UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

However in the absence of definitve evidence, study can still take place, probabilities can be calculated and a reasonable assessment of whether or not the available evidence is sufficient to take a claim seriously can still be made. With respect to UFOs there is in my view enough evidence to validate the claim, but not enough ( as yet ) to definitively prove it.

Please show us how you've "calculated" these "probabilities" that indicate "the available evidence is sufficient to take a claim seriously."

Let's see your math.

 

[ufology]

No you haven't, fu, don't lie.

Do you really need everyone here to explain this to you yet again?


I wager that's because you don't understand ECREE.

Tauri,

You expressed a desire to be taken seriously. So I was really hoping for better from you than an outright expression of prejudice backed by the typical biased favor of the Sagan Principle, ripped off from Marcello Truzzi who said, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." or AECREP, which is also crap or ACRAP. The original line of thought was more reasonable ( but still faulty ), and was that of Pierre-Simon Laplace who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Again, this is faulty because sufficient evidence may or may not be "strange" or "extraordinary". These are entirely subjective properties imparted by individual experience and bias. Now if you still want to wager that I don't understand. Then please answer the following question:

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tauri,

You expressed a desire to be taken seriously. So I was really hoping for better from you than an outright expression of prejudice backed by the typical biased favor of the Sagan Principle, ripped off from Marcello Truzzi who said, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." or AECREP, which is also crap or ACRAP. The original line of thought was more reasonable ( but still faulty ), and was that of Pierre-Simon Laplace who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Again, this is faulty because sufficient evidence may or may not be "strange" or "extraordinary". These are entirely subjective properties imparted by individual experience and bias. Now if you still want to wager that I don't understand. Then please answer the following question:

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

Aren't you glad Wikipedia is back online?

Anyway, are you saying that you think "sufficient" is objective?

 

[ufology]

Please show us how you've "calculated" these "probabilities" that indicate "the available evidence is sufficient to take a claim seriously."

Let's see your math.

I've mentioned the Battelle Memorial Institute study several times, the independent statistical evaluation of thousands of UFO reports submitted by the USAF, the results of which ( not the mere opinions of those who did the study ) show that the existence of completely unknown objects is in some cases a virtual certainty; and when we consider that in the context of UFO reports, saying something completely unknown to us ( humans ) is flying around in our skies is exactly the same as saying something alien to our, knowledge, experience and civilization is flying around in our skies. If you want to know exactly how the statistical results were obtained, then read up on the study. It's not too hard to find.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've mentioned the Battelle Memorial Institute study several times, the independent statistical evaluation of thousands of UFO reports submitted by the USAF, the results of which ( not the mere opinions of those who did the study ) show that the existence of completely unknown objects is in some cases a virtual certainty; and when we consider that in the context of UFO reports, saying something completely unknown to us ( humans ) is flying around in our skies is exactly the same as saying something alien to our, knowledge, experience and civilization is flying around in our skies. If you want to know exactly how the statistical results were obtained, then read up on the study. It's not too hard to find.

Can you link to where the study concluded that Alien Space Ships was the answer? It shouldn't be too hard to find.

 

[Paul2]

Pierre-Simon Laplace who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Again, this is faulty because sufficient evidence may or may not be "strange" or "extraordinary".

The other way to understand ECREE was put in vivid visual form in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7952391#post7952391

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

It's not like we arbitrarily judge what's strange. Strangeness isn't the crucial part. It's the "proportioned" idea that's crucial and which Stray Cat's brilliant graphic shows. Any claim whose contrary claim is exceedingly well established will require an exceedingly great (=extraordinary) amount and quality of evidence to counter the contrary claim.

 

[Stray Cat]

... show that the existence of completely unknown objects is in some cases a virtual certainty; ...

No **** Sherlock!

Now where is the evidence that allows you to say that they are flying around our planet and that they are craft of any description... Because last time I checked, an unknown object is... well unknown!

 

[Jocce]

I've mentioned the Battelle Memorial Institute study several times, the independent statistical evaluation of thousands of UFO reports submitted by the USAF, the results of which ( not the mere opinions of those who did the study ) show that the existence of completely unknown objects is in some cases a virtual certainty

Aww, you continue with this claim while ignoring the several times I've pointed out and shown to you that this is a false statement. Do you, like Rramjet,think that if you just make the same unfounded claims over and over again they magically become true?

 

[GeeMack]

Please show us how you've "calculated" these "probabilities" that indicate "the available evidence is sufficient to take a claim seriously."

Let's see your math.

If there's one thing I've learned in several years of interactions with people deeply involved in various pseudoscientific beliefs, it's this: There is a willful avoidance of, or possibly even a fundamental lack of ability to do math. Although they are quick to toss around terms like "calculate" and "probability", their arguments don't ever seem to contain any acknowledgement of anything quantitative. Look at the abject ignorance of my question about how many unidentified flying objects were later identified as alien craft. The answer is zero. Zero, for god's sake. The pseudoscience team can't even count up to zero!

Now it may be that the willful avoidance of anything quantitative is a result of the unwavering faith in things unsupportable by evidence. It may be that avoiding the quantitative issues comes from a fear of having to confront reality, which in turn might cause a cognitive dissonance, a severe discomfort that can't be resolved.

Or it could be the other way around. It just might be that people who are so prone to believe in various pseudoscientific and crackpot notions simply start out with a lack of ability to comprehend numerical concepts. Look at the way they discuss things like distances and speeds. It's all guesses, as you've said, WAGs. And they appear to accept those guesses as if there's something objective about them. It could be that an inability to process things in a quantitative way is what allows them to fall into those unsubstantiated beliefs in the first place.

It's an interesting phenomenon, but any way about it, you'll not get any sort of calculations of probability from the "ufology" crowd here, other than maybe some rote bleating of pretty much irrelevant numbers from some other "UFOs = alien craft" believers. The arguments offered by pseudoscientists simply will not be quantitative or supported by math.

 

[GeeMack]

I've mentioned the Battelle Memorial Institute study several times, the independent statistical evaluation of thousands of UFO reports submitted by the USAF, the results of which ( not the mere opinions of those who did the study ) show that the existence of completely unknown objects is in some cases a virtual certainty; and when we consider that in the context of UFO reports, saying something completely unknown to us ( humans ) is flying around in our skies is exactly the same as saying something alien to our, knowledge, experience and civilization is flying around in our skies. If you want to know exactly how the statistical results were obtained, then read up on the study. It's not too hard to find. "Ufologists" don't do math.

There. Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

 

[John Albert]

I've mentioned the Battelle Memorial Institute study several times, the independent statistical evaluation of thousands of UFO reports submitted by the USAF, the results of which ( not the mere opinions of those who did the study ) show that the existence of completely unknown objects is in some cases a virtual certainty;

That was not the conclusion of the researchers who conducted that study. In fact, their conclusion was the exact opposite:

Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

—p. 94, Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, a.k.a. the "Battelle Study"

http://www.scribd.com/bren_burton/d...ion-The-Investigation-of-UFO-s-22nd-Sept-1993​

So, considering how wrong you appear to be about that, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you weren't talking about the actual findings of the Battelle study, and that you've reevaluated the study, found flaws, and done the additional work of performing your own meta-analysis of the data.

So, let's see your formal critique of the study, along with your math whereby you re-calculated the probabilities and thereby honestly arrived at your own totally opposite conclusion.

...and when we consider that in the context of UFO reports, saying something completely unknown to us ( humans ) is flying around in our skies is exactly the same as saying something alien to our, knowledge, experience and civilization is flying around in our skies.

The above makes no sense. You're once again engaging in a deliberate and dishonest fallacy of semantic equivocation.

The adjective "unknown" is not synonymous with the adjective "alien" in the context of meaning something extraterrestrial or of non-human manufacture.

If you want to know exactly how the statistical results were obtained, then read up on the study. It's not too hard to find.

I already have. That's how I recognize that you're blatantly lying about its conclusion.

 

[Stray Cat]

Aww, you continue with this claim while ignoring the several times I've pointed out and shown to you that this is a false statement. Do you, like Rramjet,think that if you just make the same unfounded claims over and over again they magically become true?

Yes, it's funny how Mr Ouf keeps ignoring your posts.
And yet on nearly every page for a while now he has asserted the same false statement.

 

[Sideroxylon]

[...]

So, considering how wrong you appear to be about that, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you weren't talking about the actual findings of the Battelle study, and that you've reevaluated the study, found flaws, and done the additional work of performing your own meta-analysis of the data.

So, let's see your formal critique of the study, along with your math whereby you re-calculated the probabilities and thereby honestly arrived at your own totally opposite conclusion.
[...]

You seem to be talking about actual research into Mr Ufology's self-proclaimed field of interest and expertise. We haven't seen anything like that yet.

 

[John Albert]

You seem to be talking about actual research into Mr Ufology's self-proclaimed field of interest and expertise. We haven't seen anything like that yet.

Well, far be it from me to flatly accuse J. Randall Murphy, the illustrious founder and proprietor of Ufology Society International of being a liar and a charlatan.

Oh, wait...

Oops. My bad.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri,

You expressed a desire to be taken seriously.

Did I? I’ve got a fairly good memory of what I’ve posted on this forum, folo, and I do not recall writing “I wish to be taken seriously”. Is this another of your unsubstantiated claims, or do I fail to recollect? The latter might be true, for my memory is as fallible as the next person’s.

To support your claim, please post the link to my post where I expressed a desire to be taken seriously. Right here....







To back up this claim, a link will be sufficient evidence.

So I was really hoping for better from you than an outright expression of prejudice backed by the typical biased favor of the Sagan Principle, ripped off from Marcello Truzzi who said, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." or AECREP, which is also crap or ACRAP. The original line of thought was more reasonable ( but still faulty ), and was that of Pierre-Simon Laplace who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Again, this is faulty because sufficient evidence may or may not be "strange" or "extraordinary". These are entirely subjective properties imparted by individual experience and bias. Now if you still want to wager that I don't understand. Then please answer the following question:

This prose is nothing like your normal style of writing, uf, and well done to Robotimbo for spotting your plagiarism. Seeing as you've displayed skill at copying and pasting from other websites, perhaps you'd be so kind as to copy and paste the dictionary definition of antipragmatic.

Right here will do.....








As it is, I consider Truzzi to be correct, in as much as sufficiency is not an absolute concept. Nevertheless, there is a general consensus amongst thinking people as to what would constitute sufficient evidence in a given scenario, and as such we can rely on a certain amount of consistency between individuals in this regard.

Most people wouldn’t require the production of a surveyor’s report to believe another’s claim of owning a shed. This is because shed ownership is a fairly common occurrence. Not so seeing an Alien Space Ship. You want us to accept that you’ve seen an Alien Space Ship with your own eyes on the basis of less evidence that you require for the hypothetical garden shed.

This is where you deviate from most people, uf.

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

‘Sufficient’ and ‘extraordinary’ are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ufology]

Can you link to where the study concluded that Alien Space Ships was the answer? It shouldn't be too hard to find.

Think a little for yourself. The objects are alien ( unknown ) to our knowledge and civilization, therefore ask yourself where else they could come from. Maybe there is some as of yet undiscovered country on Earth that builds them, but the prospect is unlikely. Therefore proposing an extraterrestrial explanation is reasonable. There is nothing unscientific about the plausibility or possibility of interstellar travel.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Think a little for yourself.

LOL. Says the guy who copy/pasted from Wiki.

The objects are alien ( unknown ) to our knowledge and civilization, therefore ask yourself where else they could come from.

Think a little for yourself. Remember that some may not be objects. And they are Unidentified, not unknown. Why did you lie? Where do oil well fires come from?

Maybe there is some as of yet undiscovered country on Earth that builds them, but the prospect is unlikely.

Builds what?

Therefore proposing an extraterrestrial explanation is reasonable.

No, positing UFOs ( witches ) is reasonable because they have been proven to exist. Alien Space Ships have never been shown to exist. Do you believe in UFOs ( witches ) YES or NO?

There is nothing unscientific about the plausibility or possibility of interstellar travel.

Good. Then show me where Alien Space Ships have been proven.

You've also scurried away from answering the question about cases that are similar to the 1952 Washington DC one. Why is that?

You've also scurried away from answering the question about Are you saying that "sufficient" is objective?

 

[ufology]

The other way to understand ECREE was put in vivid visual form in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7952391#post7952391

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

It's not like we arbitrarily judge what's strange. Strangeness isn't the crucial part. It's the "proportioned" idea that's crucial and which Stray Cat's brilliant graphic shows. Any claim whose contrary claim is exceedingly well established will require an exceedingly great (=extraordinary) amount and quality of evidence to counter the contrary claim.

Paul,

Stray Cat's "brilliant graphic" is entertaining as usual, but it's also nothing but pure propoganda. I've been asking the following question for some time now and have yet to see a direct answer. Perhaps you can provide one.

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

Do I really need to create a cute graphic with two scales, one with a so-called extraordinary claim and the other with a mundane claim, both balanced perfectly with a single 100ML container of sufficient evidence? You do get the picture right?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul,

Stray Cat's "brilliant graphic" is entertaining as usual, but it's also nothing but pure propoganda. I've been asking the following question for some time now and have yet to see a direct answer. Perhaps you can provide one.

LOL. You've been cowardly dodging a lot of questions for some time now.

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

Obviously, for an extraordinary claim, extraordinary evidence is required. Are you saying that "sufficient" is objective?

 

[Pixel42]

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

The reason no-one has bothered to try to answer this question is because it makes no sense.

All that's required to validate a claim is sufficient evidence to validate that claim. That's a tautology.

In the case of a claim to have seen fairies, sufficient evidence would be a fairy (as you correctly stated yourself). In the case of a claim to have seen alien space craft, sufficient evidence would be an alien spacecraft.