UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

Yeah, the current chew toy is not as entertaining as the original.

 

[Agatha]

I think Canada would be "yoo c'n"

Eh.

 

[ufology]

I have no problem with you sharing your anecdotes. I just don't believe they qualify as scientific evidence.

mike3,

Thanks for the comment mike. Regarding scientific evidence, the concept of scientific evidence isn't as clear cut as it seems. For example, there is no universally accepted definition of "scientific evidence". Generally it must be empirical, which is something gained through observation or experimentation. Certainly UFOs have been observed, so that would seem to qualify. However there is also the concept that it should be measurable. In the case of UFOs we have radar tracks that have measured speed and distance, so we also have that information. Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance.

Given the above, observations by firsthand witnesses, particularly those backed by instrumentation such as radar would seem to count as scientific evidence. But is this really good enough? I would contend that it's not ... at least not as proof. Had I not seen a UFO myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that UFOs ( alien craft ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

 

[RoboTimbo]

mike3,

Thanks for the comment mike. Regarding scientific evidence, the concept of scientific evidence isn't as clear cut as it seems. For example, there is no universally accepted definition of "scientific evidence". Generally it must be empirical, which is something gained through observation or experimentation. Certainly UFOs have been observed, so that would seem to qualify. However there is also the concept that it should be measurable. In the case of UFOs we have radar tracks that have measured speed and distance, so we also have that information. Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance.

You forgot FLIR again. LOL!

Given the above, observations by firsthand witnesses, particularly those backed by instrumentation such as radar would seem to count as scientific evidence. But is this really good enough? I would contend that it's not ... at least not as proof. Had I not seen a UFO myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that UFOs ( alien craft ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

But you didn't see a UFO (Alien Space Ship). You saw a UFO (Firefly).

 

[GeeMack]

Given the above, observations by firsthand witnesses, particularly those backed by instrumentation such as radar would seem to count as scientific evidence. But is this really good enough? I would contend that it's not ... at least not as proof. Had I not seen a UFO myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that UFOs ( alien craft ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

The UFO ( J. Randall Murphy hoax ) you claim to have seen has a perfectly common mundane explanation.

 

[Krikkiter]

mike3,

Thanks for the comment mike. Regarding scientific evidence, the concept of scientific evidence isn't as clear cut as it seems. For example, there is no universally accepted definition of "scientific evidence". Generally it must be empirical, which is something gained through observation or experimentation. Certainly UFOs have been observed, so that would seem to qualify. However there is also the concept that it should be measurable. In the case of UFOs we have radar tracks that have measured speed and distance, so we also have that information. Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance.

And this is where your assertions break down. UFO does not mean OMG, Aliens!

Given the above, observations by firsthand witnesses, particularly those backed by instrumentation such as radar would seem to count as scientific evidence. But is this really good enough? I would contend that it's not ... at least not as proof. Had I not seen a UFO myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that UFOs ( alien craft ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

And this is where your assertions break down. UFO does not mean OMG, Aliens!

Also, I'm sure everyone here sees how vague the second bolded statement is. Everyone but you Ufology.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No! It is not reasonable to assume Aliens have probably been here. Especially for the purposes of investigation. That biases the investigation and allows for selective evidence and confirmation bias.

And you know what is not good scientific evidence? Stories that change in every detail as criticism is raised. For example the "account" folo is touting. That many changes makes it "unreliable" as we can not assume it will not change further.

Still, if in doubt misunderstand "the kind of evidence depends on the field of study, cognitivesciences using different data types from geology" that every school kid knows as "no clear definiton" to pretend your evidence fits? Piffle. Tosh. Rubbish. The REQUIREMENTS for investigation andevidence, the METHODOLOGY are well understood. Yes,there is no strict definition, but there are strict requirements that witness claims and people who assume ufos are alien fail to meet. And folo if you meanalien craft, say alien craft! A ufo aint a ufo if its identified!

 

[Akhenaten]

mike3,

Thanks for the comment mike. Regarding scientific evidence, the concept of scientific evidence isn't as clear cut as it seems. For example, there is no universally accepted definition of "scientific evidence".

According to certain pseudoscientists there is no universally accepted definition of anything and yet, against all odds, the scientific community hasn't collapsed into a yammering, incoherent, post-Babel morass.

Go figure.

Generally it must be empirical, which is something gained through observation or experimentation. Certainly UFOs have been observed, so that would seem to qualify. However there is also the concept that it should be measurable. In the case of UFOs we have radar tracks that have measured speed and distance, so we also have that information. Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance.

Congratulations! You've established that there's such a thing as UFOs.

Of course, this was known before the stone age got going, but it's always nice to have confirmation, I reckon.

Given the above, observations by firsthand witnesses, particularly those backed by instrumentation such as radar would seem to count as scientific evidence. But is this really good enough? I would contend that it's not ... at least not as proof. Had I not seen a UFO myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that UFOs ( alien craft ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

Silly boy. You're getting UFOs and flying saucers mixed up again.

Back to square one you go!

 

[wollery]

the scientific community hasn't collapsed into a yammering, incoherent, post-Babel morass.

You don't know too many scientists, do you.

 

[Akhenaten]

You don't know too many scientists, do you.

"The collapse of the scientific community into a yammering, incoherent, post-Babel morass hasn't accelerated."

 

[Jocce]

the concept of scientific evidence isn't as clear cut as it seems. For example, there is no universally accepted definition of "scientific evidence".

So therefore anecdotes (claims) should be accepted as evidence of their own veracity? You see nothing strange with that?

Generally it must be empirical, which is something gained through observation or experimentation. Certainly UFOs have been observed, so that would seem to qualify.

Yes, some things have been seen that people couldn't identify. How do you go from that to "it's alien"?

In the case of UFOs we have radar tracks that have measured speed and distance, so we also have that information.

Care to show such evidence? I remember Rramjet having a bit of a problem separating claims that evidence exist with the actual evidence.

Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance.

Yes, we do have a lot of claims.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Anyone else see the problem with this statement of ufology's:

Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance.

If the "observation" is a witness "report" or sighting of a ufo, then it can not be a measurement. I assume, as illustrated by his own claims, ufology means "measurements after the fact between points the witness thought they saw the ufo fly between", which is NOT an actual measurement.

The ONLY way you can have real measurements of a ufos speed, size, points of travel, etc, is by taking a physical measurement of the UFO as it travels. Nobody can do this. Nobody has done this.

Measurements after the fact are only based on what a person thought they saw, on rough estimates. They are meaningless. Statistically or otherwise.

 

[John Albert]

Generally it must be empirical, which is something gained through observation or experimentation. Certainly UFOs have been observed, so that would seem to qualify.

Anecdotes are not empirical. We've been over this many times already, going all the way back to the Critical thinking in Ufology and Is Ufology a Pseudoscience? threads. While firsthand experience might be "empirical" to the person who observes it, it's not empirical when related to somebody else.

However there is also the concept that it should be measurable. In the case of UFOs we have radar tracks that have measured speed and distance, so we also have that information. Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance.

Most of this information is also in the form of irreproducible, unverifiable anecdotes. Therefore, not empirical or useful to actual science.

Given the above, observations by firsthand witnesses, particularly those backed by instrumentation such as radar would seem to count as scientific evidence.

"Seem to count"? You've obviously been ignoring everything you've been told here, even by people who are practicing, professional scientists.

The problem is, all of these UFO stories have enormous holes and inconsistencies. When deconstructed and examined critically, not a single one is consistent enough to be convincing, let alone conclusive. Not a single one presents anything approaching valid evidence that extraterrestrials even exist, let alone that they're flying around our skies in spacecraft.

But is this really good enough? I would contend that it's not ... at least not as proof.

Are you talking about proof, or evidence? Either way, mere anecdotes are no good for either.

Had I not seen a UFO myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that UFOs ( alien craft ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

You "believe it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that alien craft have probably been here"?

That's an awful lot of weasel words there, son. So in other words, you're basically just guessing?

So all this bluster about dictating the precepts of critical thinking, redefining words, denying the use of proper procedure in determining hypotheses, denying the correlation of truth to reality, asserting a story and then changing the details when questioned, et cetera, has been about defending a wild supposition?



Now you're suddenly not so sure? Why the turn-around?

 

[mike3]

mike3,

Thanks for the comment mike. Regarding scientific evidence, the concept of scientific evidence isn't as clear cut as it seems. For example, there is no universally accepted definition of "scientific evidence". Generally it must be empirical, which is something gained through observation or experimentation. Certainly UFOs have been observed, so that would seem to qualify. However there is also the concept that it should be measurable. In the case of UFOs we have radar tracks that have measured speed and distance, so we also have that information. Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance.

