UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo,

To keep your question in context, I offer this as replacement: Would you consider eyewitness evidence sufficient to convince you of the existence of something? The most obvious answer is that if you were the eyewitness it certainly could but not necessarily be sufficient. If you haven't seen it yourself, then it should become a matter of probabilities. Sometimes those probabilities can approach certainty for all practical purposes, but it's still not the same as seeing it yourself.

Then are the thousands of firsthand eyewitnesses to UFOs ( witches ) enough to convince you of their existence?

 

[ufology]

Then are the thousands of firsthand eyewitnesses to UFOs ( witches ) enough to convince you of their existence?

Quantity alone can but does not necessarily increase the probability of accuracy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Quantity alone can but does not necessarily increase the probability of accuracy.

So the quantity of witnesses to UFOs do or don't enter into your confidence of anything?

 

[Stray Cat]

Not Exactly,

Requiring extraordinary skepticism is different than requiring extraordinary evidence. As for ECREE, the evidence for extraordinary claims just ends up being deemed extraordinary in a subjective way, but it's not a "requirement" other than to convince someone is highly biased. From an objective point of view the evidence may not be extraordinary at all. In other words any claim, including so-called extraordinary claims simply requires sufficient evidence, and such evidence may or may not be extraordinary. For example it was once thought to be an extraordinary idea that streaks of light in the sky were caused by rocks from space. Then we found the rocks ... and they're just rocks ... there's nothing extarordinary about them ... space it littered with them. The only thing that made the evidence extraordinary at the time was the subjective bias of those who didn't subscribe to the rocks from space theory.

You misrepresent what is meant by "extraordinary evidence".
It is not actually a quality of the evidence required, but more a quality of what that evidence points towards. Indeed the evidence can and most often is rather unextraordinary in itself. But the important part is that if it shows science to have been wrong in some way, that is extraordinary.

 

[ufology]

So the quantity of witnesses to UFOs do or don't enter into your confidence of anything?

Quantity is a factor but that factor may be of more or less value depending on how the details of the various observations and investigations affect the probability of an accurate answer.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Quantity is a factor but that factor may be of more or less value depending on how the details of the various observations and investigations affect the probability of an accurate answer.

So with all of the extraordinarily high quality witnesses to UFOs ( witches ) throughout history, and the fact that they've been proven in courts of law ( triers of fact ), do you believe in UFOs ( witches ) or not?

 

[Belgian thought]

RoboTimbo,

To keep your question in context, I offer this as replacement: Would you consider eyewitness evidence sufficient to convince you of the existence of something? The most obvious answer is that if you were the eyewitness it certainly could but not necessarily be sufficient. If you haven't seen it yourself, then it should become a matter of probabilities. Sometimes those probabilities can approach certainty for all practical purposes, but it's still not the same as seeing it yourself.

What a load of crock.

"Would you consider eyewitness evidence sufficient to convince you of the existence of something?"

How many people are fooled by magic tricks?

Therefore, the mind wishes to see, and be amazed. It is possibly in our nature to gasp at perceived wonders and to discard rational thought at the time of experiencing an emotion - look at 'love' as a perfect example.

"The most obvious answer is that if you were the eyewitness it certainly could but not necessarily be sufficient."

Indeed...

"If you haven't seen it yourself, then it should become a matter of probabilities."

I have never seen the Pyramids, therefore they only probably exist - excuse me Akhenaten for doubting you, and probable great buildings.;

"Sometimes those probabilities can approach certainty for all practical purposes, but it's still not the same as seeing it yourself."

Again, I have never seen the extremely probable Pyramids.

Now where do I find this 'hold up your ears' and go "Blah! Blah!" emoticon - I have seen it, or have i?

 

[23_Tauri]

Quantity is a factor but that factor may be of more or less value depending on how the details of the various observations and investigations affect the probability of an accurate answer.

You're still not making sense, Mr Foo.

Are you word salad-ing a Captain Obvious statement? i.e. Making accurate observations of something increases the chances of us coming to the right conclusion about what it is.

 

[John Albert]

Absolutely, which is why what you just said reaffirms a point I made some time ago on the false belief that results obtained from technology should always be deemed more accurate than an eyewitness.

What you just said was pretty roundly refuted by a post I made some time ago.

Maybe you forgot to check your email that day, or you considered it "toxic" when I debunked your false assertion that eyewitnesses are more reliable than machine-collected data (which you had disingenuously referred to as "machine generated data, as if to imply that instruments are simply generating random, false data out of thin air).

Please allow me to refresh your infallible memory:

You're kidding right? Machine generated data is data from scientific instruments such as computers, spectroscopes, CCD telescopes, magnetometers, seismometers, video cameras ... any machine ( device or instrument created to accomplish a specific task ). Other examples that use the word "machine" in this context are "machine language" ( base computer instructions )

You mean those instruments whose sensitivity is far more acute than any human senses, capable of acquiring perspectives unattainable by humans and/or mapping wavelengths of energy far outside the spectra of human detection?

You're talking about the kinds of devices whose reliability and failure rate are far better than any person's senses and memory?

You mean equipment that, in the infrequent events that they do fail, generally tend to fail in predictable ways that are often possible to correct, troubleshoot, and repair?

You're talking about the kinds of observational tools that can be adjusted to identify patterns of data under a variety of conditions and circumstances far beyond what our unaided senses can extrapolate?

You mean apparatus that allow unlimited numbers of human beings to share the exact same view of objective data, unlike human senses which are only mapped to a single observer's own brain; devices that obviate the need to rely on failure-prone human memory, interpretation, language, and anecdotes in order to relate empirical information from one individual to another?

You're talking about machine memory, that stores information mechanically and objectively without any personal biases of ideology, emotion, cognition or sophistry; information storage devices that, unlike human memory, have an entirely detectable and identifiable failure rate and can perform trillions of read/write cycles without error?


"Machine generated data" is simply a dishonest phrase intended to degrade confidence in machine-collected data that are in fact many orders of magnitude more reliable and accurate than human-collected data of the same type.

Do you need an example to understand how much more accurate machine-collected data is from human-collected data?

Here are two maps of the Virginia coastline:

One is hand-drawn by humans, entirely on the basis of personal observation, anecdotes and memory. The other is what you would characterize as "machine generated data" (a.k.a. a "satellite photograph").

(Note the word "Norumbega" in the hand-drawn atlas. "Norumbega" was an alleged Native American city, rumored to possess an abundance of resources and great riches, but was determined by later expeditions to be totally nonexistent.)

Which of these two maps is more accurate? Which contains more objective information? Which contains false, totally subjective information? Which is more reliable?

Both are subject to faults and errors, and therefore combining them can increase the chance of error rather than reduce it, and by this I don't mean using one as corroboration for the other, as in an object being seen by two separate people, one using a device and the other not, or seeing the object simultaneously using a device and direct observation, but an observer only seeing the object through some device as opposed to looking directly at it.

This is why an observer's account can be more accurate than something like a video recording.

The trouble with this position is that you lump all "devices" together and make a blanket statement about their lack of reliability, without acknowledging that different types of devices have vastly different degrees of accuracy. You're also failing to acknowledge that most man-made information devices usually tend to fail in highly predictable ways that can be recognized by experts at those devices.

While it is true that man-made observation devices are not perfect, most of them are considerably more accurate than the verbal account of an eyewitness under almost any circumstances.

As I'd already pointed out in my own post that I quoted above, machine-collected data is far more objective than any eyewitness account, and all recording technologies in the "information age" allow for multiple individuals to view the same results multiple times and offer their own interpretations instead of relying solely on the highly subjective interpretation of a single viewer.

An example are some videos from the Gulf Breeze area where although the object was never seen directly by the observer, it could be seen through a video camera on high magnification, and it turned out the object was part of the iris motor mechanism in the camera. Another example would be objects that have appeared on film that have turned out to be developing artifacts or light leaks.

As I said, there are experts in the various technologies who can view the recorded output of the machines and determine from personal experience whether the image in question is a real object or just an artifact of the technology. It's even possible to enlist several experts and obtain a number of opinions, again without relying solely on the word of a single, biased observer as we would have to do with an eyewitness account.

Of course there are also many examples when equipment can be useful, but the point is that "objective" technical evidence can be wrong while an eyewitness is correct

I'm going to have to ask you to present evidence for your claim that a single eyewitness account has ever been proven correct over the objective evidence gathered by observational devices. Good luck with that, by the way.

...and the above examples prove this point.

What examples? You haven't presented any examples at all to prove anything. All you've done is make unsupported assertions.

What do you have to say about the example I posted, of the map of the Virginia coast? That example pretty roundly debunks your argument that eyewitnesses are generally so much more reliable than objective, machine-collected information.

 

[Paul2]

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Weight-of-Evidence.jpg[/qimg]

Bravo!

 

[Paul2]

Yes. I always have. Any claim requiring evidence simply requires sufficient evidence and whether or not such evidence is deemed extraordinary is a subjective interpretation.

Have you seen these about extraordinary claims and evidence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6297044#post6297044

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6644161#post6644161

 

[John Albert]

As for being "super-skeptical" about the extraordinary, I'd say that if one is going to be skeptical at all, then the same principles should be applied evenly in every case otherwise you are only introducing bias. In other words we either simply accept it or reject it because it's so probable ( or improbable ) that a skeptical analysis is antipragmatic or an obvious waste of time. But we find some serious reason to be skeptical, it's the results of the inquiry that should be what determines our attitude toward the subject matter, not the subject matter itself.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that extraordinary claims ought to be treated with no greater skepticism or scrutiny than mundane claims?

Say two kids show up at school without their homework.

One of them tells the teacher, "I forgot to take my book home last night, so I didn't do my homework."

The other says, "a tyrannosaurus rex came into my room last night and ate my homework after I'd gone to bed."

Are you saying that in that case the teacher should accept both stories as equally honest accounts, and not make any more special inquiry into the one with the extraordinary claim?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Aliens often stole my homework.

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
Again, I have never seen the extremely probable Pyramids.
<snip>

I bet you have seen some high quality photographs though.

Dave

 

[23_Tauri]

I bet you have seen some high quality photographs though.

Dave

Although to convince a ufologist there'd have to be blurry photos, not high quality ones.

 

[GeeMack]

Quantity alone can but does not necessarily increase the probability of accuracy.

Speaking of probability, how about you calculate the probability of some UFOs being alien craft based on the quantitative answer to this question: Of all the things that have been apparently seen flying, initially unidentified, and eventually identified as a particular thing, how many of those turned out to be objectively identified as alien craft?

Ignorance is an often used tool in the "ufologists'" toolkit because with it, confronting quantitative reality can be avoided.

 

[GeeMack]

What you just said was pretty roundly refuted by a post I made some time ago.

Maybe you forgot to check your email that day, or you considered it "toxic" when I debunked your false assertion that eyewitnesses are more reliable than machine-collected data (which you had disingenuously referred to as "machine generated data, as if to imply that instruments are simply generating random, false data out of thin air).

A substantial body of evidence suggests that within the practice of the pseudoscience of "ufology", anything that even nears objective reality is toxic.

 

[tsig]

Not Exactly,

Requiring extraordinary skepticism is different than requiring extraordinary evidence. As for ECREE, the evidence for extraordinary claims just ends up being deemed extraordinary in a subjective way, but it's not a "requirement" other than to convince someone is highly biased. From an objective point of view the evidence may not be extraordinary at all. In other words any claim, including so-called extraordinary claims simply requires sufficient evidence, and such evidence may or may not be extraordinary. For example it was once thought to be an extraordinary idea that streaks of light in the sky were caused by rocks from space. Then we found the rocks ... and they're just rocks ... there's nothing extarordinary about them ... space it littered with them. The only thing that made the evidence extraordinary at the time was the subjective bias of those who didn't subscribe to the rocks from space theory.

Right. We haven't found the UFO's.

ETA: Looks like the ole 'science wuz wrong so it could be again' card.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Though most shooting stars are comet debris. So not rocks at all.

And the rocks the theory of rocks was based on documentary records of observable data. Something we dont have for UFOs being alien craft. The majoority of UFOs are more likely to be rocks, or comet debris (or vampires…) or anything else we have actual evidence for.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I don't require extraordinary evidence, just sufficient evidence.

This is a disengenuous characterization of the "extraordinary evidence" ditty.

The claim of space ships zipping around is extraordinary. Any evidence sufficient to prove that is extraordinary by definition - highly remarkable; exceptional, etc. because no sufficient proof exists.

Generally the woofers want to use a defenition that pretends "extraordinary" in the ditty means that skeptics demand an unreasonable amount of proof for their extraordinary claims: everyone would believe in UFO's if only they used the exact same degree of skepticism they use for believing the sun rises in the East.

Look how unequally they are treated, these poor ufologists. They are so reasonable whereas these nasty old skeptics make these unreasonable demands of them...

I don't check in here much, but when I do it is to find the ufologist using deception, very much like a magician. That's why I love James Randi. Because at the heart of James Randi is honesty, integrity, and good character.