• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
Lastly, [...]
Click to expand...


If only that were true.

[...] just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that UFOs aren't real.
Click to expand...


We can try that silliness a variety of ways...

Just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that ghosts aren't real.

Just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean the Loch Ness Monster isn't real.

Just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that Bigfoot isn't real.

Just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that unicorns aren't real.

Just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that Kennedy assassination conspiracies aren't real.​

Yep, that works any way you slice it. It can be used when discussing any manner of fantasy or nonsense. But the skeptics know something the "ufologists" don't know. Trying to deflect the burden of proof like that is as dishonest as redefining UFO to mean alien craft. And there's this...

Just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that UFOs aren't real.​

UFOs are real. They are unidentified flying objects, things which are perceived to be flying, perceived to be objects, and which haven't been identified. They're not only real, they're ubiquitous.

Skeptics choose to doubt the reality of UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]
Click to expand...


You can't possibly believe you're being honest as you continue to try to peddle that redefinition nonsense here. Don't forget...

ufology said:
So, nobody here including except me and Rramjet has claimed that the "U" in UFO means identified as an alien craft.
Click to expand...


There. Fixed that so it's no longer a false statement.
 
GeeMack said:
So, nobody here including except me and Rramjet has claimed that the "U" in UFO means identified as an alien craft.
Click to expand...
There. Fixed that so it's no longer a false statement.
Click to expand...

I thought even Rramjet was arguing with him about that poor attempt to redefine aliens into existence on another forum.
 
Paul2 said:
Even though someone might have written the Wikipedia article with a slightly more narrow focus than necessary (limiting a null hypothesis to statistical studies)?

Even when the whole concept of Wikipedia is that it can be edited (it's not dogma from heaven)?

Even though we've given you an actual reason to disbelieve the idea that a null hypothesis applies in general, and not just to statistical studies?

Even though you failed to say why it must only apply to statistical studies when asked directly?
Click to expand...


Paul,

I simply maintain that if you want to invoke a null hypothesis then it should be used according to the principles it was designed for and not watered down to suit any particular bias as is being done by the skeptics here.

By using the null hypothesis out of its intended context, all the skeptics here are saying is, "until you have proof I'll accept then I'm not convinced". So what? What else is new? The way the skeptics here invoke the null hypothesis amounts to nothing more than pseudoskepticism, arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism.

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

On the other hand, instead of using personally biased high-school interpretations, I've shown that when the actual principle of the null hypothesis according to the people who developed it is applied to USAF sponsored studies done by highly qualified specialists, it results in a probability so high as to be a virtual certainty that craft alien to our understanding have been observed. Is this proof? I never said it was ... go back and review.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
ehcks said:
I thought even Rramjet was arguing with him about that poor attempt to redefine aliens into existence on another forum.
Click to expand...

True.

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/9112-UFOS-the-Research-the-Evidence./page6

In that one page of that thread alone, ufology posts about a dozen dictionary definitions for commonly-understood words. None of the alien believers are buying it. It should be embarrassing for Mr. Ufology J Randall Murphy, but there it is.
Click to expand...


I was recalling how Rramjet argued that since something was unidentified, or more specifically when something wasn't identifiable as some particular mundane thing, that meant it had to be aliens.
 
(on edit, this refers to ufology's post 2 above)

Cherry-picking, appeal to authority, pseudoscientific babble, Bare assertion, psychological projection...

Someone needs to make bingo cards for this nonsense.

Oh, and what's the fallacy when people asks for evidence and ufology/Rramjet respond dishonestly that we are asking for "proof?" Redefinition?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
:words:

On the other hand, instead of using personally biased high-school interpretations, I've shown that when the actual principle of the null hypothesis according to the people who developed it is applied to USAF sponsored studies done by highly qualified specialists, it results in a probability so high as to be a virtual certainty that craft alien to our understanding have been observed.
Click to expand...


Alien to our understanding???

Are you trying to wrest the Weasel Words Champion of the World title from DOC?

You've got to be kidding. Did you really think you could slip that in there unnoticed?


ufology said:
Is this proof? I never said it was ... go back and review.
Click to expand...


It's proof alright, but not of what you want it to be.
 
carlitos said:
True.

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/9112-UFOS-the-Research-the-Evidence./page6

In that one page of that thread alone, ufology posts about a dozen dictionary definitions for commonly-understood words. None of the alien believers are buying it. It should be embarrassing for Mr. Ufology J Randall Murphy, but there it is.
Click to expand...


carlitos,

If the best you can do is try to embarrass me into agreeing with you, then you'll have to do a lot better than post links to other websites where I'm discussing the same issues.

PS: Thanks for the "Mr. Ufology" nickname ... "Mr. UFO" was already taken by Timothy Green Beckley. I like "Mr. Ufology" better ... in fact I have a custom license plate that says "Ufology".
 
ufology said:
Paul,
<snipped everything that was pseudoscience>
Click to expand...

Well, that didn't leave much, did it?

Why do you complain about your own null hypothesis? It is, after all, the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​
You created it yourself when you posited that some UFOs are of alien origin. Until you falsify your own J Randall Murphy null hypothesis, the default position will be that "All UFOs are of mundane origin".

I agree that you don't comprehend the purpose or utility of a null hypothesis but it isn't from lack of people trying to explain it to you. Here, let me try again.

Pretend (you're good at that, right) that you think that some flipped coins turn into butterflies on the way down. Your hypothesis is "Some coins turn into butterflies". Are you with me so far? Let me know if I need to simple it down for you further.

Now, the null hypothesis is the antithesis of that, or: NOT (some coins turn into butterflies). Rendered even simpler: "No coins turn into butterflies".

Are you still with me? Is it the individual words that are confounding you?

Anyway, the null hypothesis can't be proven. And follow me closely here - you can never observe all coins at all times to prove that they don't turn into butterflies. Do you see why the null hypothesis can't be proven but it is the default position?

Here's where it gets even trickier. Have a real dictionary handy, not your Rredefinition one. Here's where the genius of it comes into play.

Do you see that just one instance of a coin turning into a butterfly would falsify the null hypothesis?

It's the same with UFOs! Ta Da! You just need one confirmed UFO = OMG PseudoAliens! to falsify the null hypothesis! You don't even need to use your fallacy of Rredefinition!

Were you able to follow all that in one sitting?
 
ufology said:
carlitos,

If the best you can do is try to embarrass me into agreeing with you, then you'll have to do a lot better than post links to other websites where I'm discussing the same issues.

PS: Thanks for the "Mr. Ufology" nickname ... "Mr. UFO" was already taken by Timothy Green Beckley. I like "Mr. Ufology" better ... in fact I have a custom license plate that says "Ufology".
Click to expand...

Stick to your guns on your lone stand, mate. As a great man once said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers [...]"
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
carlitos,

If the best you can do is try to embarrass me into agreeing with you, then you'll have to do a lot better than post links to other websites where I'm discussing the same issues.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear. I am not trying to embarrass you. The helpful friendly skeptics and critical thinkers are trying to help you with your argument, for instance by educating you on the null hypothesis.

If you aren't embarrassed by your lies, fallacies, redefinitions, equivocation, etc., that's all on you. I merely linked to the conversation, where folks can see that your illogic and dishonest argumentation doesn't even work with fellow alien believers. You thinking it would work here at a board to promote science, reason and critical thinking is epic futility on your part.
 
ufology said:
carlitos,

If the best you can do is try to embarrass me into agreeing with you, then you'll have to do a lot better than post links to other websites where I'm discussing the same issues.
Click to expand...


You've already demonstrated a shocking deficiency of embarrassment as well as cognitive dissonance.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Stick to your guns on your lone stand, mate. As a great man once said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers [...]"
Click to expand...


Sideroxylon,

Mr. Ufology says, "Hey so long as a few people are getting a good laugh ... I'm OK with that. I don't even mind if it's at my own expense sometimes."

Of course on this forum that last part tends to be the norm rather than the exception ... but like I said before, there are times when I get pretty desperate for entertainment ... so I come here.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
[...] there are times when I get pretty desperate for entertainment ... so I come here.
Click to expand...


It's rather sad that you consider reality to be only a temporary diversion from fantasy. A fit and healthy mind would work the other way round.
 
ufology said:
Sideroxylon,

Mr. Ufology says, "Hey so long as a few people are getting a good laugh ... I'm OK with that. I don't even mind if it's at my own expense sometimes."

Of course on this forum that last part tends to be the norm rather than the exception ... but like I said before, there are times when I get pretty desperate for entertainment ... so I come here.
Click to expand...

They do it at that other forum also because of your insistence on your redefinition fallacy.

So, are you still trying to wade through the logic of the null hypothesis? How about you give me an example from everyday life like I just gave you so that everyone can see that you do understand it.
 
RoboTimbo said:
They do it at that other forum also because of your insistence on your redefinition fallacy.

So, are you still trying to wade through the logic of the null hypothesis? How about you give me an example from everyday life like I just gave you so that everyone can see that you do understand it.
Click to expand...


The probability of that is, well, for those who think cherry picking quotes makes for a substantive argument, maybe we can try this one...

ufology said:
"[...] the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was that happening is less than 1 in a billion."
Click to expand...
 
ufology said:
Paul,

I simply maintain that if you want to invoke a null hypothesis then it should be used according to the principles it was designed for and not watered down to suit any particular bias as is being done by the skeptics here.
Click to expand...

All you're doing is

1. reasserting you position by labeling the skeptic position as "water[ing] down,"

2. failing to show why it is inappropriate to apply the null hypothesis to questions other than statistical studies

Again, *why* must the null hypothesis be only applied to statistical studies?

1. Because Wikipedia says so? Argument from authority. And, tellingly, Wikipedia doesn't say why it can't be applied to other than statistical studies.

2. Because it would be watering it down? That's just name-calling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom