• 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.
Stray Cat said:
It's not, it's the mkIII cigar shaped UFO with portholes, distinguished from the mkI and mkII by it's ability to "fly as fast as a jet plane" whilst being observed by a single witness who watched it fly as fast as a jet plane for over 20 minutes as it flew past him in a straight line. ;)
Click to expand...

Damn, that's cool! I gotta get me one of them!
 
Stray Cat said:
It's not, it's the mkIII cigar shaped UFO with portholes, distinguished from the mkI and mkII by it's ability to "fly as fast as a jet plane" whilst being observed by a single witness who watched it fly as fast as a jet plane for over 20 minutes as it flew past him in a straight line. ;)
Click to expand...


Bah! That thing's a boat, and it gets terrible light-yearage. I prefer the sportier models. Better maneuverability for bouncing down mountainsides, hanging figure-eights and off-roading through pine trees.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
Your argument above is the same as this:

"You can't loosen up your belt, because your pants will fall off, so you can't loosen up the Wikipedia definition of null hypothesis beyond statistical studies.

Would you care to actually engage the intellectual issues with regard to how the null hypothesis is useful in studies not statistical? Your analogy with addition is not an argument, unless you can show that the aspect of addition that makes it inappropriate from whatever type of loosening up you're imagining is the same aspect of the null hypothesis that would make the null hypothesis inappropriate for non-statistical studies.
Click to expand...

Ufology, how 'bout it? Care to respond?
 
ufology said:
Krikkiter,

You've moved the goalposts again. The point is that studies falsify the skeptic's null hypothesis by showing that the probability that all UFOs are of mundane origin is so low as to be virtually certain they are not. How we interpret that is a separate issue.

If UFOs aren't "mundane" then what are they? The word mundane has two primary meanings. The first is "ordinary or commonplace" and the second is "of this world". So clearly, we are dealing with phenomena that are extraordinary if not out of this world ... or simply put alien.

The word "alien" does not necessitate extraterrestrial. Simply being alien to human knowledge and civilization qualifies as alien. However the ET hypothesis seems more reasonable than secret bases no human has ever discovered.

Lastly, I've also said that statistical probabilities are not the same as material real-time proof. So I don't promote the statistical falsification of the skeptics null hypothesis as proof. However it does lend circumstantial evidence to the case for alien visitation.
Click to expand...


Mundane things exist. Alien craft have not been shown to exist. You do the maths.
 
Paul2 said:
Ufology, how 'bout it? Care to respond?
Click to expand...


Paul,

Contrary to what was implied, statistical studies are not only useful with respect to reaching an assessment of a null hypothesis, they are integral to its working principles as outlined by the person who created it. It's really ironic that you want to abandon those principles to suit yourself when doing so fits the definition of pseudoscience and in the context of this discussion is also pseudoskepticism. How so? You're trying to justify sounding scientific while not adhering to the accepted priniciples of the null hypothesis, and your trying to use a watered down pseudoscientific version of the null hypothesis to support your skeptical position.
 
ufology said:
Contrary to what was implied, statistical studies are not only useful with respect to reaching an assessment of a null hypothesis, they are integral to its working principles as outlined by the person who created it. It's really ironic that you want to abandon those principles to suit yourself when doing so fits the definition of pseudoscience and in the context of this discussion is also pseudoskepticism. How so? You're trying to justify sounding scientific while not adhering to the accepted priniciples of the null hypothesis, and your trying to use a watered down pseudoscientific version of the null hypothesis to support your skeptical position.
Click to expand...


Regardless of its genesis in statistical analysis, the actual concept of the null hypothesis is itself very simple and can be applied to any research, even where statistics are not being used. It's not necessary to use statistics to benefit from the objectivity and clarity that the null hypothesis provides.

Insisting that the concept of the null hypothesis is only applicable to statistical analysis because that is how it originated, is yet another example of a genetic fallacy.

If you look at other definitions beyond your cherry-picked Wikipedia one, you'll find many science-related websites that explain the concept of the null hypothesis in simpler, less technical terms and even give examples of how they can be applied to many areas of research.

Just a suggestion, in case you ever decide you really want to learn something useful, instead of, you know, pretending you know more about science than everybody else on this science-themed educational Internet community with actual practicing, career scientists trying to educate you and all.
 
ufology said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...


No, it's not wrong. That argument you presented to dismiss the null hypothesis really does constitute a genetic fallacy.

You're saying the word has no other usage except the original, very narrow one for which it was created, and that is simply not true. That's the definition of a genetic fallacy.

Did you even read the Wikipedia article I linked to? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

I swear it's like trying to argue with a 2-year-old who's just learned how to say the word "no."
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
All you have done here is put a pejorative label on his argument. Can you do better by demonstrating why the null hypothesis is only suitable for statistical analysis? Can you even find someone else to quote that does such a thing?
Click to expand...


Sideroxylon,

I've already done the above in other posts, which also explains why failing to use the principles the null hypothesis was designed for also qualifies as pseudoskepticism.

