UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

Yes, like the complete control we have over the conditions in earthquake and volcano experiments for example.

Yes, like how we can't do controlled experiments to determine the mechanics of solar flares and the and physical composition of a nebula for example.

Or maybe this is just nonsense...

So you ignore the word "many" in my quote. Why? The Earth science experiments I was referring to would be such things as core sample testing, and mineral analysis ... where you have a piece of material you can examine in a lab under controlled conditions. Many such experiments take place regularly.

 

[23_Tauri]

So you ignore the word "many" in my quote. Why? The Earth science experiments I was referring to would be such things as core sample testing, and mineral analysis ... where you have a piece of material you can examine in a lab under controlled conditions. Many such experiments take place regularly.

And this is relevant to the total lack of evidence for Alien Space Ships visting Earth because?

 

[Akhenaten]

So you ignore the word "many" in my quote. Why? The Earth science experiments I was referring to would be such things as core sample testing, and mineral analysis ... where you have a piece of material you can examine in a lab under controlled conditions. Many such experiments take place regularly.

 

[TjW]

So you ignore the word "many" in my quote. Why? The Earth science experiments I was referring to would be such things as core sample testing, and mineral analysis ... where you have a piece of material you can examine in a lab under controlled conditions. Many such experiments take place regularly.

So do you have some piece of a craft you believe to be of extraterrestrial origin that can be tested?

 

[ehcks]

So you ignore the word "many" in my quote. Why? The Earth science experiments I was referring to would be such things as core sample testing, and mineral analysis ... where you have a piece of material you can examine in a lab under controlled conditions. Many such experiments take place regularly.

Controlled experimentation doesn't mean controlling the outcome, it means removing variables.

You haven't removed any variables from your claims, you've just redefined and special plead them away.

 

[ufology]

And this is relevant to the total lack of evidence for Alien Space Ships visting Earth because?

OK ... I'll help you catch up.

It was claimed that scientific experiments are controlled and therefore more credible than uncontrolled observations ... for example UFOs, so I pointed out that many scientific experiments aren't controlled and in many cases have no tangible evidence either ... only uncontrolled observations ... and I'll add that in some cases there isn't even any direct observation, only extrapolation from theory based on circustantial evidence gained from remote observation of a related phenomena.

On the other hand we have direct firsthand observation of UFOs by many credible people and a respectable study concluding that the UFO phenomena ( the existence of extraordinary objects ) is a virtual certainty. Given these factors it is reasonable to suggest extraordinary explanations for those sightings that have no ordinary explanation, and to gather whatever information we can to help illuminate the truth about them. Again I ask the skeptics to assist in this effort in some constructive way. Are there no skeptics here who can demonstrate some positive leadership in this effort?

 

[ehcks]

On the other hand we have direct firsthand observation of UFOs by many credible people and a respectable study concluding that the UFO phenomena ( the existence of extraordinary objects ) is a virtual certainty.

We only have claims. Many many claims.

They are exactly equal to claims of witches, to claims of demons, to claims of invisible pink unicorns.

We have plenty of direct firsthand "observation" of witches by many "credible" people and a "respectable study" concluding the witch phenomenon (the existence of magical people) is a virtual certainty.

Do you like how that sounds?

 

[ufology]

We only have claims. Many many claims.

They are exactly equal to claims of witches, to claims of demons, to claims of invisible pink unicorns.

We have plenty of direct firsthand "observation" of witches by many "credible" people and a "respectable study" concluding the witch phenomenon (the existence of magical people) is a virtual certainty.

Do you like how that sounds?

ehcks,

Your analogy is about as flippant, pseudoskeptical and useless as is possible. You'll have to do better.

 

[23_Tauri]

OK ... I'll help you catch up.

It was claimed that scientific experiments are controlled and therefore more credible than uncontrolled observations ... for example UFOs, so I pointed out that many scientific experiments aren't controlled and in many cases have no tangible evidence either ... only uncontrolled observations ... and I'll add that in some cases there isn't even any direct observation, only extrapolation from theory based on circustantial evidence gained from remote observation of a related phenomena.

Uh?

But experiments carried out in the real world, they are still based collecting measurable, observable data. This collection of measurable data exercise is repeatable by other scientists. There are a multitude of examples of this kind of data collection, and some of the posters here even do it as their day job.

This adherence to scientific principles (measurable, repeatable etc.) is not so with the pseudoscience of UFOlogy, otherwise known as making unprovable and unsupported extraordinary claims about random, one-off, occurrences of unidentified lights in the sky.

On the other hand we have direct firsthand observation of UFOs witches by many credible people and a respectable study concluding that the UFO witching phenomena ( the existence of extraordinary objects sorcery ) is a virtual certainty. Given these factors it is reasonable to suggest extraordinary explanations sorcery for those sightings that have no ordinary explanation, and to gather whatever information we can to help illuminate the truth about them.

Fixed that for you.

Again I ask the skeptics to assist in this effort in some constructive way. Are there no skeptics here who can demonstrate some positive leadership in this effort?

We've been trying to show you where you're going wrong in your assumptions. Jebus this is so simple. People see lights in the sky. In every single case where there has been sufficient information available in order to identify what it was that created that light in sky, it has turned out to be something other than an Alien Space Ship. Something known. Something mundane.

 

[wollery]

OK ... I'll help you catch up.

It was claimed that scientific experiments are controlled and therefore more credible than uncontrolled observations ... for example UFOs, so I pointed out that many scientific experiments aren't controlled and in many cases have no tangible evidence either ... only uncontrolled observations ... and I'll add that in some cases there isn't even any direct observation, only extrapolation from theory based on circustantial evidence gained from remote observation of a related phenomena.

On the other hand we have direct firsthand observation of UFOs by many credible people and a respectable study concluding that the UFO phenomena ( the existence of extraordinary objects ) is a virtual certainty. Given these factors it is reasonable to suggest extraordinary explanations for those sightings that have no ordinary explanation, and to gather whatever information we can to help illuminate the truth about them. Again I ask the skeptics to assist in this effort in some constructive way. Are there no skeptics here who can demonstrate some positive leadership in this effort?

Would you care for me to explain how astronomical observations are controlled, and how statistical surveys and theoretical models add additional controls to astronomy?

Would you also like me to explain how those controls don't apply to observations of UFOs?

Or would you simply ignore it if I did that?

 

[23_Tauri]

ehcks,

Your analogy is about as flippant, pseudoskeptical and useless as is possible. You'll have to do better.

Ah, ehcks got in there before me.

Why is it flippant for me (and ehcks) to have drawn the witch hunting analogy? C'mon, now that you finally come out with it and called it "flippant, pseudoskeptical and useless" you can at least do me the courtesy of explaining WHY it is flippant, pseudoskeptical and useless to draw parallels between witch hunters and ufologists. Or are you as clueless on this as you were with the null hypothesis?

 

[ehcks]

ehcks,

Your analogy is about as flippant, pseudoskeptical and useless as is possible. You'll have to do better.

Only as flippant, pseudoskeptical, and useless as the two mythologies I am comparing.

 

[R.A.F.]

...pseudoskeptical...

Hate to break this to ya, but I've noticed that people only use the word, "pseudo-skeptical", when they realize they have lost the argument...



Oh, and eheks analogy isn't useless...it actually is applicable for the reasons he stated.

 

[GeeMack]

It was claimed that scientific experiments are controlled and therefore more credible than uncontrolled observations ... for example UFOs, so I pointed out that many scientific experiments aren't controlled and in many cases have no tangible evidence either ... only uncontrolled observations ... and I'll add that in some cases there isn't even any direct observation, only extrapolation from theory based on circustantial evidence gained from remote observation of a related phenomena.

Gibberish. Wholly irrelevant to supporting the claim that some UFOs are alien craft.

On the other hand we have direct firsthand observation of UFOs by many credible people and a respectable study concluding that the UFO phenomena ( the existence of extraordinary objects ) is a virtual certainty.

False. We have direct firsthand claims by a lot of people that they have seen things they couldn't identify as some particular thing. But there is no conclusion and no certainty, virtual or otherwise, that any UFO sightings demonstrate "the existence of extraordinary objects".

Given these factors it is reasonable to suggest extraordinary explanations for those sightings that have no ordinary explanation, [...]

No, it absolutely is not reasonable. It's jumping to conclusions based on wishful thinking. It's a logical fallacy and consequently not a rational argument to support the claim that some UFOs are alien craft.

[...] and to gather whatever information we can to help illuminate the truth about them.

To illuminate the truth would require embracing the scientific method. There will be no illuminating the truth when the scientific method is willfully rejected at every turn. In the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world built around the pseudoscience of "ufology", truth itself does correspond to objective reality.

Again I ask the skeptics to assist in this effort in some constructive way. Are there no skeptics here who can demonstrate some positive leadership in this effort?

Did you miss my post where I did the counting and showed that over 200 helpful cooperative skeptics have been attempting to assist in that effort in some constructive way? Are there no "ufologists" who will embrace reality, the scientific method, recognize that truth and reality are inextricably connected, drop the dishonesty and willful ignorance, and actually set about the task of falsifying the null hypothesis which they themselves created?

 

[John Albert]

...I pointed out that many scientific experiments aren't controlled and in many cases have no tangible evidence either ... only uncontrolled observations

Can you point to any examples of such experiments, that are widely accepted as having contributed anything significant to scientific knowledge?

... and I'll add that in some cases there isn't even any direct observation, only extrapolation from theory based on circustantial evidence gained from remote observation of a related phenomena.

"Circumstantial evidence"? What the hell are you talking about? Please be specific and give examples.

On the other hand we have direct firsthand observation of UFOs by many credible people

No we don't. All we have are anecdotes; in other words, extraordinary claims without any supporting evidence.

"Credibility" is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact. From a critical thinking perspective, no claim is credible in and of itself without any testable and verifiable evidence to support it, regardless of who's making the claim.

...and a respectable study concluding that the UFO phenomena ( the existence of extraordinary objects ) is a virtual certainty.

Please quote this conclusion as stated in the abstract of the study, and post a link to the study so we can read it for ourselves.

Given these factors

You haven't given anything. You've just made a bunch of unsupported claims without evidence. You must first show evidence that the "factors" you've cited are even true in the first place, and then we can start discussing whether your conclusion logically follows.

it is reasonable to suggest extraordinary explanations for those sightings that have no ordinary explanation

Wrong!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've provided zero evidence.

Citing a lack of evidence to the contrary as positive evidence is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance.

Again I ask the skeptics to assist in this effort in some constructive way. Are there no skeptics here who can demonstrate some positive leadership in this effort?

No skeptic worth his salt will ever take up such an endeavor, because your entire premise flies in the face of reason and critical thinking.

 

[R.A.F.]

On the other hand we have direct firsthand observation of UFOs by many credible people and a respectable study concluding that the UFO phenomena ( the existence of extraordinary objects ) is a virtual certainty.

Now, see, I really don't know what you are talking about when you say "extraordinary objects"? If you mean UFO's, then you can't "identify" them as extraordinary, unless you first actually identify them. If you mean flying saucers, then just say so. But you're not going to circumvent actual credible evidence to "prove" the existence of aliens by hand-waving "it must be a certainty"..Your credulousness is simply not evidence of anything.

Given these factors it is reasonable to suggest extraordinary explanations for those sightings that have no ordinary explanation...

Why? We have no evidence for the existence of aliens, so why should we make the assumption that they are flitting across our skies?

If you want to credulously believe, well, that's your "thing", but don't expect the rest of us to fall all over, congratulating you on your scientific "abilities"...you have demonstrated none...

Why can't alien believers understand that evidence must be convincing??

 

[Akhenaten]

On the other hand we have direct firsthand observation of UFOs by many credible people and a respectable study concluding that the UFO phenomena ( the existence of extraordinary objects ) is a virtual certainty.

Balderdash.

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.

Unidentified ≠ extraordinary.


You really should stop trying to pass your fantasy off as though it were reality. Not a good look.

 

[Akhenaten]

OK ... I'll help you catch up.

There's no need to threaten people.

 

[John Albert]

Mr. Credulous Ufologist,

Wollery has already given you several good reasons why that Halley's Comet analogy was faulty on all but the most superficial level. Did you just skip over that post, or are you just dishonestly pretending to ignore it?

The main difference is, Halley's Comet is a singular thing. It is an identified astronomical body, known to recur regularly at a specific interval.

UFOs, on the other hand, are not a singular thing. They're multiple transient phenomena, defined not by what they are, only by what they're not.

UFOs, by definition, are unidentified objects. No UFO has ever been positively identified as an object of non-human manufacture. If it had, it would by definition be an identified object and not a UFO.

Every UFO that has ever been positively identified (as in the vast majority of cases) has turned out to be mundane in origin: a misperception of an earthly object or astronomical body, a distortion of light due to atmospheric phenomena, an optical illusion, a mental confabulation or hoax.

The variety of different objects that have been mistaken as UFOs are extremely diverse. According to all the positive evidence we have to date about UFOs that have been later identified, they have never turned out to be a single kind of object of any particular origin (let alone ET origin), but a widely diverse class of objects whose only common feature is that they had not been positively identified.

Therefore, comparing a singular known object like Halley's Comet to an indistinct class of objects whose only feature is that they're unidentified, is a disingenuous false analogy, a.k.a. "apples and oranges."

Tauri,

It's not that I missed your point, it's that I don't agree with it.

<snipped 4 long paragraphs that demonstrate completely missing Tauri's point>

The point she made—the one you completely ignored—is that thousands of people over the course of hundreds of years used anecdotes, perceptions and memories as the evidence for believing witches and their spells were real.

If all those people could have been wrong about something as well-storied as that, then how can you say that the anecdotes, perceptions and memories about UFOs aren't just as faulty?

 

[23_Tauri]

"Credibility" is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact. From a critical thinking perspective, no claim is credible in and of itself without any testable and verifiable evidence to support it, regardless of who's making the claim.

Unless of course it's being made by......







(drum roll......)

Da-daaa!