UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Correa Neto]

I can has "cynic technocrat scientific skeptic" as title?

 

[John Albert]

Any word yet on the null hypothesis, J.R.? Or do you plan on rudely and dishonestly ignoring this post as well?

I've just finished reading through the last few pages that had been posted yesterday while I was out. I have to say I'm still perplexed about this null hypothesis issue. How can it still be so difficult to comprehend, even after all the exhaustive explanations we've given?


Please allow me the courtesy of taking one more whack at explaining it. OK?

The concept of a null hypothesis is not complicated, but it requires a grasp of the concept of falsification. Falsification means the disproving or nullification of an idea or concept. It is a very important concept to science.


First of all, the main points:

• A null hypothesis is not a normal kind of hypothesis. That is, it is not created with the intent of proving it, nor is it assumed to be a proven fact.

• The null hypothesis is basically the default assumption that the researcher's hypothesis is not true.

• It is merely assumed as a default position (due to lack of evidence), until such evidence is confirmed to falsify (disprove) it.

• The researcher does not have to believe the null hypothesis is true; in fact the entire point of the research is to falsify it.

• The null hypothesis is to be stated in the simplest and broadest possible terms, in order to make it easy to falsify in an unambiguous way.

• The only reason it is there is to eliminate confirmation bias from the research.

• The null hypothesis is applicable to any field of research that studies the objective, material Universe.

Note that at no point is the null hypothesis intended or assumed to be proven, it is merely assumed true on the basis that no evidence exists to refute it. Critical thinking posits that without evidence, a claim is not to be assumed true. Of course that does not mean it is assumed to be false either, but there is simply no good reason to believe it.


Here's a hypothetical example:

Let's assume for the purpose of this example that an ornithologist has received unconfirmed reports that white crows have been sighted in his local area. He personally has never seen an albino crow, but he suspects that such a thing might exist, so he decides to investigate the matter.

So the hypothesis he seeks to prove in his research is:

"Some crows are white."

Now the prevailing science dictates that all crows have black feathers. In the absence of evidence, there's simply no basis to assume otherwise, right?

Of course it would be wrong for him to just assume the white crows exist on hearsay without any material evidence, so he must posit a "null" hypothesis as a baseline goal for himself to falsify.

The null hypothesis essentially negates his own hypothesis. It states:

"All crows are black."

The null hypothesis is unproven. In fact, it's unprovable (there's no possible way for the ornithologist to have examined every single crow in the world).

But the null hypothesis is not an argument from ignorance, either. The null hypothesis is not a claim per se, and therefore does not need to be proven; it exists only for the purpose of being falsified, to prove a point. The researcher doesn't even believe it to be true (he's trying to prove it wrong, remember). But he must assume it's true, because the burden of proof is on him as the claimant to prove evidence to the contrary. To prove his hypothesis, he must falsify the null hypothesis.

This process may seem backward and counter-intuitive, but it is a very important step to ensure the researcher's own bias does not influence the outcome of the research. The researcher might feel 100% certain that his hypothesis is correct, but he must nevertheless assume it is wrong (for the purpose of research) until he can produce evidence to support it. If he cannot produce evidence, then he must concede that his hypothesis has not been proven and is probably wrong.

For the ornithologist to falsify the null hypothesis, all he has to do is capture a single white crow. Just one, and the null hypothesis will be falsified. He could then perform DNA testing on the animal to determine its origin, and publish his results in an ornithological journal. With every independent DNA test that confirms his findings, his hypothesis becomes stronger until the whole world must accept the fact that white crows exist in the world. This is how science is done, and now human knowledge is advanced.

See how that works? Do you have any questions?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Pythonic,

Actually your assumption is just parroting a bunch of cynics, technocrats and scientific skeptics, but in reality it is not always true. For example the video evidence out there is obviously filled with hoaxes, but you would still consider a You Tube video better than a report from an Air Force pilot?

Or let's take the UFO out of equation altogether. Stand outside looking up a the dark sky some night. With good eyes you can observe satellites passing over. When you see one try to take a picture of it with your cell phone. Then ask yourself if you believe your cell phone picture or your own eyes.

Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses. There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence.

Not only that, material evidence can also lead to false conclusions. A strand of hair at a crime scene doesn't prove the person it came from committted the crime. If that person was on the other side of the planet and seen by numerous independent witnesses, that person will not be convicted on mere trace evidence ... physical or not.

Be careful about using absolutes like "worst" or "always" when you are making statements, otherwise you'll run into trouble. Think for yourself.

Nope. Eyewitness reports are still an absolute worst evidence. For reasons already stated andoft repeated. That you waffle on about your own eyes proves your ignorance. It's a matter of what you believe others THINK THEY SAW, and CLAIM they saw. And people can be wrong or lie, and we have no falsifiable data.

Material evidence can lead to false conclusions but can be tested and varified. Stories can't.stop pretending otherwise.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses. There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence.

Optometry deals with only one part of the perception, being the eye and its optical functions. Note that you are not giving strictly phenomenological reports of your sightings, e.g.. "From my position by the window, I saw a point of light that was about quarter of a centimetre in my field of vision that did figure-eight motions between elevations x and y." Once you start talking about the size and speed of what you saw, your brain has taken over the work of interpreting, either unconsciously or through conscious speculation, not that a phenomenological report is unadulterated either.

We don't have access to your raw seeing data or that of any unidentified flying object sighting not captured on camera. What we have are interpretations, like "I saw a massive V-shaped object pass silently overhead", instead of "I saw five points of light moving together". Our brain and its wonderful heuristics decide that objects moving together must be a single object and we see it so. You could of course have been looking at a group of parachute flares.

There is still the elephant in the room. The big pink one with the clown shoes and party hat. You come on here with such earnest sciencey talk, but you report vanishing Cadilacs and talking rabbits on your website. As they sang on Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other."

 

[John Albert]

Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses.

Nobody in this thread ever argued that human eyesight acuity was immeasurable. You know that's not one of the many reasons we've been giving for why anecdotes are practically useless as evidence.

There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence. Not only that, material evidence can also lead to false conclusions. A strand of hair at a crime scene doesn't prove the person it came from committted the crime. If that person was on the other side of the planet and seen by numerous independent witnesses, that person will not be convicted on mere trace evidence ... physical or not.

Maybe if those eyewitnesses know the person, like, personally, and can furnish an alibi for him.

We're not talking about what constitutes evidence in a court of law. We're talking about what constitutes evidence for determining the existence of something that has never, ever, ever been proven to exist, ever. Not even once, ever.

You know this. You've been dragging this discussion out for months now, so there's no excuse. You know these constitute strawman arguments, complete misrepresentations of what has been said.

How very dishonest of you, Mr. J. Randall Murphy of Ufology Society International.

Be careful about using absolutes like "worst" or "always" when you are making statements, otherwise you'll run into trouble. Think for yourself.

Be careful about using absolutes like this:

There is nothing anyone can say to make what I experienced not have happened or convince me that what I saw wasn't some kind of alien craft, so your consensus on that point isn't relevant to me.

Those kind of absolutes are a dead giveaway that you're a devotee of pseudoscience, totally closed-minded and incapable of reason when it comes to your preferred topic of woo.

 

[Robrob]

Or let's take the UFO out of equation altogether. Stand outside looking up a the dark sky some night. With good eyes you can observe satellites passing over. When you see one try to take a picture of it with your cell phone. Then ask yourself if you believe your cell phone picture or your own eyes.

How about the picture taken with a real camera with actual depth of field?

Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances... There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence.

Wait, you're serious?! LOL! Obviously you have no experience in the real world with eyewitness "identification."

Not only that, material evidence can also lead to false conclusions. A strand of hair at a crime scene doesn't prove the person it came from committted the crime. If that person was on the other side of the planet and seen by numerous independent witnesses, that person will not be convicted on mere trace evidence ... physical or not.

That's the worst attempt ever at painting anecdotal evidence as more conclusive than material evidence. Your example has zero to do with the validity of the evidence and everything to do with the in/accuracy of the person making conclusions based on the evidence.

Be careful about using absolutes like "worst" or "always" when you are making statements, otherwise you'll run into trouble. Think for yourself.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board and work up some better arguments.

There is nothing anyone can say to make what I experienced not have happened or convince me that what I saw wasn't some kind of alien craft, so your consensus on that point isn't relevant to me.

Of course this begs the question, what makes you any different than the guy who stands in front of the Court House all day, yelling about the CIA stealing his thoughts? Both of you have absolute faith in something that everyone else sees as crazy.

 

[John Albert]

Looks like somebody's been hawking his redefinitions on Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ufology#cats.3F

 

[R.A.F.]

Not only that, material evidence can also lead to false conclusions. A strand of hair at a crime scene doesn't prove the person it came from committted the crime. If that person was on the other side of the planet and seen by numerous independent witnesses, that person will not be convicted on mere trace evidence ... physical or not.

Be careful about using absolutes like "worst" or "always" when you are making statements, otherwise you'll run into trouble. Think for yourself.

NO..there is no trouble...we understand how to evaluate evidence, and OBVIOUSLY you do not.

You are the worst flying saucer believer I have ever seen...your arguments are self serving, and irrational.

...and your "analogy" is crap. Show us some actual evidence for alien visitation and we'll listen, otherwise, you're just making a fool of yourself.