Since you missed it previously, here it is again. The principles of evaluation that the null hypothesis was designed for make it consistent. Without them, evaluation becomes vague and subject to debates on what is or isn't valid, which can go on ad infinitum. Clearly this would make the null hypothesis pointless. It would be no different than simply saying, "I won't change my mind until you prove it to me".

What the proper application of the null hypothesis does is go beyond that by providing providing consistent unbiased guidelines based on mathematical probabilities. It brings order and structure to what would otherwise be chaos. So, no, it cannot be watered down to suit someones particular agenda. To be meaningful and useful it needs to be applied consistently. The rules and principles it was designed for do that. They are the accepted standards and to ignore them would be pseudoscientific and/or pseudoskeptical.
 
ufology said:
The principles of evaluation that the null hypothesis was designed for make it consistent. Without them, evaluation becomes vague and subject to debates on what is or isn't valid, which can go on ad infinitum. Clearly this would make the null hypothesis pointless. It would be no different than simply saying, "I won't change my mind until you prove it to me".

What the proper application of the null hypothesis does is go beyond that by providing providing consistent unbiased guidelines based on mathematical probabilities. It brings order and structure to what would otherwise be chaos. So, no, it cannot be watered down to suit someones particular agenda. To be meaningful and useful it needs to be applied consistently. The rules and principles it was designed for do that. They are the accepted standards and to ignore them would be pseudoscientific and/or pseudoskeptical.
Click to expand...


You obviously don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
 
ufology said:
Sideroxylon,

I've already done the above in other posts, which also explains why failing to use the principles the null hypothesis was designed for also qualifies as pseudoskepticism.

Since you missed it previously, here it is again. The principles of evaluation that the null hypothesis was designed for make it consistent. Without them, evaluation becomes vague and subject to debates on what is or isn't valid, which can go on ad infinitum. Clearly this would make the null hypothesis pointless. It would be no different than simply saying, "I won't change my mind until you prove it to me".

What the proper application of the null hypothesis does is go beyond that by providing providing consistent unbiased guidelines based on mathematical probabilities. It brings order and structure to what would otherwise be chaos. So, no, it cannot be watered down to suit someones particular agenda. To be meaningful and useful it needs to be applied consistently. The rules and principles it was designed for do that. They are the accepted standards and to ignore them would be pseudoscientific and/or pseudoskeptical.
Click to expand...
Word salad piffle.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

You are taking a really simple concept and tying yourself up in knots over it, and (forgive me) simultaneously making yourself look like a complete idiot in front of all these actual practicing, career scientists trying to educate you.

And you haven't answered Sideoxylon's question. He asked you to provide an example of where someon apart from yourself who proclaimed that the null hypothesis couldn't be used where your resulting data set was not suitable for* statistical analysis (e.g. where that data set consisted of ONE observation). Because it seems you are the only person who seems to think that this is the case.

*ETA: here, it's probably more correct if I say "not necessary to do statistical analysis" rather than "not suitable for".

Let me put it another way. If we had the experimental hypothesis "flipped coins turn into butterflies" and a corresponding null hypothesis of "no flipped coins turn into butterflies" and then we flipped a coin and it turned into a butterfly, would you then insist that the null hypothesis was void because there was no need to do a statisticsal test on the data provided by a single observation of a flipped coin turning into a butterfly in order to prove that it happened?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Sideroxylon,

I've already done the above in other posts, which also explains why failing to use the principles the null hypothesis was designed for also qualifies as pseudoskepticism.

Since you missed it previously, here it is again. The principles of evaluation that the null hypothesis was designed for make it consistent. Without them, evaluation becomes vague and subject to debates on what is or isn't valid, which can go on ad infinitum. Clearly this would make the null hypothesis pointless. It would be no different than simply saying, "I won't change my mind until you prove it to me".
Click to expand...


Which principles of evaluation and how do they make it consistent? Further, which principles and how does their lack lead to vague and unending arguments about what is valid?

What the proper application of the null hypothesis does is go beyond that by providing providing consistent unbiased guidelines based on mathematical probabilities. It brings order and structure to what would otherwise be chaos. So, no, it cannot be watered down to suit someones particular agenda. To be meaningful and useful it needs to be applied consistently. The rules and principles it was designed for do that. They are the accepted standards and to ignore them would be pseudoscientific and/or pseudoskeptical.
Click to expand...

What are these guidelines and how are they based on mathematical probabilities? How do they bring order and structure?

Can you see that what you have done here is simply make bald assertions about the purpose of the null hypothesis and your claimed limitations? Show me, don't tell me.
 
John Albert said:
You obviously don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


I reckon you're right. I've been putting a lot of the nonsense down to him being disingenuous rather than admit defeat but those last couple of posts convey a complete and utter lack of understanding of even the basics of the ideas under discussion.

The childlike declarations that any attempt to point out his errors is pseudoskepticism isn't a real good look either.
 
I've been trying to find SETI's null hypothesis. Can't seem to find anything. Thought that might be helpful... or not!
 
ufology said:
Paul,

Contrary to what was implied, statistical studies are not only useful with respect to reaching an assessment of a null hypothesis, they are integral to its working principles as outlined by the person who created it.
Click to expand...
And we are constantly accused of mockery?

Every post like this that you make mocks the principals and concepts of science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom