UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Spektator]

All this reminds me of a bit by Woody Allen: "Pythagoras believed the smallest unit of matter in existence was the monad. Democritus thought it was the atom. Fortunately the two never met or there would have been an incredibly boring argument."

 

[John Albert]

Check it out.

​

"Don't be a fool, Striker, you know what a landing like this means, you more than anybody. I'm ordering you to stay up there."

"No dice, Chicago. I'm giving the orders and we're coming in. I guess the foot's on the other hand now, isn't it, Kramer?"

 

[ehcks]

Sorry but you can't just "assume" something is one thing because it hasn't been proven to be another. That is a classic argument from ignorance. The best you can do is remain undecided and go about your business as usual.

The null hypothesis isn't an assumption. It is the logical inverse of an assumption.

YOUR assumption is that UFOs are alien spacecraft, therefore YOUR null hypothesis is that your assumption is wrong and that all UFOs are of mundane origin.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Huh? So we can't assume a UFO is one thing because they have not been definately proven to ... well ... why is there any discussion of the opinion they may or may not be Alien or Craft at all if ufologist believes that for a second?

Is he aware he owns a website that says the complete opposite?


And how does he still not get the null?

 

[23_Tauri]

The null hypothesis isn't an assumption. It is the logical inverse of an assumption.

YOUR assumption is that UFOs are alien spacecraft, therefore YOUR null hypothesis is that your assumption is wrong and that all UFOs are of mundane origin.

Good luck with that, ehcks.....

 

[ufology]

Yet this is exactly what you do.

From your own website:

UFO
​

1. A craft of alien origin.
​

Yet, this is exactly what you do.

From your own website:

UFO
​

1. A craft of alien origin.
​

You are failing to apply the word alien in the context it is intended. First of all, mere definitions aren't "proof" of anything. They simply describe the meanings of words. Secondly, the word "alien" as used in the definition does not necessitate extraterrestrial. Rather it refers to a state of circumstance where the object in question comes from outside the environment in which it is found ... in the case of UFOs, from outside human civilization as we know it. When you apply your example in this manner, you see that I make no claim to having proven anything one way or another.

 

[ufology]

You seem to assume when is suits.

The difference is that I don't presume my assumptions are already proven to be true like the devotees of the faulty null hypothesis for UFOs here do. Even if their hypothesis was something like, "The objects that are the subject of most UFO reports are likely of mundane origin", I wouldn't have much of an issue with it, but assuming that they are all mundane objects is faulty logic.

 

[ufology]

Then why have you been so dead-set against the existence of witches?

Witches exist, it's just whether or not they have the powers normally attributed to them that I question. But that is another topic altogether.

 

[23_Tauri]

Witches exist, it's just whether or not they have the powers normally attributed to them that I question. But that is another topic altogether.

And yet we don't know if aliens exist but you not only believe that UFOs = alien craft, you attribute them with supernatural powers.

Why don't you apply the same level of critical thinking that you do to witches to aliens?

 

[Sideroxylon]

The difference is that I don't presume my assumptions are already proven to be true like the devotees of the faulty null hypothesis for UFOs here do. Even if their hypothesis was something like, "The objects that are the subject of most UFO reports are likely of mundane origin", I wouldn't have much of an issue with it, but assuming that they are all mundane objects is faulty logic.

You seem happy to apply the null hypothesis to witchy powers.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yet this is exactly what you do.

From your own website:

UFO
​

1. A craft of alien origin.
​

Yet, this is exactly what you do.

From your own website:

UFO
​

1. A craft of alien origin.
​

You are failing to apply the word alien in the context it is intended.

Quoting your own usage of it isn't 'applying' it by any stretch of the imagination.

First of all, mere definitions aren't "proof" of anything. They simply describe the meanings of words.

The vast majority of the participants in the thread knew this almost 400 pages ago, yet there are those (well, only one now) whose entire argument is based on Argumentum ad Rredefinitionum.

Secondly, the word "alien" as used in the definition does not necessitate extraterrestrial. Rather it refers to a state of circumstance where the object in question comes from outside the environment in which it is found ... in the case of UFOs, from outside human civilization as we know it.

Positing unknown terrestrial civilisations as a source for your flying saucers is one way of making the rest of your claims appear less absurd, but I doubt very much you'll notice an overall reduction in the Guffaw Index™.

When you apply your example in this manner, you see that I make no claim to having proven anything one way or another.

You can't even make a claim to an understanding of the meaning of 'proven'.

 

[GeeMack]

Positing unknown terrestrial civilisations as a source for your flying saucers is one way of making the rest of your claims appear less absurd, but I doubt very much you'll notice an overall reduction in the Guffaw Index™.

I disagree. Suggesting unknown terrestrial civilizations doesn't really look less absurd than dishonestly equivocating "UFOs = aliens" or claiming that some UFOs are alien craft while steadfastly refusing to support that claim. Although it may be an attempt to appear less absurd, what might seem reasonable to a person who truly believes he has held conversations with rabbits is quite a different thing than what might seem reasonable... or absurd... to you and me. But then things are clearly not the based on reality in the pseudoscience of "ufology".

 

[Akhenaten]

The difference is that I don't presume my assumptions are already proven to be true like the devotees of the faulty null hypothesis for UFOs here do.

Nobody presumes the null hypothesis to be proven.

It exists solely to be disproven.

You really don't get it at all, do you?

Even if their hypothesis was something like, "The objects that are the subject of most UFO reports are likely of mundane origin", I wouldn't have much of an issue with it . . .

Fortunately for all of us these things aren't formulated with a view to what will cause the least distress for the reality challenged.

. . . but assuming that they are all mundane objects is faulty logic.

And yet it's so well supported by the evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

But then things are clearly not the based on reality in the pseudoscience of "ufology".

Silly me. I keep forgetting that we're dealing with the Floogyverse.

 

[Stray Cat]

It was about time for another issue anyway:

 

[Resume]

The difference is that I don't presume my assumptions are already proven to be true like the devotees of the faulty null hypothesis for UFOs here do. Even if their hypothesis was something like, "The objects that are the subject of most UFO reports are likely of mundane origin", I wouldn't have much of an issue with it, but assuming that they are all mundane objects is faulty logic.

Do you have evidence that falsifies the null?

ETA: other than claims (anecdotes.)

 

[jond]

It was about time for another issue anyway:

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Squid-Mag5.jpg[/qimg]

Thank you! It's been way too long since the last issue...

 

[Astrophotographer]

It was about time for another issue anyway:

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Squid-Mag5.jpg[/qimg]

I can always count on Stray Cat when I am a bit on the down side on a slow morning getting back to work. Thanks!

 

[RoboTimbo]

The difference is that I don't presume my assumptions are already proven to be true like the devotees of the faulty null hypothesis for UFOs here do.

No, you are dieingenuous when you mischaracterize your beliefs like that. You obviously do believe that Alien Space Ships exist and they contain ZOMGAliens despite never having disproven your own J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

All UFOs are of mundane origin​

You, again obviously, fail to comprehend what a null hypothesis is.

Even if their hypothesis was something like, "The objects that are the subject of most UFO reports are likely of mundane origin", I wouldn't have much of an issue with it, but assuming that they are all mundane objects is faulty logic.

Whose null hypothesis are you referring to when you say "their"? It's your very own J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

All UFOs are of mundane origin​

which you have to disprove. You've not done that yet. Nor, it seems, have you comprehended it yet, despite pages and pages devoted to its description and use with examples.

Let's see if you will ever be able to comprehend it. Give me an example in your own words of a null hypothesis concerning witch powers.

 

[carlitos]

You, again obviously, fail dishonestly pretend not to comprehend what a null hypothesis is.

I added the bold part. He understands it, but continues to lie to promote his book club / website.