UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

I've read most of the thread and I sympathise with Ufology - not that he should consider my sympathy (or anyone else's ) to be something positive.

What really baffles me about the whole thing is the fact that he can say, with a straight face (presumably), that UFO's are evidence of the existence and earthly visitation of extraterrestrial intelligent life. I asked him for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life and he basically responded by saying that (paraphrased):

1. When it comes to UFO stuff, the term evidence has a different meaning than what is usually accepted as standard so we need to just bear with him on it (I see two logical fallacies here but I'm happy to be shown to be wrong).

2. Anecdotes regarding Unidentified Flying Objects are the best evidence we have of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

I really wish he could see the fallacy in his point two.

The fallacy of special pleading has been explained to him countless times, and just as often the explanations have been ignored. And as for wishing he could see the fallacy, he has stated in no uncertain terms that nothing anyone can say will ever sway his belief that he has seen aliens cruising around in the sky.

 

[ufology]

... For decades the pseudoscience of ufology has insisted that eyewitness testimony must be taken at face value, and has lashed out at any attempt to suggest that the witness may be misinterpreting the observation. To explore a witness's interpretation is not to give "no credit" to the witness, but merely to put UFO eyewitness testimony on par with how eyewitness testimony is handled elsewhere. UFO fanatics want us to accept as gospel every word that comes out of a witness's mouth. To do less than that is not to give "no credit" to the witness; it is merely to avoid being as uncritically enthralled with it as UFO fans seem to be ...

JayUtah,

The above statement is a gross exaggeration and genralization based on preconceived bias rather than actual study. Ufology is merely a topic of interest that crosses many facets of human inquiry and experience, and is therefore is too wide a subject to fall under the defintion of pseudoscience. Also, the majority of mainstream investigations have never insisted that all reports be accepted at face value. This includes all investigations by all armed forces and all mainstream UFO investigative groups. Please get your facts straight and avoid unfounded and damaging proclamations.

 

[ufology]

I'll just add to this one point although I agree with the entire post.

Because folo's opinion that anecdotes are the best relative evidence that we have for UFOs (as alien spaceships), he then believes that anecdotes are the best absolute evidence available, period. That's why he thinks eyewitness testimony is infallible and irrefutable. That's why he makes such obvious blunders as mistaking visual acuity for perception.

I'm still working out why he is so petulant about taking ownership of his own null hypothesis.

RoboTimbo,

There you go misrepresenting me again ... how completely predictable. I've never claimed eyewitness accounts are infallible or irrefutable. Everything is refutable, including hard science. I've also not mistaken acuity for perception, but stated that acuity is part of perception e.g. the "perception" of reading an eye chart correctly is dependent on visual acuity. Without visual acuity, the "perception" is blurry, therefore one can say that one's perception lacks acuity ( sharpness ), and that such acuity may or may not be related to the optics.

Anyway, have you got anything useful on the latest hoaxes, faked credentials, or hard science that would be constructive?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Anyway, have you got anything useful on the latest hoaxes, faked credentials, or hard science that would be constructive?

No, you've been relatively quiet of late on the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax. Did you have something else that you wanted to embellish it with?

Have you come up with your own example of a null hypothesis yet?

 

[ufology]

Pure semantics ... bla bla bla ... So in summary, you yourself have stated that you have not disproved that "all UFOs are mundane in origin", you just used a different form of words to do it, and all the semantic arguments about the validity of the use of the null hypothesis won't change that fact.

wollery, wollery, wollery,

I've never claimed there is proof that Earth has been visited by UFOs ( alien craft ). I've only stated I am convinced from my own experience, and that it is reasonable given the vast amount of other eyewitness accounts, some backed by instrumentation such a radar, that some UFOs ( alien craft ) have visited the Earth. As for the proof that will satisfy the critics, that remains as elusive as ever ... if not moreso, and the critics have every right, whether I think they are being unreasonable or not, to remain skeptical and unconvinced until they either have an experience of their own, or more substantial evidence is presented.

