UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

Kind of a semantic thing though. Is evidence just the raw data, or does it only become "evidence" when it is interpreted and used to support a position? I'd call your examples "bad interpretation of the evidence".

It's a good point.

But I don't think you're quite right. I'd say that they're bad interpretation of the data, producing bad evidence. The bad evidence may support the theory, but is invalid because it comes from bad interpretation.

Of course, data can also be bad, and bad data always produces bad evidence, unless it's interpreted correctly, in which case it produces a lack of evidence.

It's the latter that we have in the vast majority of UFO cases - bad data. The vast majority is bad because the vast majority is anecdotal, and it's all unreplicatable.

And that's why UFO research doesn't get funded. It's also why serious scientists don't bother with it. The best you can do with UFO data is show which ones are definitely hoaxes, misinterpretations of mundane objects, or weird atmospheric phenomena. The rest remain unknown, and unknowable.

Until and unless a spaceship lands in a highly populated area and several LGM pop their heads out and say "Dweeble eeble oom", UFO research will be ignored by almost all serious scientists, because there's nothing much you can do with the data. There are no results you can produce that would pass peer review in any worthwhile journal. And that's not because of bias on the part of the peer reviewers, it's because of the nature of the data.

I keep hearing this complaint that scientists won't do controversial research, that heretics to the standard models are silenced. But it just isn't true. There are plenty of examples of people producing theories that are ridiculed by senior scientists, and the theory turns out to be correct, but the theory wouldn't have been proven right if its proponents had been silenced. Show me one example of a theory that was shunned by the majority of the scientific community, and ended up being vindicated by publication outside of the accepted peer review journals for its subject. There aren't any, because, even if your theory is unpopular, even if it goes against accepted dogma, even if it undermines decades of work by all the senior people in the field, if you can back it up with data and logical arguments it will get published.

Relativity, QM and the Big Bang were all controversial theories that flew in the face of the establishment view and were ridiculed by senior researchers, but they were all published, because they had good data to back them up.

That's how science works. If you can back up your argument with hard data you can get published, no matter how unpopular your view is.

And that's why UFO research doesn't get published. There simply is no hard data to back up any theories. Rramjet has admitted as much in his previous posts. He said that he had accounted for all mundane explanations, so the UFOs must be non-mundane, and he was therefore free to speculate on what they could be. But mere speculation isn't science, even if it were possible to rule out all possible mundane explanations (which it isn't), all you are left with is "We don't know what it is", which isn't an answer. At least, not one that's acceptable in science.

So I'm going to concede a point and issue a challenge. I'm going to concede that it probably wasn't a blimp. I'm going to say that Rogue River has no plausible mundane explanation.

Okay Roger, it's up to you now. Give us a testable theory about what it was.

Because if you can't, then all you are doing is blowing hot air and all your whining about how unfair the establishment are for not funding UFO research is cobblers. If you can't, then what you are doing isn't scientific.

Time to pony up Roger.

Give us one testable theory, or admit that you can't.

 

[Correa Neto]

Kind of a semantic thing though. Is evidence just the raw data, or does it only become "evidence" when it is interpreted and used to support a position? I'd call your examples "bad interpretation of the evidence".

Sorry for not answering sooner. I don't find my crackberry's keyboard very helpfull when it comes down to typing word-fat texts...

Well, I guess its pretty much what Wollery said, but there are a few things I would like to add, for the sake of the lurkers which are not used to what we are talking about.

I would say that in most of our discussions the terms are interchangeable (at least the way I see it)- the evidence is the data for most practical purposes. Now, bad raw data exist. Bad raw data comes from bad data collection methodology and/or some transient problem. Consider, for example, a given device which will be used to measure a certain property- bad calibration, inadequate error margins, poor maintenance, unskilled operation and mechanical/electronic failures can ruin your data collection. Sometimes these issues may be hard to detect.

Now, on top of this we must make sure that the sampling itself was adequate (number of data points must be sufficient for statistical tests, data acquistion must be unbiased, results must be replicable). In other words- basic QA/QC parameters must be met.

An example: I sent a batch of rock samples for the lab, where it will be assayed for certain elements. I was supposed to introduce a number of control samples- standards (samples with known grades of certain elements), "blanks" (samples where the grades of a certain element is below the detection level) and duplicates (identical samples). These control samples are intercalated at fixed and also random intervals and will be used to check the lab. I am also expected to send selected samples to another lab (sometimes two) for another check. Note that the lab also has its own internal controls. Hopefully, these measures will bring in to light problems with the assays (sample preparation, calibration and operation of machines, etc.). However, these measures can not account for biased sample collection or small sample number, for example.