 

[23_Tauri]

Not only that, material evidence can also lead to false conclusions. A strand of hair at a crime scene doesn't prove the person it came from committted the crime. If that person was on the other side of the planet and seen by numerous independent witnesses, that person will not be convicted on mere trace evidence ... physical or not.

Material (physical) evidence can lead to false conclusions, yes. Just ask Amanda Knox....

But...

It is universally accepted that:
a) In general, physical evidence is much more reliable than anecdotal evidence; and
b) Some physical evidence is more robust and others.

An example of b) could be the very small traces of DNA on the kitchen knife in the Knox case, (sorry, don't mean to de-rail the thread, but it seemed such a topical example). The reason I mention this is because it has parallels with the physical evidence that some UFOlogists put so much faith in, namely radar traces. In both cases, the physical evidence doesn't necessarily allow us to reach an explosive conclusion. There are other ways the evidence could have got there. Radar traces could be false readings, caused by weather conditions or some other 'false positive'. Such a mundane explanation has to be considered before jumping to the "OMG! aliens!" conclusion. Sadly for UFOlogy, many UFOlogists don't do this.

In criminal cases in the UK the standard of evidence is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is stronger than, say, balance of probabilities, because of the seriousness of the circumstances and their repercussions for those involved. In such cases, the jury won't just rely on a single piece of evidence, but will weigh up all the different types of evidence before them: physical, testimonies, etc., and come to a conclusion based on all the evidence available, whilst still remembering the very real drawbacks of witness testimonies. We've been over the latter on this thread countless times.

 

[Aepervius]

Pythonic,

Actually your assumption is just parroting a bunch of cynics, technocrats and scientific skeptics, but in reality it is not always true. For example the video evidence out there is obviously filled with hoaxes, but you would still consider a You Tube video better than a report from an Air Force pilot?

Or let's take the UFO out of equation altogether. Stand outside looking up a the dark sky some night. With good eyes you can observe satellites passing over. When you see one try to take a picture of it with your cell phone. Then ask yourself if you believe your cell phone picture or your own eyes.

Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses. There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence.

Not only that, material evidence can also lead to false conclusions. A strand of hair at a crime scene doesn't prove the person it came from committted the crime. If that person was on the other side of the planet and seen by numerous independent witnesses, that person will not be convicted on mere trace evidence ... physical or not.

Be careful about using absolutes like "worst" or "always" when you are making statements, otherwise you'll run into trouble. Think for yourself.

None of this refute the fact that member of the general public sees in percentage much much more UFO than astronomer... In other word you are waffling because that fact cut deep into your rhetoric and instead of admitting that maybe there is something there you will have to take into account, you waffle away from that.

 

[Wudang]

As an accompaniment to the graphics, may I suggest a theme tune for this thread?

 

[Akhenaten]

Pythonic,

Actually your assumption is just parroting a bunch of cynics, technocrats and scientific skeptics, but in reality it is not always true.

"Meanie skeptics" wasn't doing it for you, huh? Why not just be honest about it and label us all as "people who disagree with me"? Everyone knows that's what you mean anyway.

For example the video evidence out there is obviously filled with hoaxes, but you would still consider a You Tube video better than a report from an Air Force pilot?

A YouTube of an Air Force pilot would be a bit of a dilemma, wouldn't it?

Or let's take the UFO out of equation altogether.

Given that the equation you're working with is UFO = "OMG . . . aliens!", getting rid of the UFO part isn't going to leave us with much.

Stand outside looking up a the dark sky some night. With good eyes you can observe satellites passing over. When you see one try to take a picture of it with your cell phone. Then ask yourself if you believe your cell phone picture or your own eyes.

Why would anyone ask himself such a ridiculous question? The only question that can be answered with this little experiment is "Are phones good enough to take pictures of satellites?"

I wouldn't criticise anyone for trying it once, just for a lark, but it really is a bit of a no-brainer. Attempting to use such a test as a demonstration of the Awesome Powerz™ of human vision is just pathetic.

Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? As always, show your working.

It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses.

Eyesight ≠ Perception

There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence.

I'd like to see a few examples please.

Not only that, material evidence can also lead to false conclusions. A strand of hair at a crime scene doesn't prove the person it came from committted the crime. If that person was on the other side of the planet and seen by numerous independent witnesses, that person will not be convicted on mere
trace evidence ... physical or not.

Why don't you present all the material evidence you've so far collected for alien flying saucers and we'll see if any of it is contradicted by numerous independent witnesses who saw those same flying saucers on the other side of the planet at the same time the evidence was allegedly collected?

Be careful about using absolutes like "worst" or "always" when you are making statements, otherwise you'll run into trouble. Think for yourself.