 

[RoboTimbo]

wollery, wollery, wollery,

I've never claimed there is proof that Earth has been visited by UFOs ( alien craft firefly ). I've only stated I am convinced from my own experience, and that it is reasonable given the vast amount of other eyewitness accounts, some backed by instrumentation such a radar, that some UFOs ( alien craft firefly hoax ) have visited the Earth. As for the proof that will satisfy the critics, that remains as elusive as ever ... if not moreso, and the critics have every right, whether I think they are being unreasonable or not, to remain skeptical and unconvinced until they either have an experience of their own, or more substantial any evidence is presented.

FTFY and you forgot FLIR again! LOL.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ogy, I have another question for you.

What has the pseudoscience of UFOlogy contributed to humanity?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Campfire tales?

 

[Resume]

ogy, I have another question for you.

What has the pseudoscience of UFOlogy contributed to humanity?

It keeps ufologists off the streets; then again, they end up on the internet so it's kind of a wash.

 

[GeeMack]

Anyway, have you got anything useful on the latest hoaxes, faked credentials, or hard science that would be constructive?

How about that J. Randall Murphy hoax perpetrated on the Internet starting at the USI alien fanatics club? How about the vigorous and purposeful effort to spread it by yammering about it at the JREF and other forums? You keep saying you'd like to discuss hoaxes, but when one of the most glaring, most obvious hoaxes in recent memory (although pretty feeble, very unimaginative, and poorly presented) is being spread right here in our presence, you clam up.

Oh, and how's that working for you, the dishonest attempt to equate unidentified flying objects with alien craft? It does look like everyone's on to your strategy. Not enough gullible rubes here for you to get any traction with that, eh?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh, and how's that working for you, the dishonest attempt to equate unidentified flying objects with alien craft? It does look like everyone's on to your strategy. Not enough gullible rubes here for you to get any traction with that, eh?

He couldn't even get the pseudoscientists at that other website to go along with it. Even they tried to explain to him how it was a fallacy.

logy, have you been able to get anyone on your bandwagon with that bit of dishonesty?

 

[JayUtah]

The above statement is a gross exaggeration and genralization based on preconceived bias rather than actual study.

No, it's my observation based on debating UFO "researchers" for 20 years and having them try to sell me the same load of bunkum over and over again.

 

[JayUtah]

I've also not mistaken acuity for perception, but stated that acuity is part of perception

You stating it doesn't make it true. Do you realize that you're trying to impose your personal belief on fields of study that actually exist in the real world? They are separate sciences, studying separate things, according to separate principles, practiced by separate experts. Please stop frantically trying to tell us your straw man is really alive.

[T]he "perception" of reading an eye chart correctly is dependent on visual acuity.

No, now you're just trying to redefine "perception" to mean what you need it to mean.

...and that such acuity may or may not be related to the optics.

Acuity is solely a function of optics.

I'll explain it again.

Visual acuity is determined by a combination of optics and opthalmology. Optics determines the physical laws that must be obeyed for an image to be resolved upon the retina. Opthalmology determines anatomically whether those optical requirements can be met by the organs and tissues of the eye. The result is an image focused on the retina -- be it of an eye chart or of blobs of light in the sky.

The cognitive science of perception is a branch of psychology and presumes there is no problem with the eyesight. That is, perception begins with the assumption that the eye is working perfectly. It then goes on to discuss how the brain interprets it, how it identifies objects in the image, how it positions those objects in the concept of affine space, how it perceives size, motion, and distance, and where attention is focused. It discusses how images are stored as memories and later recalled.

In other words, it's about as far as you can get from measuring someone's vision. So when I bring up the subject of perception as it applies to the reliability and accuracy of eyewitness testimony, and you tell me it's irrelevant because the witness has 20/20 vision, you are as far off the mark as you can possibly be.

And no, you can't just wave your hands wildly and claim one is part of the other. The two sciences as they are practiced and published can't have any less to do with each other. Each explicitly stays out of the realm of the other, for very good reasons.

 

[Paul2]

You stating it doesn't make it true. Do you realize that you're trying to impose your personal belief on fields of study that actually exist in the real world? They are separate sciences, studying separate things, according to separate principles, practiced by separate experts. Please stop frantically trying to tell us your straw man is really alive.



No, now you're just trying to redefine "perception" to mean what you need it to mean.



Acuity is solely a function of optics.

I'll explain it again.

Visual acuity is determined by a combination of optics and opthalmology. Optics determines the physical laws that must be obeyed for an image to be resolved upon the retina. Opthalmology determines anatomically whether those optical requirements can be met by the organs and tissues of the eye. The result is an image focused on the retina -- be it of an eye chart or of blobs of light in the sky.

The cognitive science of perception is a branch of psychology and presumes there is no problem with the eyesight. That is, perception begins with the assumption that the eye is working perfectly. It then goes on to discuss how the brain interprets it, how it identifies objects in the image, how it positions those objects in the concept of affine space, how it perceives size, motion, and distance, and where attention is focused. It discusses how images are stored as memories and later recalled.

In other words, it's about as far as you can get from measuring someone's vision. So when I bring up the subject of perception as it applies to the reliability and accuracy of eyewitness testimony, and you tell me it's irrelevant because the witness has 20/20 vision, you are as far off the mark as you can possibly be.

And no, you can't just wave your hands wildly and claim one is part of the other. The two sciences as they are practiced and published can't have any less to do with each other. Each explicitly stays out of the realm of the other, for very good reasons.

Nicely said, J.U.

 

[John Albert]

1. When it comes to UFO stuff, the term evidence has a different meaning than what is usually accepted as standard so we need to just bear with him on it (I see two logical fallacies here but I'm happy to be shown to be wrong).

The two logical fallacies are special pleading and equivocation.

We've been over this with him countless times in the last several months, and he completely ignores our appeals to reason. Most of the time he doesn't even address our arguments but simply denies them with accusations of "unfounded assertions," and then carries on reciting the same exact fallacies over and over. It's like trying to reason with a broken phonograph record.

2. Anecdotes regarding Unidentified Flying Objects are the best evidence we have of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

I really wish he could see the fallacy in his point two.

I'm sure we all do.

I'm guessing you weren't here to witness his attempts at rewriting half the English dictionary with his own personal definitions, composed specifically to support his own position. This has been an ongoing issue for over 3 months now.

We went round and round debating not only the meaning of the word "evidence," but also the words "proof," "critical thinking," "pseudoscience," "UFOlogy," "objective," "reality," and "truth," among others. This whole thing started back in July with him making a thread entitled "Critical thinking in Ufology," wherein he attempted to rewrite the definition of "critical thinking" to essentially mean accepting extraordinary tales at face value. It's only snowballed since then.

 

[ufology]

You stating it doesn't make it true. Do you realize that you're trying to impose your personal belief on fields of study that actually exist in the real world? ... bla bla bla ...

JayUtah,

I'm not imposing anything. Here's the definition of acuity from Encarta:

acuity​

a·cu·i·ty​

[​

​

ə ky ətee] noun​

sharpness: keenness of hearing, sight, or intellect

Face it ... with zero acuity you'd have zero perception unless your brain was directly affected by some other stimulus. It's not that I don't understand your point however, just that it's not as separate as you are claiming it is unless you are dealing solely within the realm of a particular part of psychology, which in the context of this discussion is nothing more than cherry picking specialized information to counter a generalized point about the workings of our senses.

 

[John Albert]

 

[GeeMack]

[...] a generalized point about the workings of our senses.

We've moved far beyond any concern about the quality of your senses and the demonstrated failure of your perception and memory. It's that J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax we're interested in now. What was it made you decide to write that bogus story and put it on the 'net? When did you first conceive it? Why did you make it so boring and predictable instead of adding a few interesting literary elements like so many other UFO hoaxers have done? You want to talk about hoaxes. Let's talk.

 

[ufology]

We've moved far beyond any concern about the quality of your senses and the demonstrated failure of your perception and memory. It's that J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax we're interested in now. What was it made you decide to write that bogus story and put it on the 'net? When did you first conceive it? Why did you make it so boring and predictable instead of adding a few interesting literary elements like so many other UFO hoaxers have done? You want to talk about hoaxes. Let's talk.

GeeMack,

OK ... what else do you have besides unfounded accusations and personal attacks?

 

[RoboTimbo]

gy, have you yet thought of an example of a null hypothesis from everyday life to show that you have some comprehension of what a null hypothesis is and how it works? Everything you've posted so far indicates that it's still beyond your grasp. Much like the difference between perception and visual acuity.