Note that nothing was said so far about the interpretation of the data. Now, when someone presents data which fails to pass any of the above mentioned points of the check list to back a given claim, unless the claim is "data collection had flaws", AAA guns will have an easy target. And this is valid both for the for academic and the industrial areas. Note that even if my conclusions are correct and my data is OK, if I can not show that the data is OK I will become a magnet for flak.

As an extra and quite possibly OT note, even if all the above-cited items are met, the data itself may be subjected to more than one interpretation. Two persons might present two (or more) explanations and in some cases no one has an edge. The data may be good but its interpretation may be debatable.

Of course, I can also ruin my perfect data collection by treating the gathered data the wrong way and/or reaching the wrong conclusions, which is what you are talking about. So, we can have bad raw data and bad interpretation of good raw data. UFOlogy, however, usually is composed by bad interpretation of bad data.

I guess by now its also clear why woo is easier to do than real science...

Well, to sum up, its easy for anyone used to the scientific method, regardless if the person is linked to the academic or industrial fields, that Rramjet's claim that "there is no such thing as bad evidence" is at the very least debatable. Rramjet once again demonstrates a (low) level of knowledge of the scientific methodology; something one would not expect from a person well-versed in the ways of science.

 

[Rramjet]

Thanks for explaining about the quotation marks. (As an aside, I feel compelled to ask what your definition for "UFO debunker" is?)

Looking at your last post, your use of quotations makes me wonder which of these terms you are either quoting directly from a source (none linked), or you are you are attempting to redefine away from the common definition:

"oil well"
"Blue Sky" (science) - I've never heard of this, not much is on the google.
“rushing to investigate”

debunk [diːbʌŋk]
vb
(tr) Informal to expose the pretensions or falseness of, esp by ridicule
[from DE- + BUNK2]
debunker n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Most people posting to this thread fall under the definitional requirements of “debunker”: That is their intention is to do to the subject of UFOs precisely as the definition suggests. Thus I use the term “UFO debunker” in the context of this thread entirely appropriately. I assumed the term was self-explanatory, yet for some reason the debunkers take umbrage at its use. I have offered many times to use a different term if anyone can come up with an appropriate distinguishing term (remembering “skeptic” is not able to distinguish between proponents and debunkers because each will claim to be a skeptic) – but nobody has yet put an appropriate term forward.

The other marked terms I think I have explained precisely as: “When I use quotation marks I either mean that it is a direct quote from a specified source or it has a specific definition that needs to be indicated (or is being delineated)”

This is why I am honest in asking about the overuse of quotation marks; they really seem to muddy up the discourse and make it hard for me to understand what should be a simple point. Rramjet, would you consider using italics for emphasis, and leave the quotations for their intended meaning, that is to quote someone?

You complain about me muddying the waters? I use quotation marks in an effort to define precisely what I mean – in order that there can be no misinterpretation of my meaning because the “quoted’ term it is being precisely defined in a specific context. That I (according to you) “overuse” the technique is simply a result of a propensity for UFO debunkers in this thread to wilfully misinterpret my meaning, thus I try to leave them as little wriggle room as possible… still even that seems not sufficient in this thread…

 

[Rramjet]

I doubt he will give a reasonable definition. It is just a term UFOlogists love to use to label the opposing opinion. Rod Brock once wrote in his blog "Aliens at my buick" (this block has since been shut down by Rod):

There's a word the ufologically "faithful" use to "demonize" their skeptical opponents. Various lengthy attempts have been made on certain UFO lists to "objectively" define this particular word. These attempts have been little more than hot air; in practice, anyone who dissents against the views of one of the faithful, regardless of the quality of his/her argument, will be conveniently labeled with this term. It's an old propaganda trick, a standard in rhetorical argument. Within ufological circles, it's the kiss of death, leveled with all the venom of more extreme pejoratives, such as "*****," "scum," "vermin," etc.

The word is "debunker."