Invent your own reality! Get the JREF forum to write your flying saucer story for you! The possibilities are endless.

 

[Correa Neto]

Q. I wanna take pictures of satellites. How can I do that?

A. Get a decent camera, a tripod (Martian tripods will not be usefull in this case) and a shutter release cable. Go outside at night, set up camera, tripod and cable. Adjust camera to a high ISO setting, focus to infinite and exposure to "B". Look for a satellite. Here it comes. Point camera, press shutter, release it after some seconds. There you go- you've just acquired a register of the satellite's path. To get used to the method, you can train taking pictures of airplanes at night.

Q. I wanna take pictures of night lights-type UFOs which I believe are alien craft. How can I do that?

A. Get a decent camera, a tripod (Martian tripods will make all this thread kinda pointless) and a shutter release cable. Go outside at night at the nearest UFO hotspot, set up camera, tripod and cable. Adjust camera to a high ISO setting, focus to infinite and exposure to "B". Look for an UFO. Here it comes. Point camera, press shutter, release it after some seconds. There you go- you've just acquired a register of the UFO's path. To get used to the method, you can train taking pictures of airplanes at night.

If UFO lore is correct, there are no excuses for the lack of good, reliable imagery.

 

[carlitos]

Q. I wanna take pictures of night lights-type UFOs which I believe are alien craft. How can I do that?

A. Get a decent camera, a tripod (Martian tripods will make all this thread kinda pointless) and a shutter release cable. Go outside at night at the nearest UFO hotspot, set up camera, tripod and cable. Adjust camera to a high ISO setting, focus to infinite and exposure to "B". Look for an UFO. Here it comes. Point camera, press shutter, release it after some seconds. There you go- you've just acquired a register of the UFO's path. To get used to the method, you can train taking pictures of airplanes at night.
Get baked, throw on some Zeppelin, start talking "deep thoughts" with your fellow partygoers, point out window and go "dude, an alien ship totally just flew down the mountain over there." Then produce inaccurate drawing years later when you tell the story.

Fixed.

 

[Resume]

Pythonic,
Stuff

Just when I thought I was out . . .

 

[RoboTimbo]

Looks like it was just a drive-by from the dishonest pseudoscientist who is widely thought to be the originator of the J Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax.

He can't be honest enough to answer questions.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Or let's take the UFO out of equation altogether. Stand outside looking up a the dark sky some night. With good eyes you can observe satellites passing over. When you see one try to take a picture of it with your cell phone. Then ask yourself if you believe your cell phone picture or your own eyes.

You can't take a picture of a satellite with your cell phone unless you can take time exposures. They are too faint. I guess it is possible to record the ISS on a bright pass but the normal satellite is around magnitude 3, which is too faint.

Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses. There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence.

It is not the person's eyesight that is in question. It is how people perceive what they saw which is the problem. The human mind can play tricks on you and if you want to interpret what you saw as something extraordinary instead of ordinary, you are going to report it as such. This is how people misperceive things like stars, planets, satellites, birds, planes, balloons, etc. as performing exotic maneuvers when, in fact, they did not perform such maneuvers. The witness only interpreted them as such. That is where your argument fails because you fail to recognize that problem.

As pointed out by others, a persons eyesight is only one part of the perception issue. The rest of it is in the mind, which presents all sorts of potential errors that can not be quantifiable/compensated for (despite claims by "he who shall not be named" that he could do this). The best one can do is compare how others have reported IFOs and suggest they could have been mistaken about what they saw. If there is a known source (meteor, satellite, balloon, star/planet, etc) that was in that part of the sky at the time, there is a pretty good chance that is what the witness saw.

 

[Cuddles]

scientific skeptics

For some strange reason it seems you meant this as an insult. "Scientific skeptic" actually means "Person who uses the scientific method to come to conclusions rather than just accepting any nonsense they're told". If you're going to parrot anyone, I really can't think of a better group to pick. It's like conspiracy nuts who keep calling people "debunkers", apparently without realising that it's only possible to debunk something if it is, in fact, bunk.

When you see one try to take a picture of it with your cell phone. Then ask yourself if you believe your cell phone picture or your own eyes.

I'll do you one better:

Image from Wikimedia.

Turns out our eyes really aren't that good at all compared to some of the cameras we have available. Rather ironically, the prevalence of blurry phone pictures and total absence of pictures from decent cameras is one of the more common criticisms of alien believers.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'll do you one better:

Image from Wikimedia.

Wow, that's a really good picture! I'm totally going to go and get myself one of those Hubble phones.

 

[Toke]

Wow, that's a really good picture! I'm totally going to go and get myself one of those Hubble phones.

I am afraid it is too late, that famous phone guy have just died.