• 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.
Indeed, just because one person is credited with naming it, doesn't distract in any way from the concept that had been utilised across all disciplines long before it was given it's name and applied to statistics.


Go ahead and water down your pet hypothesis to suit your own pseudoskeptical bias. All I've done is provide an independent reference to the person who formulated that hypothesis and the priniciples by which it is applied. If you don't like it don't bleme me. Take it up with Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
You mention in your recounting of these experiences that you were between five and seven years old. Aside from the role that childhood imagination and simple dreaming may have played, I'd say your fallible memory is an important element in building these memories for you.

It's been pointed out time and time again in this thread, but for the benefit of readers who may not have followed all posts, human memory is malleable and very fallible. Every time we remember a memory, we mould it. A memory from a dream from when you were five or six years old can be anything but reliable. It is simply what you have recreated in your mind after all these years, building upon it and moulding it until it is very likely nothing like the original experience. Every time you heard other's stories of supposed alien interventions and compared it to your recollections, you likely changed your memory to fit that. That is just the way memory works.

So I think your assessment that they were just bizarre dreams is enough, and you should likely not try to draw any further inferences from them.


I remember my address from the same house where these experiences occurred. Memory is not always as fallible as you claim, otherwise the numbers I remember would have shifted and drifted and the avenue become a cull-de-sac and my dog become a cat and one of my brothers become a sister ... and so on. You constantly downplay the amazing power of the human mind and the validity of human experience.
 
Believers have a predictable pattern. I don't know exactly what causes it; I think there are a number of reasons. In some cases, maybe no dishonesty is involved. Self-deception, ignorance may be the root. Whatever are the reasons, one of the predictable outcomes is a gross distortion of what was brought to the table by the skeptics. This happens when they find no more room to maneuaver, blocked by an argument they can't counter.

Sadly but predictably, ufology just did this (the odds are its not the first time). No one claimed his or anyone else's recollections are always flawed. No one is even claiming they are incorrect most of the times, half of the times, whatever. Everyone here agrees recollections (as well as perceptions) are accurate most of the times. Everyone here agrees that sometimes, actually a handful of times, it goes down the drain. And I bet most if not all skeptics here will agree with me that weird experiences may happen or be remembered as having happened on the few occasions when human memory and/or perceptions fail. That's when people experience (or remember to have experienced) UFO sightings, abductions, conversations with giant white rabbits, rapes by bigfoot, have sex with aliens aboard spaceships, see Nessie, have mystical experiences, etc. Since these failure cases are not very common, these experiences are also not common. And yes, I think there may be cultural, environmental and biological factors that may trigger these experiences and/or make certain individuals be more prone to feel them.

I will not be surprised if ufology distorts what I wrote above claiming I am dismissing the whole stuff by calling him and everyone else who happens to have had one of such experiences nuts, crazy, mad, drug addict, brain washed, whatever.
 
I remember my address from the same house where these experiences occurred. Memory is not always as fallible as you claim, otherwise the numbers I remember would have shifted and drifted and the avenue become a cull-de-sac and my dog become a cat and one of my brothers become a sister ... and so on. You constantly downplay the amazing power of the human mind and the validity of human experience.

whhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine
:p
You constantly downplay the amazing power of the human mind and the validity of human experience.
its been proven over and over that your mind is not amazing and your experiences are not valid because of your inherent dishonesty.
you are by your own claims, the most alien visited person in history,
http://www.ufopages.com/Common/Control/Reframe_T1.htm?../../Reference/FS/Murphy-02a.htm
yet no empirical evidence, not so much as a matchstick, [sarcasm]youre a hell of an investigator aren't you[/sarcasm]
;)
 
Last edited:
"I can remember the number of the house I used to live in, therefore aliens." Got to admit, I haven't seen this one before.
 
I remember my address from the same house where these experiences occurred. Memory is not always as fallible as you claim, otherwise the numbers I remember would have shifted and drifted and the avenue become a cull-de-sac and my dog become a cat and one of my brothers become a sister ... and so on. You constantly downplay the amazing power of the human mind and the validity of human experience.

The difference between memories of your street, pet or sibling is they take their places in multiple memories of past events among which coherence is likely to play an important role in their being reliably maintained. Your memories under discussion however are of independent events, changes to which would likely lead to no such coherency problems.

Let's not also forget what we should otherwise believe are extraordinary claims of talking animals and levitation.
 
Last edited:
I remember my address from the same house where these experiences occurred. Memory is not always as fallible as you claim, otherwise the numbers I remember would have shifted and drifted and the avenue become a cull-de-sac and my dog become a cat and one of my brothers become a sister ... and so on. You constantly downplay the amazing power of the human mind and the validity of human experience.

The above poster is a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 
Go ahead and water down your pet hypothesis to suit your own pseudoskeptical bias.
Explain exactly how I've watered anything down.

All I've done is provide an independent reference to the person who formulated that hypothesis and the priniciples by which it is applied.
You linked to a single source and have refused point blank to acknowledge any of the other references to the Null Hypothesis and it's use in broader science, because you wish for it only to be used in statistical studies so you don't have to face off with the reality of your situation (not being able to falsify it).
We have explained to you over and over that the concept of the null hypothesis is used in your daily life, even if you don't call it by that name.

If you don't like it don't bleme me. Take it up with Wikipedia
I have no problem with the Wikipedia article and I'm not going to bleme them for your selective and dishonest use of it.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus discussing examples of how memories may be changed and modified. Such understandings are crucial in assessing witness reports in legal cases and clearly have something to say about anecdotes like yours, Mr Ufology.

http://fora.tv/2009/07/14/Elizabeth_Loftus_Whats_the_Matter_with_Memory

ETA: Here is an interesting five-minute excerpt of that lecture:
 
Last edited:
The above poster is a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It seems skeptics are more likely to doubt their own personal experiences while woo believers take them at face value. This could be reflected in statements like "I know what I saw" or "the treatment works for me". People like Kant and Bacon long ago suggested that our minds are simply not passive receivers of experience, but play an active role in shaping our reality. These ideas have since been backed up by numerous fascinating psychological experiments.
 
Go ahead and water down your pet hypothesis to suit your own pseudoskeptical bias. All I've done is provide an independent reference to the person who formulated that hypothesis and the priniciples by which it is applied. If you don't like it don't bleme me. Take it up with Wikipedia

You were told again and again ...

Oh whatever.

You are right ufology ! Aliens fly everywhere ! look ! Another alien out of the window !


<====== Oh, there another alien flying above my cat !

this thread is like groundhog day, you can leave it for one month, and find the latest page is still ufology misunderstanding NULL hypothesis

@corea Netto , probably start by self delusion, combined with dishonesty used when they see themselves losing the debate.
 
Last edited:
It seems skeptics are more likely to doubt their own personal experiences while woo believers take them at face value. This could be reflected in statements like "I know what I saw" or "the treatment works for me". People like Kant and Bacon long ago suggested that our minds are simply not passive receivers of experience, but play an active role in shaping our reality. These ideas have since been backed up by numerous fascinating psychological experiments.

I have always wondered what caused the other : is this because I became a skeptic that I started doubting my own experience, and putting a lot of stuff I took for granted into question, even my own memory ? Or is because I doubted all that I started to see myself as a skeptic ?
 
I have always wondered what caused the other : is this because I became a skeptic that I started doubting my own experience, and putting a lot of stuff I took for granted into question, even my own memory ? Or is because I doubted all that I started to see myself as a skeptic ?

I think it was the later in my case. Magicians like James Randi were able to reinforce it with obvious demonstrations.
 
The difference between memories of your street, pet or sibling is they take their places in multiple memories of past events among which coherence is likely to play an important role in their being reliably maintained. Your memories under discussion however are of independent events, changes to which would likely lead to no such coherency problems.

Spot on!
 
Last edited:
The difference between memories of your street, pet or sibling is they take their places in multiple memories of past events among which coherence is likely to play an important role in their being reliably maintained. Your memories under discussion however are of independent events, changes to which would likely lead to no such coherency problems.

Let's not also forget what we should otherwise believe are extraordinary claims of talking animals and levitation.


Sideroxylon,

I lived at that address as a child I rarely, if ever had cause to actually use the house address. I just knew where I lived in relation to everything else in my neighborhood. So your theory on coherence from repetition of the memory in different situations doesn't apply to that.

I also had more of the same types of OOBEs than I recall ever having had the coccasion to recall the exact address of my house. So by your theory, my memory of the OOBEs should be as accurate or better than remembering my house address.

It's also interesting to note how you find exceptions for your initial statement based on how well the memory in question fits into your personal bias about it e.g. "Let's not also forget what we should otherwise believe are extraordinary claims ..."

Lastly, although I will concede that memory isn't perfect and is subject to innacuracy, especially with respect to large numbers of small details where no real effort is made to commit them to long term memory, such details aren't always relevant to the issue at hand. For example a person can witness a plane crash and fail to recall many of the small details, but that doesn't mean that because those details were lost, the memories that remain do not still provide enough accurate information to know that a plane crash did in fact occur.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon,

I lived at that address as a child I rarely, if ever had cause to actually use the house address. I just knew where I lived in relation to everything else in my neighborhood. So your theory on coherence from repetition of the memory in different situations doesn't apply to that.
The fact is that you lived day to day in the same house on the same street and your picture of it and details about it (including the address) will have been built up over many many experiences within the house and it's immediate surroundings.

On the other hand your singular, unique account of something that was surreal to the point even you say it may have been "just really bizarre dreams" was inherently mutable from the get go.
 
Sideroxylon,

I lived at that address as a child I rarely, if ever had cause to actually use the house address. I just knew where I lived in relation to everything else in my neighborhood. So your theory on coherence from repetition of the memory in different situations doesn't apply to that.

I also had more of the same types of OOBEs than I recall ever having had the coccasion to recall the exact address of my house. So by your theory, my memory of the OOBEs should be as accurate or better than remembering my house address.

It's also interesting to note how you find exceptions for your initial statement based on how well the memory in question fits into your personal bias about it e.g. "Let's not also forget what we should otherwise believe are extraordinary claims ..."

Lastly, although I will concede that memory isn't perfect and is subject to innacuracy, especially with respect to large numbers of small details where no real effort is made to commit them to long term memory, such details aren't always relevant to the issue at hand. For example a person can witness a plane crash and fail to recall many of the small details, but that doesn't mean that because those details were lost, the memories that remain do not still provide enough accurate information to know that a plane crash did in fact occur.

Mate, you might have noticed that I did not mention your memory of your address details. In fact it seems like the kind of thing that could be corrupted. My mentioning of your street refers to the claim that it may go from an avenue to a cul-de-sac in your memory so easily. I do reckon that coherency plays an important role in sisters not becoming brothers in our memories, given the well demonstrated fragility of human memory.

Did you watch the five minute version of the Loftus lecture? It seems to me you are unwilling to recognize your own human fallibility as doing so would dispose of cherished childhood myths.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom