UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Resume]

RoboTimbo,

There is nothing irrelevant about the quote I picked regardless of its age or other definitions. It's one of many supporting definitions found in the history and evolution of the term UFO. You just choose to ignore the fact that the word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, usually of extraterrestrial origin and used synonymousyly with phrases like "flying saucer" ... also believed to be craft of alien origin. I don't know why you even bother to deny it anymore. It must have something to do with the entertainment value. To avoid breaking with tradition here are another couple of quotes:

UFO ( Oxford English Dictionary )

An unidentified flying object; a ‘flying saucer’.

Flying Saucer: ( Encarta Dictionary )

disk-shaped UFO: a disk-shaped flying object believed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

It can't be unidentified if you effen identify it.

 

[ufology]

It can't be unidentified if you effen identify it.

Resume,

True. If we knew where these alien craft came from and had some cultural or diplomatic relationship with them, then they would only be alien in a sense similar to any other foreign national ( as in illegal alien ). In the meantime all we know is that they are alien to any nationality or culture known on this planet, which makes their origin both alien and unidentified.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Resume,

True. If we knew where these alien craft came from and had some cultural or diplomatic relationship with them, then they would only be alien in a sense similar to any other foreign national ( as in illegal alien ). In the meantime all we know is that they are alien to any nationality or culture known on this planet, which makes their origin unidentified.

No they wouldn't be unidentified if we knew that they were craft of some description

 

[GeeMack]

Resume,

True. If we knew where these alien craft came from [...]

Whoa! Hold the show. Given every opportunity to demonstrate that "these alien craft" even exist, the alien believers have abandoned their responsibility to do so. If you want to make statements about where they came from, you need to falsify the null hypothesis which is...

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

To start with the next step before you take the first step would be wholly unscientific and, need I say, dishonest.

 

[ehcks]

<snip>

"Believed to be" does not mean "is."

Claims and beliefs are not always true.

 

[ufology]

Whoa! Hold the show. Given every opportunity to demonstrate that "these alien craft" even exist, the alien believers have abandoned their responsibility to do so. If you want to make statements about where they came from, you need to falsify the null hypothesis which is...

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

To start with the next step before you take the first step would be wholly unscientific and, need I say, dishonest.

Since the definition of null hypothesis and its working principle rely on statistical probability and observation ( Wikipedia ), then the null hypothesis above has already been falsified by USAF Project Blue Book Special Report 14:

"In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically significant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion."

NOTE: I anticipate that the skeptics will want to move the goalposts some more by denying that the Wikipedia article on the null hypothesis is relevant and that statistical analysis doesn't count as scientific evidence. As I mentioned before, I'll let you all know when the aliens grant me my license to sell Mother Ship tours because that's the only evidence the skeptics here will ever accept.

 

[Resume]

Since the definition of null hypothesis and it working principle rely on statistical probability and observation ( Wikipedia ), then the null hypothesis above has already been falsified by USAF Project Blue Book Special Report 14:

"In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically significant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion."

NOTE: I anticipate that the skeptics will want to move the goalposts some more by denying that the Wikipedia article on the null hypothesis is relevant and that the statistical analysis doesn't count as scientific evidence. As I mentioned before, I'll let you all know when the aliens grant me my license to sell Mother Ship tours.

Deleted

 

[ehcks]

NOTE: I anticipate that the skeptics will want to move the goalposts some more by denying that the Wikipedia article on the null hypothesis is relevant and that the statistical analysis doesn't count as scientific evidence. As I mentioned before, I'll let you all know when the aliens grant me my license to sell Mother Ship tours because that's the only evidence the skeptics here will ever accept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position.

You have already created the claim that some UFOs are alien spacecraft. You then use the null hypothesis to test this claim.

The null hypothesis is the default position, that "All UFOs are of mundane origin.

Your null hypothesis, because you created it when you made the claim it is the inverse of.

 

[mike3]

If you claim that a UFO is an alien spacecraft, then you're claiming it's not unidentified anymore. You're saying you identified it.

However, if through use the term "UFO" has acquired another meaning, that is different from its original and "etymological" meaning, is it not acceptable also to refer to that meaning as well?

 

[Resume]

However, if through use the term "UFO" has acquired another meaning, that is different from its original and "etymological" meaning, is it not acceptable also to refer to that meaning as well?

No. Then you call it a flying saucer. And begin to fashion tinfoil hats.

 

[mike3]

Since the definition of null hypothesis and its working principle rely on statistical probability and observation ( Wikipedia ), then the null hypothesis above has already been falsified by USAF Project Blue Book Special Report 14:

Null hypothesis refers to a default position. When testing a hypothesis for truth, the null hypothesis is that it is false. From WP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position.

Statistics, etc. only enters in when testing the NH, and hypotheses in general; it does not form part of the definition of an NH. See the above quote from WP.

 

[ufology]

Null hypothesis refers to a default position. From WP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis


Statistics, etc. only enters in when testing the NH, and hypotheses in general; it does not form part of the definition of an NH. See the above quote from WP.

See the actual Principle of how it works instead of simply quoting the basic premise. In order to falsify the default position you look at the statistical probabilities presented by the data set. The null hypothesis was developed by a statistician. So if your going to use it, then use it according to the principles it was developed for.

"Principle:

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true ... " (Wikipedia)

 

[Paul2]

See the actual Principle of how it works instead of simply quoting the basic premise. In order to falsify the default position you look at the statistical probabilities presented by the data set. The null hypothesis was developed by a statistician. So if your going to use it then use it according to the principles it was developed for.

"Principle:

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true ... " (Wikipedia)

There is nothing in this that requires the null hypothesis to be only useful when a statistical study is possible. Its function has nothing intellectually essential to do with a statistical study, it has the same function when applied to non-statistical questions (it functions as the default assumption that any study or investigation seeks to overturn).

 

[Resume]

See the actual Principle of how it works instead of simply quoting the basic premise. In order to falsify the default position you look at the statistical probabilities presented by the data set. The null hypothesis was developed by a statistician. So if your going to use it, then use it according to the principles it was developed for.

"Principle:

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true ... " (Wikipedia)

Do you have any physical evidence that UFOs are not of a mundane origin? I'll alert the Nobel committee immediately.

 

[ufology]

Do you have any physical evidence that UFOs are not of a mundane origin? I'll alert the Nobel committee immediately.

There's the goalpost moving I mentioned we would see after I illustrated how the skeptic's own criteria ( the null hypothesis ) when used exactly how it was designed to be used ( in the context of statistical analysis ) shows that UFOs are not of mundane origin. Now they want a flying saucer ride ... sorry but I still don't have my Mothership Tour License from the Galactic Federation. I am however taking reservations ...

 

[Resume]

There's the goalpost moving I mentioned we would see after I illustrated how the skeptic's own criteria ( the null hypothesis ) when used exactly how it was designed to be used ( in the context of statistical analysis ) shows that UFOs are not of mundane origin.

All UFOs are of a mundane origin. Do You Have Evidence To Refute This?

No? You lose.

Now I have to call the Nobel committee back.

 

[mike3]

See the actual Principle of how it works instead of simply quoting the basic premise. In order to falsify the default position you look at the statistical probabilities presented by the data set. The null hypothesis was developed by a statistician. So if your going to use it, then use it according to the principles it was developed for.

"Principle:

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true ... " (Wikipedia)

This talks about the hypothesis-testing process. It is not a part of the definition.

 

[ufology]

All UFOs are of a mundane origin. Do You Have Evidence To Refute This?

No? You lose.

Now I have to call the Nobel committee back.

And above we have the denial of evidence ( Project Blue Book Special Report 14 ). So now we'll see them move goalposts some more and/or something to the effect that the null hypothesis isn't really meant to work the way the Wikipedia article describes it. Probably coupled with more proclamations and mockery ... yawn ... I must really be getting desperate for entertainment.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ok everybody. This is simple to clear up; you will notice all the definitions of UFO in this follow a trend. Unidentified flying object, "believed", "sometimes believed", etc, to be alien. Not "is".

Now lets look again at the null. You can waffle all you like but the references to a process or to method aresomething no adult with a highschool education should be unfamiliar.

Mr Smith makes a claim, X.
If Mr Smith is aware of his claim, or the scientific method is irrelevant.
Mr Jones needs to be convinced.
Mr Jones considers how the claim compares to his current working knowledge of the universe.
This is called a null. Even if Mr Jones is unaware that is what he is doing.
The claim does not match the null.
Mr Smith supplies evidence.
Mr Jones varifies the evidence, and the method of gathering evidence.
Mr Jones compares the evidence to the null.
This is the only way to convince Mr Jones to alter his view.

The null is in place for all claims, if it is recognised or not. If it wasnt all claims would be accepted on faith. This is a discussion of research and evidence. Not special pleadings that claims should be evidence, not special pleadings that everybody knows something. Research and evidence.

If you have no evidence, and your research is unconvincing that is what we will say. Repeatedly. Dont complain it is predictable, the idea of a methodolgy is to be predictable in the process.

 

[ufology]

Ok everybody. This is simple to clear up; you will notice all the definitions of UFO in this follow a trend. Unidentified flying object, "believed", "sometimes believed", etc, to be alien. Not "is".

Now lets look again at the null. You can waffle all you like but the references to a process or to method aresomething no adult with a highschool education should be unfamiliar.

Mr Smith makes a claim, X.
If Mr Smith is aware of his claim, or the scientific method is irrelevant.
Mr Jones needs to be convinced.
Mr Jones considers how the claim compares to his current working knowledge of the universe.
This is called a null. Even if Mr Jones is unaware that is what he is doing.
The claim does not match the null.
Mr Smith supplies evidence.
Mr Jones varifies the evidence, and the method of gathering evidence.
Mr Jones compares the evidence to the null.
This is the only way to convince Mr Jones to alter his view.

The null is in place for all claims, if it is recognised or not. If it wasnt all claims would be accepted on faith. This is a discussion of research and evidence. Not special pleadings that claims should be evidence, not special pleadings that everybody knows something. Research and evidence.

If you have no evidence, and your research is unconvincing that is what we will say. Repeatedly. Dont complain it is predictable, the idea of a methodolgy is to be predictable in the process.

And above we see the predicted response on how the null hypothesis, developed by a statistician, and used by establishing probabilities based on observation, as outlined in the Wikipedia article, is simply ignored and replaced by some watered down personal "high school" version in order to prop up an argument.

We also see continued avoidance of the fact that the word UFO is meant to convey different things in different contexts e.g. in UFO reports or in casual conversation or in an investigative capacity ( historical or otherwise ). Such avoidance ( intentional or otherwise ) only serves to cloud the issue. What are the skeptics really after here? Are we not supposed to be trying to clarify the issue instead?

Lastly, we've already established that no sufficient material evidence is readily available that would conclusively prove that UFOs ( alien craft ) have visited planet Earth. So what is the real argument? Is it that it's not reasonable to believe any of the the thousands of unexplained reports? Why is that? Is it just because skeptics like to call everyone else liars or hoaxers or incompetent?