UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

Are we getting any forrader at all? The thread title implies research and evidence about UFOs, not talking rabbits and such. As far as I can see,

• There has been vanishingly little scientific research that points to the existence of alien craft.
• Memories are not evidence.
• Claims (accounts) are not in themselves evidence.
• While some people may assume that UFO means "alien spacecraft," the consensus seems to be that UFO means "unidentified flying object."
• Even this is a misnomer, since some things reported as unidentified flying objects have later been identified, or were not actually flying, or were not physical objects.

What else?

Spektator,

You've stated the position of many an uninformed and well biased skeptic. What you really mean to say if you want to be more precise is:

• Using material scientific evidence as a standard of evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of alien craft.
• Memories alone are not scientific material evidence.
• Claims are not material scientific evidence.
• While it is true that the word origin of UFO comes from the acronym for the phrase unidentified flying object, and while it is also true that the phrase unidenfified flying object is equivalent in meaning to the word UFO, there is no "consensus" outside the world of anti-ufology propogandists that the literal interpretations of each word that makes up the word origin constitute either a proper definition or meaning for either the word UFO or its full form unidentified flying object. In truth, the vast majority of common usage and portrayals in both historical and contemorary contexts convey the idea that UFOs are of some kind of alien craft, usually a flying saucer. This is particularly self evident in the media and all major Internet search engine results. The results are even more obvious when the search is set to display images. Try it here to see for yourself

 

[RoboTimbo]

Spektator,

You've stated the position of many an uninformed and well biased skeptic. What you really mean to say if you want to be more precise is:

• Using material scientific evidence as a standard of evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of alien craft.
• Memories alone are not scientific material evidence.
• Claims are not material scientific evidence.
• While it is true that the word origin of UFO comes from the acronym for the phrase unidentified flying object, and while it is also true that the phrase unidenfified flying object is equivalent in meaning to the word UFO, there is no "consensus" outside the world of anti-ufology propogandists that the literal interpretations of each word that makes up the word origin constitute either a proper definition or meaning for either the word UFO or its full form unidentified flying object. In truth, the vast majority of common usage and portrayals in both historical and contemorary contexts convey the idea that UFOs are of some kind of alien craft, usually a flying saucer. This is particularly self evident in the media and all major Internet search engine results. The results are even more obvious when the search is set to display images. Try it here to see for yourself

gy,

You've stated the position of many credulous and non-critical thinking people who desperately want UFOs to be Alien Space Ships but who are too cowardly to just say Alien Space Ships. What you mean to say if you want to be honest is:

• There has been vanishingly little scientific research that points to the existence of alien craft.
• Memories are not evidence.
• Claims (accounts) are not in themselves evidence.
• While some people may assume that UFO means "alien spacecraft," the consensus seems to be that UFO means "unidentified flying object." Even this is a misnomer, since some things reported as unidentified flying objects have later been identified, or were not actually flying, or were not physical objects.

 

[Paul2]

Using material scientific evidence as a standard of evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of alien craft.

I would love to hear your take on the some other option besides material scientific evidence.

 

[Resume]

Spektator,

You've stated the position of many an uninformed and well biased skeptic. What you really mean to say if you want to be more precise is:

Who could be more biased when it comes to UFO/OMFG It's Aliens/Hey It's a Firefly than one ufology?

 

[Sledge]

No aliens have visited earth. Prove me wrong, ufology. HINT: You can't.

 

[Krikkiter]

Spektator,

You've stated the position of many an uninformed and well biased skeptic. What you really mean to say if you want to be more precise is:

• Using material scientific evidence as a standard of evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of alien craft.
• Memories alone are not scientific material evidence.
• Claims are not material scientific evidence.
• While it is true that the word origin of UFO comes from the acronym for the phrase unidentified flying object, and while it is also true that the phrase unidenfified flying object is equivalent in meaning to the word UFO, there is no "consensus" outside the world of anti-ufology propogandists that the literal interpretations of each word that makes up the word origin constitute either a proper definition or meaning for either the word UFO or its full form unidentified flying object. In truth, the vast majority of common usage and portrayals in both historical and contemorary contexts convey the idea that UFOs are of some kind of alien craft, usually a flying saucer. This is particularly self evident in the media and all major Internet search engine results. The results are even more obvious when the search is set to display images. Try it here to see for yourself

So you are saying that:

1. Because there is no "materiel scientific evidence," anecdotes - claims - are reasonable to accept as evidence.

2. Because in a cultural context, "UFO" is often equated with flying saucers or alien spacecraft, UFO necessarily means alien craft.

Seems to me your standards for evidence are much more lax than most people's. I wouldn't say you're deliberately changing the standards to suit your own brand of woo - that would mean that you're aware that what you're doing is erroneous.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Spektator,

You've stated the position of many an uninformed and well biased skeptic. What you really mean to say if you want to be more precise is:

• Using material scientific evidence as a standard of evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of alien craft.
• Memories alone are not scientific material evidence.
• Claims are not material scientific evidence.
• While it is true that the word origin of UFO comes from the acronym for the phrase unidentified flying object, and while it is also true that the phrase unidenfified flying object is equivalent in meaning to the word UFO, there is no "consensus" outside the world of anti-ufology propogandists that the literal interpretations of each word that makes up the word origin constitute either a proper definition or meaning for either the word UFO or its full form unidentified flying object. In truth, the vast majority of common usage and portrayals in both historical and contemorary contexts convey the idea that UFOs are of some kind of alien craft, usually a flying saucer. This is particularly self evident in the media and all major Internet search engine results. The results are even more obvious when the search is set to display images. Try it here to see for yourself

Yeah, so you are complaining that the only way to prove the existence of something in a meaningful way that is based on science not faith is to follow the scientific method.

Why exactly should UFOlogy be treated differently from any other faith then? Is it science or not?

 

[Sideroxylon]

All reports of objects in Loch Ness deemed by observers to be of a form matching no known creature or man made object, or deemed not behaving in a manner consistent with any known object, while deemed to be exhibiting elements a priori assumed to be features or behavioral characteristics of the Loch Ness monster, are the Loch Ness monster.

Hey presto! I have defined the Loch Ness monster into existence.

 

[Marduk]

All reports of objects in Loch Ness deemed by observers to be of a form matching no known creature or man made object, or deemed not behaving in a manner consistent with any known object, while deemed to be exhibiting elements a priori assumed to be features or behavioral characteristics of the Loch Ness monster, are the Loch Ness monster.

Hey presto! I have defined the Loch Ness monster into existence.

Scottish tourist board groupie

 

[Robrob]

(Double post)

 

[Robrob]

Robrob,

You are contradicting the people here who say that repetition reinforces memory.

Actually you are misrepresenting what I and others have said.

You're also wrong.

So repetition reinforces memory? Or does repetition gloss over and polish that memory? Bear in mind there's actual research on the subject.

In fact, it's more likely that you'll lose accuracy by not telling a story very often than by regular repetition.

This is where you misrepresent what I said. I said you begin to embellish a story, to polish it, with retellings. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you?

Any actor or musician will assure you that repetition reinforces accuracy of memory.

Yes, repetition aids with rote memorization of a script. Of course that's not what we are talking about, is it?

The polish just makes the recall and delivery more precise.

The polish makes the story better and blurs over contradictory details to perfect the "flow." Like any fish story, the telling gets better with age. I think the problem is you are conflating "precision" with "fitting a POV."

By contrast, parts that are not played in a long time often require review. You really should spend more time thinking through your assertions.

And, following the review, are told without embellishment. Honestly, were you raised in a cave? You really should think, period.

 

[John Albert]

Imagine it's a court case, and you're on trial for murder.

The prosecutor, in his opening statements, gets up and says:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm sure you've all heard all kinds of stories all about scientific evidence. You all know the kind of stuff I'm talking about: material evidence, physical evidence, examined with hypotheses and null hypotheses with confounding statistical analyses and tiny flecks of real highly important matter they look at in test tubes and under microscopes in high-tech laboratories like you see there on the TV. Now I want to emphasize that there's nothing wrong with doing things that way. If you can investigate crimes scientifically, more power to ya. And that's all fine, well and good, but where that might be necessary to prove a crime in most jurisdictions, we here in Ufology County realize that's an unreasonable burden of proof that we'll never be able to meet in this case. I'm sure you all understand how it is. Our little county here is not a controlled situation with repeatable conditions, but that don't stop us from having every bit a legitimate criminal justice system and executing just as many murderers as they do in them big cities.

"So in lieu of that material, scientific evidence, the next best thing is eyewitness, first-hand accounts, reported just as they've been seen, by the arresting officers, the police radio operators who relayed all the communications about the crime back and forth to the officers in the field, and some very reliable, credible citizens who have no reason to lie. Even better, you'll be hearing from a lot of murder experts, all citizens of Ufology County, who've read just about every book about murder in the Mystery section of the public library. Some of these experts are even actual, professional scientists, who graduated college with highfalutin degrees and stuff. You'll be hearing the testimony of all these fine folks, and you'll get to read all the official police reports and statistics on our crime rates here in Ufology County. As an officer of this court, I encourage you to render your judgment on the basis of that evidence only.

"Now let me emphasize that at no point should you consider that a lack of material, physical evidence fails to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. We do things a little different here in Ufology County, and we pride ourselves on that.

"Now your honor, I propose we can just skip the defense's opening statements and get right to our evidence, because we all know he's just a biased, anti-Ufology pseudoskeptic debunker."

 

[AdMan]

In fact, it's more likely that you'll lose accuracy by not telling a story very often than by regular repetition. Any actor or musician will assure you that repetition reinforces accuracy of memory. The polish just makes the recall and delivery more precise.

You are wrong. Have you learned nothing in this thread regarding how memory works? Have you read through even one of the many articles and studies about memory linked in this thread?

Here's one more. I don't think it's been linked to, but then again, I may not be remembering correctly.

I'll even save you the bother of clicking on the link:

... insidiously, memories can become scrambled, sometimes in the process of attempting to retrieve something. You might relate a story to a friend but unwittingly include some mistaken details. Later, as you attempt to recall the episode, you might come across your memory of the scrambled recall attempt instead of your original memory. Memory is malleable. It is not, as is commonly thought, like a museum piece sitting in a display case. “Memory is,” as the Uruguayan novelist Eduardo Galeano once said, “born every day, springing from the past, and set against it.”

Psychological science has not yet developed a reliable way to classify memories as true or false. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that many false memories have been expressed with great confidence.

To reiterate the main points: memory is more prone to error than many people realize. Our memory system can be infused with compelling illusory memories of important events.

Elizabeth Loftus, "Our changeable memories: legal and practical implications," in Nature Reviews: Neuroscience (2003).

 

[Tomtomkent]

Imagine it's a court case, and you're on trial for murder.

The prosecutor, in his opening statements, gets up and says:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm sure you've all heard all kinds of stories all about scientific evidence. You all know the kind of stuff I'm talking about: material evidence, physical evidence, examined with hypotheses and null hypotheses with confounding statistical analyses and tiny flecks of real highly important matter they look at in test tubes and under microscopes in high-tech laboratories like you see there on the TV. Now I want to emphasize that there's nothing wrong with doing things that way. If you can investigate crimes scientifically, more power to ya. And that's all fine, well and good, but where that might be necessary to prove a crime in most jurisdictions, we here in Ufology County realize that's an unreasonable burden of proof that we'll never be able to meet in this case. I'm sure you all understand how it is. Our little county here is not a controlled situation with repeatable conditions, but that don't stop us from having every bit a legitimate criminal justice system and executing just as many murderers as they do in them big cities.

"So in lieu of that material, scientific evidence, the next best thing is eyewitness, first-hand accounts, reported just as they've been seen, by the arresting officers, the police radio operators who relayed all the communications about the crime back and forth to the officers in the field, and some very reliable, credible citizens who have no reason to lie. Even better, you'll be hearing from a lot of murder experts, all citizens of Ufology County, who've read just about every book about murder in the Mystery section of the public library. Some of these experts are even actual, professional scientists, who graduated college with highfalutin degrees and stuff. You'll be hearing the testimony of all these fine folks, and you'll get to read all the official police reports and statistics on our crime rates here in Ufology County. As an officer of this court, I encourage you to render your judgment on the basis of that evidence only.

"Now let me emphasize that at no point should you consider that a lack of material, physical evidence fails to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. We do things a little different here in Ufology County, and we pride ourselves on that.

"Now your honor, I propose we can just skip the defense's opening statements and get right to our evidence, because we all know he's just a biased, anti-Ufology pseudoskeptic debunker."

Prosecuter: Sir, in your sworn statement the object was 4000 feet high.
JFR: Thats right, 250 meters.
Prosecuter: sir are you changin' your testemony?
JFR: I am making it more accurate. I am not changing anything.
Prosecuter: except the altitude.
JFR: that has not been changed. I just refined it. 250m is the definite truth.
Prosecuter: and you had a clear view of it above the mountain.
JFR; it was in front of the mountain. Above the lake.
Prosecuter: but you said before-
JFR; yes but I'm more accurate now.
Prosecuter: so it was the size of a vw?
JFR; but twice as tall
Prosecuter; so two vws.
JFr: yes. Seen side on.
Judge: do you know what purgery is boy? Contempt of court?


Many hours later:
JFR: and then the judge told me how amazing my memory was and told me I was cool....

 

[Spektator]

I see the thread is off on another sidetrack, and from ufology's responses I see that there is no evidence of ufos to research. It seems that no matter the situation--even if every ufo sighting could be conclusively proven to be mundane in origin, every single last one--believers would either reject the clear evidence or else protest that deep down in their hearts they know aliens are zooming around the skies.

But most rational people would want clear, conclusive, scientific evidence before leaping to such a conclusion. I guess we're still waiting for the research, the evidence.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Scottish tourist board groupie

It works for the Lake Van monster too. Also, Big Foot, fairies, unicorns, mermaids, divine miracles and of course, as demonstrated by Mr Ufology, flying saucers.

 

[ufology]

I see the thread is off on another sidetrack, and from ufology's responses I see that there is no evidence of ufos to research. It seems that no matter the situation--even if every ufo sighting could be conclusively proven to be mundane in origin, every single last one--believers would either reject the clear evidence or else protest that deep down in their hearts they know aliens are zooming around the skies.

But most rational people would want clear, conclusive, scientific evidence before leaping to such a conclusion. I guess we're still waiting for the research, the evidence.

Spektator,

Again you fail to recognoze that there are more kinds of evidence than you will accept. So saying there is no evidence is not accurate. And only a biased and unfair person would imply ( as you have ) that simply seeing something that has yet to be explained by your standards automatically makes someone irrational.

 

[carlitos]

Spektator,

Again you fail to recognoze that there are more kinds of evidence than you will accept.

Again, you are being untruthful in your assessment. There are lots of kinds of evidence that folks here wouldn't accept. Off the top of my head:

• Fraudulent evidence
• Manufactured evidence
• Hoaxed Evidence
• Fake Evidence
• Hearsay Evidence

Why must you constantly misrepresent the views of the posters here? Don't you think people can read what's actually said?

 

[Toke]

Spektator,

Again you fail to recognoze that there are more kinds of evidence than you will accept. So saying there is no evidence is not accurate. And only a biased and unfair person would imply ( as you have ) that simply seeing something that has yet to be explained by your standards automatically makes someone irrational.

You have completely misunderstood the situation here, we have no problem explaining your observations. You have seen a light behaving as a firefly in the firefly season.

Where is the irrationality in that?

Could it be when you try to claim it as something other than a firefly?
Without anything to back it up?

 

[John Albert]

...only a biased and unfair person would imply ( as you have ) that simply seeing something that has yet to be explained by your standards automatically makes someone irrational.

Nobody is saying that, either. It's not at all irrational to simply see something that one cannot explain.

What is irrational is jumping to the conclusion that such a thing is therefore identified as an alien spacecraft, simply because it is unexplained.