being compared to.

Now we see the poster above using the classic tactic of moving the goalposts from "evidence" to "scientific evidence". Please note that the thread topic does not specify "scientific evidence" only "evidence", so the attempt at moving the goal posts with respect to the parameters of this thread is not valid.

Again, you accuse somebody of a logical fallacy without understanding what it means. Requiring evidence instead of accepting mere claims on their own, is not "moving the goalposts." Requiring evidence instead of accepting mere claims on their own is the whole point of this thread.

An example of "moving the goalposts" would be what you did by suddenly attempting to change the definition of the acronym "UFO" in the middle of an ongoing discussion.

How many times do we need to say it, before you get it through that noggin of yours:

Anecdotes are claims.
Claims do not represent evidence for themselves.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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".

Yeah I moved those goalposts SO far...

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent,

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


In the comeback, UFOs were replaced by "witches" a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition. This is a very clear strawman. Now Tomtomkent is denying the strawman and using it again. Denial is another common tactic. Typical ... typical ... typical ...

So you ARENT saying that simple stories, such as those about witches, Aliens, ghosts, mudmonsters, mermaids or anything yet to be established by actual evidence should be considered evidence in and of themselves?

You were not infact saying that if enough people have claimed to see individual phenomona without coroborating each other, that is evidence?

Perhaps you can explain why a UFO being an alein craft should be treated by different rules to witches, or ghosts, mudmonsters, mermaids, angels, etc?

 

[Garrison]

Now we see the poster above using the classic tactic of moving the goalposts from "evidence" to "scientific evidence". Please note that the thread topic does not specify "scientific evidence" only "evidence", so the attempt at moving the goal posts with respect to the parameters of this thread is not valid.

I don't think you are in any position to complain about moving goalposts. So far you have presented no evidence at all, just your endlessly revised yarn and a series of attempts to redefine terms.

 

[GeeMack]

Hmm ... let's think that over ... thousnads and thousnads of people over decades and decades have reported seeing UFOs ( alien craft ) things they couldn't identify. Now even if that were the only evidence we have, that alone would still be amazing. Add to that the sightings confirmed by radar and that adds instrumented verification.

Fixed it for you. And no, thousands of people seeing things they couldn't identify isn't amazing at all. It's exactly what we'd expect given our understanding of the limits of people's perceptive capabilities.

 

[ufology]

That wasn't a strawman. It was an analogy, and a perfectly apt one at that.
How many times do we need to say it, before you get it through that noggin of yours:

Anecdotes are claims.
Claims do not represent evidence for themselves.

Dear Readers,

Now we see more denial and the use of huge fonts, as though that somehow makes their position valid. They are also confusing the idea of "claims" and "evidence". The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft ), the evidence is their testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in dictionaries and courts of law and in this thread. Moving the goalposts to make "scientific evidence" the only allowable evidence is not valid. Points can be made regarding the validity of firsthand knowledge and anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be fairly ruled as inadmissible.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tauri,

Hmm ... let's think that over ... thousnads and thousnads of people over decades and decades have reported seeing UFOs ( alien craft ). Now even if that were the only evidence we have, that alone would still be amazing. Add to that the sightings confirmed by radar and that adds instrumented verification.

Because it sure looks like you are trying to say that people just seeing what they think are UFOs (and you think are alien) is enough.

Where exactly does the analogy become a straw man attack? Where do Aliens start being treated differently from anything else we can not prove to exist?

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri,

Exactly ... it's not amazing to you. And your "witch" analogy is a strawman argument ... so weave some more baskets with it.

Probably more of a Wicker Man than a strawman.

But seriously, why it is a strawman? I think it's a good analogy. Why does it fail, in your opinion?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Dear Readers,

Now we see more denial and the use of huge fonts, as though that somehow makes their position valid. They are also confusing the idea of "claims" and "evidence". The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft ), the evidence is their testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in dictionaries and courts of law and in this thread. Moving the goalposts to make "scientific evidence" the only allowable evidence is not valid. Points can be made regarding the validity of firsthand knowledge and anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be fairly ruled as inadmissible.

You know there are formalities for turning a story into testimony right? You know there are issues of format and how the testimony is recorded? How, when and where statements are taken, and if they can be validated?

What you have produced are claims. Not testimony.

Or do you think that if you just run into a court of law and scream "The funny looking in the light was an alien!" that will do?

You know that testimony is set, can not be revised, updated, made more *ahem* "accurate" or basically buggered about with like your own story?

You sure you know who is confused between claims and evidence? A claim can not be evidence for itself, as it does not validate itself.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So a little more about testimony:
The legal definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony
As this is a subject of science, the establishing of the presence of aliens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

Now let's read the legal definition again. You note how false testimony can result in a charge of purgery? Not applicable in the UFO world. What we have are statements at best, stories more often, not properly recorded, and with no "honesty clause" to ensure reliability. In other words: They could all be mistaken or lies.

Tsk. Not testimony then. Never mind.

 

[Garrison]

Dear Readers,

Now we see more denial and the use of huge fonts, as though that somehow makes their position valid. They are also confusing the idea of "claims" and "evidence". The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft ), the evidence is their testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in dictionaries and courts of law and in this thread. Moving the goalposts to make "scientific evidence" the only allowable evidence is not valid. Points can be made regarding the validity of firsthand knowledge and anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be fairly ruled as inadmissible.

It's been pointed that both empirical evidence from the criminal justice system of various countries and psychological experiments have shown how fallible eyewitness testimony is and how little weight should be placed on it. It may not be inadmissible but that doesn't mean it should be given any great credence either. That many people grossly overestimate its worth is one of the reasons the UFO phenomena hasn't died out completely.

 

[Resume]

Dear Readers,

Now we see more denial and the use of huge fonts, as though that somehow makes their position valid. They are also confusing the idea of "claims" and "evidence". The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft ), the evidence is their testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in dictionaries and courts of law and in this thread. Moving the goalposts to make "scientific evidence" the only allowable evidence is not valid. Points can be made regarding the validity of firsthand knowledge and anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be fairly ruled as inadmissible.

Who are these readers of which you speak?

One more time: The story is the claim, the evidence is that which you produce to corroborate the claim. An alien raygun for example.

 

[Marcus]

Does this mean you're vouching for the reliablity of cowroborating evidence?

Bjarne will be very proud if he reads this thread.