UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Are you implying I'm unreasonable??!!

I make a point of never making disparaging remarks about girls with wands in their hands lest I get newted.

 

[Drs_Res]

ufology,

You should watch this video on Open Mindedness.

Substitute OMG_Aliens! for "ghost(s)" and "supernatural" in the video.

http://youtu.be/T69TOuqaqXI

 

[Akhenaten]

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about flying saucers or baked bread . . .

Of course it does.

This very statement of yours is a perfect demonstration of your willingness to ascribe, without evidence, the same likelihood of existence to flying saucers that you do to baked bread.

You're comparing apples with zilm'kach.

. . . if prior investigation and study has taken place and is used as a rationale for a position, no "jumping to conclusions without stopping anyplace in between" has taken place.

If prior investigation has revealed not a scrap of evidence for flying saucers, anywhere, ever, then basing an ultimate finding on their existence is indeed jumping to conclusions, no matter how much you shilly-shally along the way.

Perhaps I should also ask, do you also think UFO investigations that conclude that witnesses probably saw known objects or phenomena also count as examples of "jumping to conclusions"?

That would depend on the nature of the evidence presented and how well the investigation matched it with known objects and phenomena.

Your argument will be a lot more robust when you show us an investigation that's been able to match a UFO report with a known flying saucer.

Or are the only examples of "jumping to conclusions" the ones [conclusions] you disagree with?

Disagreeing with objective reality is the big problem, Mr Fology.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The "investigations" of UFOlogists are not misrepresented. Their "investigations" assume in Ufology's own words, that "alien craft" is a reasonable conclusion with out evidence. Or with outany discernable data to base the possibility there may be alien vessels upon.

UFOlogy is being fairly presented as a flawedpseudoscience, not actual investigation or study.

 

[Akhenaten]

Are you aware of, or can you provide any objective evidence for claims that assert WTFAliens? Because if you aren't, if you can't, you are holding an empty sack.

What does your comment have to do with the issue of ufologists "jumping to conclusions"?

There's no other way to arrive at a conclusion that requires you to invoke something that's never been shown to exist.

To address your comment anyway: Your presumption that without proof evidence UFOs are alien craft "the sack is empty" is an argument from ignorance ( look it up on Wikipedia ).

This correction of your 43,728,617th misuse of the word 'proof' is a community service provided free of charge.

Drivel.

Saying that something can't be so because you've never heard of it is an argument from ignorance

Saying that something most likely doesn't exist because there's never been a whit of evidence produced for it is common sense^WP.

Damn shame it's not more common.

As for "objective evidence", what exactly do you mean? There are a number of ways to look at that issue:

The best way, of course, is to keep the OBJECT part of it firmly in mind.

existing independently of the mind? ( like radar contacts )

That will become objective evidence only when you can show us a direct link between the radar contact and an actual object.

free of bias? ( like reports from people who had no preconceived opinion prior to seeing a UFO )

It may or may not be an objective report due to any number of factors, however, the judgement of those factors is itself a subjective process.

existing independently of the mind? ( how do we prove anything really exists independently of the mind - do tell )

Being able to show your object to other people is always good.

observable? ( as in tens of thousands of people have seen them )

UFOs? Certainly. Alien spaceships? You have no idea, but the null hypothesis says "zero".

 

[ufology]

ufology,

You should watch this video on Open Mindedness.

Substitute OMG_Aliens! for "ghost(s)" and "supernatural" in the video.

http://youtu.be/T69TOuqaqXI

OK I watched the video. What is your point? I've no made any claim that scientists or skeptics are closed minded. I've made no claim that anecdotal evidence should be accepted at face value. I've made no claim that a lack of proof negative equals proof positive. I don't get angry if people don't agree with me or challenge my position. I'm not "fiercly skeptical" of science. I've made no suggestion that anyone should suspend critical thinking ... in fact you will notice that if you review the "Critical Thinking in Ufology" thread that it is the so-called skeptics here who derailed it with their constant mockery, and that I was quite good natured about it.

Another issue is that the video focuses on supernatural phenomena. UFOs aren't a supernatural phenomenon in and of themselves, although they may be related to such incidents by way of an associated science that we have yet to understand. Ultimately, there are no scientific reasons why UFOs ( alien craft ) cannot exist and/or cannot have visited the Earth. The closest the video came to including UFOs in its illustration was a mention of "alien crop circles" ... which is a topic called cereology and only connected peripherally to ufology studies.

One interesting contradiction in the video is that it starts out claiming that "science thrives on new ideas" and ends saying we should reject anything without "valid evidence". What suddenly happened to "considering new ideas" and remaining open to further study?

Sure it goes on to say that if new information should present itself, then we can reconsider the question, as if that makes rejecting it OK. But how does that new evidence come into being if we become prone to rejecting new ideas in the first place? Clearly there is a flaw in the process. I would propose that there is a third option that the video missed ... to neither accept nor reject the idea, and keep it on the table for further study.

Lastly, if you feel that I in any way match the kind of people the video portrays as being unreasonable, I invite you to engage me in discussion on specific facets of ufology. I'm confident that you would come away with a much different view than that which is portrayed in your video link.

 

[Akhenaten]

OK I watched the video.

<snip evidence that watch ≠ learn something from>

Gosh. That doesn't leave much for me to address.

Bummer.

 

[Stray Cat]

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about flying saucers or baked bread, if prior investigation and study has taken place and is used as a rationale for a position, no "jumping to conclusions without stopping anyplace in between" has taken place.

One can study baked bread all ones life... if at the end of it the conclusion is it was baked by aliens even though no evidence has turned up that shows aliens even exist, let alone bake bread, the conclusion has been jumped to... So please just provide us with a single crumb of evidence and we'll toast your name for years to come because it will genuinely be the best thing since... well since sliced bread.

Perhaps I should also ask, do you also think UFO investigations that conclude that witnesses probably saw known objects or phenomena also count as examples of "jumping to conclusions"? Or are the only examples of "jumping to conclusions" the ones [conclusions] you disagree with?

No, I regularly have seen sceptics jumping to unfounded conclusions about what various objects and phenomena were too. It really has nothing to do with what conclusion is reached and everything to with the evidence which is available on which to base a conclusion.
The other rather telling point being that sceptics are willing to change their mind when presented with compelling evidence, whereas UFOlogists are more than likely to reject compelling evidence in favour of relying on anecdotes in order to maintain the conclusion they jumped to.

 

[Stray Cat]

As for "objective evidence", what exactly do you mean? There are a number of ways to look at that issue:

• existing independently of the mind? ( like broomsticks exist )
• free of bias? ( like reports from unbiased farmers who's cattle had been made to be ill )
• existing independently of the mind? ( like the ethereal forces commonly used by Witches to weave their magiks )
• observable? ( as in tens of thousands of people have seen them and put them to death after proving them to be real witches )

There may well be "a number of ways to look at the issue", sadly your way and way re-written above are not two of them.

 

[EHocking]

All I'm doing is disproving the assertion that ufologists always jump to the most extreme solutions without stopping at any points between...

Rubbish.

Here is your definition of UFO on your site.

The resulting new definition for UFO is as follows:
UFO or ufo
​

Pronounciation: yoo-ef-oh ( plural UFOs ) or yoo-foe ( plural ufos ) noun

1. A craft of alien origin.
​

2.The object or phenomenon that is the focus of a UFO report or investigation.
​

For you to argue that "ufologists" don't take the a priori assumption that UFO=alien, by quoting other people's definition of the acronym, is disingenuous.

 

[23_Tauri]

What does your comment have to do with the issue of ufologists "jumping to conclusions"?

To address your comment anyway: Your presumption that without proof UFOs are alien craft "the sack is empty" is an argument from ignorance ( look it up on Wikipedia ).

No it isn't. Quite the opposite, in fact. Jumping to the conclusion that it is likely aliens, which have never been proven to exist, is an argument from ignorance. The person making this argument is ignorant of the fact that there's no evidence for the existence of aliens. You see?

As for "objective evidence", what exactly do you mean? There are a number of ways to look at that issue:

existing independently of the mind? ( like radar contacts )

Little Miss Witchcraft shows up on radar too, when she forgets to put on her cloak(ing device)

free of bias? ( like reports from people who had no preconceived opinion prior to seeing a UFO )

There's no such thing as an opinion free of the cultural context within which the individual who sees the UFO is living. This is why I keep making the witch analogy, in order to get you to understand this.

When people living outside of the sphere of influence of Hollywood / Americana see a UFO, they interpret it according to their own cultural influences. Do you think an Australian aborigine whose never had contact outside of his/her indigenous culture (ok, I appreciate such an individual probably doesn't exist anymore, but assuming that they do), do you think they see a light in the sky and think "there goes an extraterrestrial from another planet in a metal saucer brimming with advanced technology"?

existing independently of the mind? ( how do we prove anything really exists independently of the mind - do tell )

Oh please.... don't try and deflect attention away from your lack of evidence for aliens with an ontological argument about the nature of being.

observable? ( as in tens of thousands of people have seen them )

Let me refer you to this compendium of flying things once again.

 

[Toke]

I don't think you are being fair with Ufology, he is correct in the part about not jumping to the most extreme conclusion.

The flyingsaucerologists do usually not try to specify which particular alien race are responsible for an ufo sighting, at least not without further information.

 

[23_Tauri]

I make a point of never making disparaging remarks about girls with wands in their hands lest I get newted.

A very sensible approach, Mr Pharoah.

 

[Akhenaten]

When people living outside of the sphere of influence of Hollywood / Americana see a UFO, they interpret it according to their own cultural influences. Do you think an Australian aborigine whose never had contact outside of his/her indigenous culture (ok, I appreciate such an individual probably doesn't exist anymore, but assuming that they do, do you think they see a light in the sky and think "there goes an extraterrestrial from another planet in a metal saucer brimming with advanced technology"?

They most certainly do.

In outback New South Wales and Queensland such things are known as the Min Min light^WP. Even a whitefella such as myself who has seen both Star Wars and the Min Min has never been known to exclaim, "OMG . . .aliens!"

 

[EHocking]

I don't think you are being fair with Ufology,

In this thread, all honest posters are treated fairly...

he is correct in the part about not jumping to the most extreme conclusion.

I disagree. His transparent dissembling does not conceal the fact that his a priori stance is that UFO=aliens.

The flyingsaucerologists do usually not try to specify which particular alien race are responsible for an ufo sighting, at least not without further information.

Again, I disagree. From Ufology's site re: Aliens.

In ufology, most ufologists hold the opinion that UFOs are alien craft, at least to the extent that they are alien to human civilization and are probably extraterrestrial in origin.
​

No further information sought - UFOs are alien craft piloted by ET.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I don't think you are being fair with Ufology, he is correct in the part about not jumping to the most extreme conclusion.

The flyingsaucerologists do usually not try to specify which particular alien race are responsible for an ufo sighting, at least not without further information.

He has been very clear about his position and I am sure he will correct me if I misrepresent him, but it is this: Any "object" perceived to be behaving in a manner judged to fit no known phenomena is an alien craft.

 

[23_Tauri]

They most certainly do.

In outback New South Wales and Queensland such things are known as the Min Min light^WP. Even a whitefella such as myself who has seen both Star Wars and the Min Min has never been known to exclaim, "OMG . . .aliens!"

Thank you, Mr P. Today you have been the E in my JREF. You are spared a newting.

Ufology, please can you explain to me why it is that after (quote) "prior investigation and study has taken place and is used as a rationale for a position" and (quote) "studying cases and looking for explanations that match known objects or phenomena" UFOlogists never, ever move on to the possibility of Min Min Lights?

 

[Toke]

Come on, he is not jumping to conclusions on which specific alien race or mission parameters just from an UFO report.
That is at least some restraint.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't think you are being fair with Ufology.

In this thread, all honest posters are treated fairly...

I think Toke simply meant, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that ufology hasn't quite gone the whole nine yards yet and attempted to name the exact planet* that his aliens hail from, that being the "most extreme conclusion".





* My money is on it being Floogyu 4, a gas dwarf orbiting Rrigel.


ETA: Rrats! Beaten by the Viking!

 

[23_Tauri]

Well, this is true, but following Floggy-Logic to its logical (?) conclusion, it would not be unreasonable for us to ask our resident ufologist why he doesn't make an attempt to specify the planetary or celestial home of a particular UFO. Why is this, ufology?