UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paul2]

What constitutes a good reason to believe?

Does a good reason to believe depend upon who is doing the believing (that is, whether it's a first-hand experience or a second-hand report of the first-hand experience)? My answer is no. See below.

For example if you had a UFO experience yourself. That could, depending on the details of the experience, be a good reason for you to believe. But it would not necessarily be a good enough reason for whomever you should tell your story to.

If the experience is valid enough to properly convince the first-hand experiencer, the second-hand hearer of the report should also accept it, otherwise we have a real problem: two different people, with evidence that is valid for them both, come to a different conclusion.

This type of conclusion about reality can NOT depend on the person doing the concluding. That's nearly the definition of reality - what remains when you take away individual influence, bias, perspective, etc. - what is common to everyone, regardless of the individual.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That's an awful lot of words just to repeat the Ufologists' Creed, that anything which isn't identified as some particular thing can reasonably be assumed to be an alien craft. Or in the short form, "UFOs = alien craft". But we all know, even the "ufologists" in the crowd, that it's a dishonest way to try to support a preconceived belief in aliens, perpetuate a hoax, and maybe try to pedal a few books... and of course it's nonsense.

I was not prepared to leap to such a concluion as a kid nor now. It would be dishonest.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yet all I get back in response are comments that I "don't understand" and off topic commentary that doubles as mockery, most recently involving witches;

Errrr, no!

Witches on Broomsticks can be used to explain any UFO sighting.
There is more actual evidence for them, recorded history, actual court cases where it has been legally proven, not to mention the thousands of anecdotal accounts stretching over centuries.

We know Witches exist!

 

[Sideroxylon]

I could have been seeing the legendary min-min light.

 

[23_Tauri]

Paul,

I agree completely with what you said above. But it is also a departure from the issue, which was: What constitutes a good reason to believe?

Objective, verifible, evidence is a good reason to believe. Then you don't need to believe, because you've got evidence.

It was put forward that there are no good reasons to believe, however I pointed out that firsthand experience is a good reason to believe.

First hand experience is a good way of experiencing how piss-poor our memories can be. I had this experience very recently with a date in my diary. I had even made a note of the date and location of a future event in my Outlook calendar. I was sure that I had the right date for an event, but then it transpired when I went back to check again, that my recollection of the location, and therefore the diary note, was wrong.

It's not just me being a berk. It happens to all of us, all the time.

For example if you had a UFO experience yourself. That could, depending on the details of the experience, be a good reason for you to believe.

To believe what, exactly? That it's astoundingly difficult to judge distances and sizes of objects at night? Why, I have that experience every time I drive on the motorway in the dark.

But it would not necessarily be a good enough reason for whomever you should tell your story to. Where your comment fits in is that we both acknowledge that there is only "one reality",

There is one objective reality, that is correct.

the issue is proving to someone who has never exeperienced some part of it that there is more to it than they think. The "one reality" become a situation where part of the population is aware of some aspect of that reality that the rest aren't.

Ok, there's two things here:

1. An objective reality that exists as it is, outside of our cognition;
2. Our brain's interpretation of that reality, which is individual and idiosyncratic to each and every one of us. It's based on lots of things, such as our past experience, but basically it's the sum total stimuli in the environment being picked up, and filtered by, our senses, and then a bunch of neurons firing (in a very individual way) in our brain, resulting in some thoughts.

Note the difference.

 

[23_Tauri]

In actuality, if you review my comments, you will find that I have referenced the independent articles in Wikipedia several times in support of my position on the null hypothesis, including a reference to the statistician who developed it and the statistical principles which are used in applying it.

Oh sweet baby Jeebus help me.

Yes, if you want to add statistical analysis to your data in an experimental situation in order to decide what level of confidence you want in order to falsify your null hypothesis and know that the outcome isn't due to chance, then jipperdy doo. But we are NOT in such an experimental set-up here! Can't you see that? In this scenario use of the null hypothesis is just as useful but, fortunately for you, much much much much simpler to comprehend. No confidence levels, no stats, just: "have we found a UFO that's an alien space ship, or not?". Or: "has a witch turn a man into a newt, or not?". Or "has a flipped coin turned into a butterfly, or not?"

Simples.

 

[Pixel42]

Sure Pixel, your point has some merit. It's the part about "other examples" that I take issue with, because it implies here that you are referencing me in particular.

You worked that out all on your own?

In actuality, if you review my comments, you will find that I have referenced the independent articles in Wikipedia several times in support of my position on the null hypothesis, including a reference to the statistician who developed it and the statistical principles which are used in applying it.

I have a degree in Mathematics, you have nothing to teach me on the subject.

It has been explained to you - many times, patiently and at length - why the wiki articles you keep referencing are completely irrelevant to the application of the principle of the null hypothesis to the issue of whether any UFOs are alien spacecraft.

So perhaps you might want to have an honest look at who seems to be blinded by their "emotional attachment". Start with the skeptics who deny the validity of the statistical principles of the null hypothesis as outlined in Wikipedia.

No-one has done that, so there are zero names on that list.

An honest look at who here seems to be blinded by their emotional investment in an unsupportable belief produces only one username to go on the list, and it starts with a 'u'.

 

[Jocce]

What constitutes a good reason to believe? It was put forward that there are no good reasons to believe, however I pointed out that firsthand experience is a good reason to believe.

Your senses, my senses and Pauls senses are all fallable. Therefore, first hand experiences are not good reasons to believe.

 

[Akhenaten]

Errrr, no!

Witches on Broomsticks can be used to explain any UFO sighting.
There is more actual evidence for them, recorded history, actual court cases where it has been legally proven, not to mention the thousands of anecdotal accounts stretching over centuries.

We know Witches exist!

They've even shown up on radar!

 

[Stray Cat]

Your senses, my senses and Pauls senses are all fallable. Therefore, first hand experiences are not good reasons to believe.

They are however, the best way to fool yourself into believing.

 

[23_Tauri]

They've even shown up on radar!

I've always found radar to be slightly unflattering, as it can accentuate the rear end somewhat.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've always found radar to be slightly unflattering, as it can accentuate the rear end somewhat.

Thus the advantage of using Forward-Looking IR.

 

[RoboTimbo]

They've even shown up on radar!

And FLIR! Why do you always forg...


Oh. Never mind.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yet all I get back in response are comments that I "don't understand" and off topic commentary that doubles as mockery, most recently involving witches; and those kinds of response seems typical of the skeptics here when someone doesn't agree with them. There are countless examples of such on this thread alone.

Why do you label the discussion about witches as mockery? Witches have been proven in courts of law where the likelihood of mistake is virtually zero. Can you show a court case where a UFO was determined to be an OMFG! Alien Space Ship?

Upstanding citizens of probity testified to witnessing witchcraft. Are you now claiming that all witnesses are delusional?

 

[Stray Cat]

I've always found radar to be slightly unflattering, as it can accentuate the rear end somewhat.

Does my bomber look big in this?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thus the advantage of using Forward-Looking IR.

That must be how Stray Cat found his hot witch. Speaking of witch, isn't it time for Stray Cat to post more pics of her? As evidence, I mean.

 

[Stray Cat]

 

[carlitos]

... I would suggest that if any progress is to be made on this front that people (somehow) cut down on the volume of traffic here, and give him nothing to respond to except a single question. Obviously this is probably a pipe dream given the nature of webforums, but just a thought.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm in, with 2 conditions.

1 - We start a UFO thread in Community or humor, and everyone agrees to come along, especially the artists among us.
2 - Paul2 is in charge of the "single question."

Shall we take a vote?

 

[Akhenaten]

+1