True, there's no 100% rock-solid definition. However, I don't think anecdotes would qualify. Even if an anecdote is "true" (i.e. represents an actual occurrence of something), it at best represents an extremely uncontrolled observation -- and what science likes is controlled observations, where biases are reduced as much as possible, and those that are left are known, corrected, and accounted for.

Given the above, observations by firsthand witnesses, particularly those backed by instrumentation such as radar would seem to count as scientific evidence. But is this really good enough? I would contend that it's not ... at least not as proof. Had I not seen a UFO myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that UFOs ( alien craft ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

However, there seems no good evidence that suggests any UFOs are alien craft, so on the basis of that, I wouldn't go with that "probably".

 

[Correa Neto]

However there is also the concept that it should be measurable. In the case of UFOs we have radar tracks that have measured speed and distance, so we also have that information. Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance

Interesting...

So, you can not use science evidence standards for UFO phenomena but you can derive "statistical information" from it...

Strange... Sometimes its convenient for ufology's purposes that UFOs can not be studied by science, sometimes it is convenient that they can.

 

[GeeMack]

True, there's no 100% rock-solid definition. However, I don't think anecdotes would qualify. Even if an anecdote is "true" (i.e. represents an actual occurrence of something), it at best represents an extremely uncontrolled observation -- and what science likes is controlled observations, where biases are reduced as much as possible, and those that are left are known, corrected, and accounted for.

And that speaks to one of the biggest flaws in the pseudoscience of "ufology". The bias is built-in, a staple, pretty much a required component. We've watched this thread go on for over two years, almost 15,000 posts without a single piece of objective evidence supporting the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. But that hasn't disuaded the "ufologists" from steadfastly clinging to that belief.

However, there seems no good evidence that suggests any UFOs are alien craft, so on the basis of that, I wouldn't go with that "probably".

The term "probably" might be another of those dishonestly redefined in order to perpetuate the delusion that the "U" in UFO means identified as an alien craft.

 

[ufology]

And that speaks to one of the biggest flaws in the pseudoscience of "ufology". The bias is built-in, a staple, pretty much a required component. We've watched this thread go on for over two years, almost 15,000 posts without a single piece of objective evidence supporting the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. But that hasn't disuaded the "ufologists" from steadfastly clinging to that belief.

The term "probably" might be another of those dishonestly redefined in order to perpetuate the delusion that the "U" in UFO means identified as an alien craft.

GeeMack,

You speak of bias and then splash yours all over the place. First you incorrectly call ufology a pseudoscience when you have no rationale for doing so other than to slap some derogatory name on it.

Then you go on to misrepresent the usage and definition of the word UFO the same as you always do. So here's yet another quote from USAF archives as to what the word "unidentified" in the context of official UFO investigations means:

"A sighting is considered unidentified when a report apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of the report but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena."
​

So, nobody here including me has claimed that the "U" in UFO means identified as an alien craft. I have however claimed that the vast majority of verbal usage and portrayals of the word UFO ( in its entirety ) are meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, a fact that is blatantly self evident. Skeptics who fail to see this reality are merely projecting their anti-ufology propoganda.

 

[Resume]

Skeptics who fail to see this reality are merely projecting their anti-ufology propoganda.

Someone has to counter your anti-reality propaganda. Your insistence that anecdotes = evidence. Your redifinition of terms to suit your fancy. Your recalicitrance in accepting the fallibility of perception and memory.

 

[23_Tauri]

So, nobody here including me has claimed that the "U" in UFO means identified as an alien craft.

So why is it that every time you write "UFO" in your posts you follow it up with "(alien craft)"? Because I hate to burst your bubble folo, but each time you do that claiming that UFO = alien craft is exactly what you are doing.

I have however claimed that the vast majority of verbal usage and portrayals of the word UFO ( in its entirety ) are meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, a fact that is blatantly self evident. Skeptics who fail to see this reality are merely projecting their anti-ufology propoganda.

And you know what? When people (that's normal, rational, everyday folk) make the inference that an unidentified light in the sky is an alien craft, they are doing so in jest. With a bit of a giggle and the doffing of a hat to god-awful '50s B movies. It's tongue in cheek. You understand what that means, olof? They don't really believe it's aleeyns. Just like they don't believe it's Santa in his sleigh or the Flying Alphabetti Spaghetti Monster.

 

[RoboTimbo]

GeeMack,

<snipped irrational bias>

But ol, don't you think your irrational UFO = OMG PseudoAliens! bias is because you have no comprehension of the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and it has never been falsified.

Do you think you would give up your irrational bias if you were able to understnad your own null hypothesis?