The ***** I edited out. I discuss how the term "debunker" and "debunking" has been twisted over the years by UFOlogy in my commentary, "Skeptic, debunkers, and Pelicanists, Oh My!":

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SDP.htm

Ah…language is power. If the UFO debunkers can cast the use of the term as pejorative, then they can use it to denigrate UFO proponents who use the term. It becomes another stick to beat the proponents over the head with. This type of appropriation of language to suit personal gaols is best seen in political circles. A good one is the term “choice”. In Australia a recent government initiative restricting worker’s entitlements - and their ability to negotiate terms and conditions with their employer - was titled “Work Choices”. Anyone who opposed the initiative was then against “fee choice”. Similarly Astrophotographer attempts to cast the term “UFO debunker” as derogatory, and thus anyone who uses the term becomes an abuser (venomous in intent).

However, it must be noted that if the term “UFO debunker” can be used in the pejorative, that says more about the people the term is applied to rather than the people using the term. As I have pointed out to carlitos, “debunker” has a specific (if generally informal) meaning. The question must then be asked: What is it about the behaviour of the people involved that enables “UFO debunker” to be construed as pejorative?

 

[Rramjet]

You mean the oil fires? All we have is the FLIR and the radar which was of the oil fires.

I mean that UFO debunkers have explained the Campeche incident (specifically the FLIR) as “oil-well fires”. The evidence for this is circumstantial. Meaning of course that they apply a double standard. That is, they will not allow UFO proponents circumstantial evidence to draw positive conclusions, yet are quite willing to use it themselves to do precisely that.

I have also pointed out that there was probably at least one genuine UFO involved in the Campeche incident (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).

I stated:
“There is still some argument about the process of elimination. Surely it is not that difficult a concept to grasp. I even pointed to some websites explaining the process and have outlined how it works in (for example) the Rogue River case (and especially in conjunction with the historical and eyewitness evidence to rule out blimps).”

No I understand what it is, but I don't see where your working is.

Then you have simply not been following the debate. For example my posts #7078, #7093, #7114, #7138, #7159, #7162, #7175, #7176 and #7178 all explore to varying degree the process of elimination! I find it hard to believe you could have missed ALL these posts. In my latest post on the matter (#7281) I stated:

“So you simply handwave away my many and various posts explaining the process of elimination? If you cannot understand what the process of elimination entails, then perhaps you might have a look at this site for clues to the process (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...ow8QZP&sig=AHIEtbT2mM02q4U5MlJO-lV5qV3Dt0UU0g) or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_of_elimination) for example. Then you might see if you can apply that methodology to Rogue River. If you think about it the set of mundane explanations for Rogue River is quite limited. For example we can rule out “telephone”, “page 352 from War and Peace”, “my great aunt Mary”, etc. so that we are left with “flying objects”. Of these we can rule out all common flying objects (“birds”, “planes”, “blimps”, etc.) …so what are we left with? Nothing mundane of course..”​

I stated:
“As for “bad evidence”, like beauty, I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. What one person sees as bad evidence for something and thus concludes fraud - for example - another might consider it GOOD evidence for fraud. Thus, strictly speaking, there IS no such thing as “bad evidence”, it all depends on what you use the evidence FOR.”

I gave myself a bloody nose due to your lack of reasoning on this. Beauty is subjective, evidence however isn't

It is our interpretation of evidence that is the key here. The evidence itself is neither good nor bad. One person might interpret specific evidence as good evidence for UFOs. Another might interpret that same evidence as good evidence for fraud (meaning of course that they think it is “bad” evidence for UFOs). The evidence however does not change in nature – it is what it is – neither good nor bad.

 

[Rramjet]

I can keep reciting what all the scientific panels have stated over the years about the subject but I would be repeating myself. This is why there is no "rush to investigate". Scientists just don't find your/UFOlogy's evidence compelling enough to drop what they are currently doing and pursue some phantom sightings that produce no evidence that is substantial. Where you see "alien" answers, they see something unidentified or a more mundane possibility. That is the issue here and you are attempting to make it appear that there is some other reason. Therefore, you go to some conservatism or controversial subject angle. Nice try but it does not fly in the face of what all these scientists have stated.

You can keep exaggerating if you like with your “all” scientific panels. That does not make the statement true. There are many “scientific panels” that have come to precisely opposite conclusions than you contend. I would be repeating myself to remind you of which panels they were. (perhaps you could begin with this site… http://www.openminds.tv/twelve-government-documents-that-take-ufos-seriously/. I could also refer you to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf and http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_1_sturrock.pdf and http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_2_sturrock.pdf. There is also http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm and http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Gepan-Sepra.htm and http://ncas.org/condon/ and not to mention http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf I could go on but this should be enough to put you on the right track to begin with)

Your attempt to rewrite the history of Ufology and to misinterpret the cultural zeitgeist surrounding UFOs and the legitimacy of research into them is disingenuous. It is a fact that a general atmosphere of ridicule and derision surrounds the field (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf) and it is also a fact that many peer-reviewed journals simply will not publish UFO-related material, not because there is a “lack of evidence” but because it is a specific policy of the journals in question specifically instituted to avoid them being targets of ridicule and derision (I have listed a link in a previous post to demonstrate this – another general link is http://www.cufos.org/YOU_WANT_TO_BE_A_UFOLOGIST.pdf).

The lack of research funding, the inability to get published in peer reviewed journals and the cultural zeitgeist all add to make serious research in the field a virtual impossibility. It is not because of a lack of evidence – there is a wealth of that – it is a social, rather than scientific barrier that is being thrown up – and it is the UFO debunkers such as those posting in this thread that are determined to build that barrier as high as they can and to maintain it for as long as possible.

All I am noting is the lack of plausible mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting. Try as you might to make the evidence go away, there remains a deep mystery at the heart of UFO phenomenon, and sooner or later, people will get around to properly constituted scientific investigation of this mystery.

Additionally, your "expertise" as a scientist and understanding the process of scientific funding has NEVER been established and has been brought into question numerous times. Therefore, I can only draw the conclusion that this is your uninformed opinion based on what you read in UFO books or web sites. It is worthless until you can establish the fact that you are a practiciing scientist, have experience in these matters, and have produced actual scientific research on some subject other than UFOs.

My “scientific” credentials are not (nor should they be) the issue. My arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Your personal approach here based on my credentials is a red herring. That you feel the need to resort to such an approach IMO says more about your lack of substantive argument against my contentions that it does about my ability to put them forward.

 

[Rramjet]

It's the latter that we have in the vast majority of UFO cases - bad data. The vast majority is bad because the vast majority is anecdotal, and it's all unreplicatable.

Just because something is “anecdotal” does not mean it is “bad” data. Eyewitness descriptions can and do constitute good data – especially when there is a consistent body of that data that is built up over time. As for the issue of replicability, it is not so simple. I have spent a large portion of my life outdoors, a lot of time at night. Over many years I have had relatively few UFO encounters (considering the time spent outdoors). One could spend years staring at the sky every night and not encounter a UFO. On the other hand one might “get lucky” and encounter one on the very first night one looks. Most people who encounter UFOs simply write them off as mundane objects without a second thought. I will go further, most people are in positive denial about UFOs and even when encountering something truly inexplicable will still write it off as mundane – preferring not to trust their senses rather than conclude something that has no explanation. As humans we have an inbuilt need to “explain” everything. Everything must have an explanation. We become terribly insecure if we cannot assign an explanation. We fear the unknown. Better to assign an incorrect explanation than to have no explanation at all. That is our nature. So it is with UFOs.

Until and unless a spaceship lands in a highly populated area and several LGM pop their heads out and say "Dweeble eeble oom", UFO research will be ignored by almost all serious scientists, because there's nothing much you can do with the data. There are no results you can produce that would pass peer review in any worthwhile journal. And that's not because of bias on the part of the peer reviewers, it's because of the nature of the data.

Unfortunately, even if a UFO landed and LGM got out and said “Take me to your leader”, most people would still not believe it! There are vast groups of people who believe we never went to the moon, that the earth is flat, that the holocaust never happened, that there is a god that acts on personal exhortations, that there is no such thing as UFOs…

Most scientist do not “ignore” UFOs, they simply see no way in the current climate to make a living out of researching them. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with the data – there is a wealth of that.

I keep hearing this complaint that scientists won't do controversial research, that heretics to the standard models are silenced. But it just isn't true. There are plenty of examples of people producing theories that are ridiculed by senior scientists, and the theory turns out to be correct, but the theory wouldn't have been proven right if its proponents had been silenced. Show me one example of a theory that was shunned by the majority of the scientific community, and ended up being vindicated by publication outside of the accepted peer review journals for its subject. There aren't any, because, even if your theory is unpopular, even if it goes against accepted dogma, even if it undermines decades of work by all the senior people in the field, if you can back it up with data and logical arguments it will get published.

Relativity, QM and the Big Bang were all controversial theories that flew in the face of the establishment view and were ridiculed by senior researchers, but they were all published, because they had good data to back them up.

That's how science works. If you can back up your argument with hard data you can get published, no matter how unpopular your view is.

And that's why UFO research doesn't get published. There simply is no hard data to back up any theories. Rramjet has admitted as much in his previous posts. He said that he had accounted for all mundane explanations, so the UFOs must be non-mundane, and he was therefore free to speculate on what they could be. But mere speculation isn't science, even if it were possible to rule out all possible mundane explanations (which it isn't), all you are left with is "We don't know what it is", which isn't an answer. At least, not one that's acceptable in science.

You have simply misunderstood the history and philosophy of science. Perhaps I can refer you to A. F. Chalmer’s (1976) What is this thing called Science? In the introduction he states:

“An inscription on the façade of the Social Science Research Building at the University of Chicago reads. “If you cannot measure, your knowledge is meagre and unsatisfactory”. No doubt, many of its inhabitants, imprisoned in their modern laboratories, scrutinize the world through the iron bars of the integers, failing to realize that the method they endeavour to follow is not only necessarily barren and unfruitful but also is not the method to which the success of physics is to attributed.

(…)

Modern developments in the philosophy of science have pinpointed and stressed deep-seated difficulties associated with the idea that science rests on a sure foundation acquired through observation and experiment and with the idea that there is some kind of inference procedure that enables us to derive scientific theories from such a base in a reliable way.” (p. xvi) ​

Chalmers goes on to state (and here I am paraphrasing heavily) that the common conception of the progress of science (as described above by wollery) is simply not reconcilable with how science progresses in fact (in the real world). Theories do not change and paradigms do not shift because of any immediate relation to data, peer-reviewed publication, scientific consensus, or even its opposite, scientific censure and renegade endeavour. They change because of a relationship between a social world view and the ability of a ‘scientific “ theory to support (or not) that social world view. If the cultural zeitgeist changes, then so scientific paradigm shifts might occur. What is acceptable under the “old” becomes not acceptable under the “new”, and vice versa. There is simply no empirical foundation that can supply us with the “truth”. For example:

“As we have seen, both Kuhn and Feyeraband have stressed the extent to which the mechanical world as described by Newton’s theory is very different from the world as described by Einstein’s theory. The outmoded and inadequate conceptions of mass, force, space and time, that are utilized in the formulation of Newtonian theory, are transmitted to all its deductive consequences. Therefore, strictly speaking, if we are talking in terms of truth and falsifyability, all of those deductive consequences are false. The truth content of Newton’s theory is zero, as is the truth content of all mechanical theories prior to Einstein. The truth content of Einstein’s theory itself may prove to be zero after some future scientific revolution. Viewed this way, Popper’s attempt to compare “false” theories by comparing their truth and falsity contents, and thereby to construe science as approaching the truth, breaks down” (p. 158).​

So I'm going to concede a point and issue a challenge. I'm going to concede that it probably wasn't a blimp. I'm going to say that Rogue River has no plausible mundane explanation.

Okay Roger, it's up to you now. Give us a testable theory about what it was.

Because if you can't, then all you are doing is blowing hot air and all your whining about how unfair the establishment are for not funding UFO research is cobblers. If you can't, then what you are doing isn't scientific.

Time to pony up Roger.

Give us one testable theory, or admit that you can't.

Not “whining”, just relating the facts…

Testable Hypothesis: The Rogue River object was a misidentified mundane object.

(or more generally)

All UFO sightings have mundane explanations.

 

[Rramjet]

Well, to sum up, its easy for anyone used to the scientific method, regardless if the person is linked to the academic or industrial fields, that Rramjet's claim that "there is no such thing as bad evidence" is at the very least debatable. Rramjet once again demonstrates a (low) level of knowledge of the scientific methodology; something one would not expect from a person well-versed in the ways of science.

Everything is debatable, even the truth of what you just said…

 

[Rramjet]

NASA videos

Here is a little video compilation that I recently had drawn to my attention. This definitely brings new meaning to the phrase "out of this world"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc

I'll be interested to see how the UFO debunkers explain some of the things seen in these videos... enjoy!

 

[SnidelyW]

A couple of thoughts regarding evidence;

First, evidence is evidence. It's not limited specifically to the scientific theory. To wit, I reference a photo of a black hole. Do we accept that black holes exist in the universe? Do we accept that a photo of a black hole is acceptable evidence? Yes we do, because the visible light photo of the black hole is only one aspect of what has been taken as proof of black holes. Is the photo science? Of course it is, because provenance and repeatability have been demonstrated. Black holes are, for all our purposes, stationary in that they can be found night after night in just about the same spot as the night previously.
UFO’s, on the other hand, are unpredictable by their very nature. They don’t announce their arrival. They surprise and startle people, who run for their cameras and often snap a blurred motion, out of focus photo which could be anything but a UFO. Is this still evidence? Of course it is, as the person taking the photo thought they were taking a photo of a UFO. The fact that this evidence is of poor or unusable quality is irrelevant as the evidence is defined by the person presenting it to the world. It is a conscious choice by the presenter to define the blurred motion, out of focus photo as evidence. The presenter can always wait for a more conclusive photo to be obtained.
Data collection is soley dependent on the reputation of the presenter, and if one is to adduce a particular thing based on that data, then it is reasonable to examine the bona fides of the data.

What should we make of the standard of evidence required by UFO enthusiasts vis-a-vis skeptics to validate the phenomenon? I think UFO enthusiasts understand the supreme difficulty in obtaining any data regarding UFO’s and much (all?) of it is dependent on pure chance. It really is a about taking what one can get, and attempting to sort it out later.
Check this site out;

http://meteoriteblog.com/category/videos/

How many photos or videos are there of meteorites in flight? Perhaps one or two, and given this site is for meteorite junkies, one would think there should be dozens and dozens. Thank goodness meteorites sometimes strike the earth or the sceptics wouldn’t believe they exist!
I think, if I read the skeptic position correctly, they believe nothing should ever be presented publicly until the UFO enthusiasts can produce the smoking gun which proves the UFO’s are alien entities.
Imagine if our justice system was run by those same skeptics. Trials would only occur when the prosecution possessed smoking gun proof of the crime. Since it is up to the prosecution to prove their claim a crime occurred, the weight of evidence or the body of evidence would be irrelevant. If the justice system is okay with incarcerating people without a smoking gun, why can't skeptics accept the existence of UFO's based on eyewitness accounts, photos and broken cars?

 

[Correa Neto]

A couple of thoughts regarding evidence;

OK, lets see them.

First, evidence is evidence.

Sorry, but no. There are different levels of reliability and this is undeniable, as you hint at your next sentence.

It's not limited specifically to the scientific theory. To wit, I reference a photo of a black hole. Do we accept that black holes exist in the universe? Do we accept that a photo of a black hole is acceptable evidence? Yes we do, because the visible light photo of the black hole is only one aspect of what has been taken as proof of black holes. Is the photo science? Of course it is, because provenance and repeatability have been demonstrated. Black holes are, for all our purposes, stationary in that they can be found night after night in just about the same spot as the night previously.

[nitpick]Actually you can get a pic of the black hole's accretion disk and polar jets (if it has), but not of the black hole itself.[/nitpick]

Scientific evidence has a givel level of quality. Quality level will depend on the purpose. Philosophy, for example, may have a different standard. Even within science itself, there different levels (preliminary data may not be as precise as data acquired later, for example).

UFO’s, on the other hand, are unpredictable by their very nature. They don’t announce their arrival. They surprise and startle people, who run for their cameras and often snap a blurred motion, out of focus photo which could be anything but a UFO. Is this still evidence? Of course it is, as the person taking the photo thought they were taking a photo of a UFO. The fact that this evidence is of poor or unusable quality is irrelevant as the evidence is defined by the person presenting it to the world. It is a conscious choice by the presenter to define the blurred motion, out of focus photo as evidence. The presenter can always wait for a more conclusive photo to be obtained.
Data collection is soley dependent on the reputation of the presenter, and if one is to adduce a particular thing based on that data, then it is reasonable to examine the bona fides of the data.

Nope if you take in to account UFO lore. I'm sure you are aware of the terms UFO hot spots and UFO flaps, for example.

What should we make of the standard of evidence required by UFO enthusiasts vis-a-vis skeptics to validate the phenomenon? I think UFO enthusiasts understand the supreme difficulty in obtaining any data regarding UFO’s and much (all?) of it is dependent on pure chance. It really is a about taking what one can get, and attempting to sort it out later.

Try sorting it all out according to criteria acceptable by science. That would be a start. And again, if you accept UFO lore, obtaining data on the phenomenon should not be as hard as some UFO buffs say.

Check this site out;

http://meteoriteblog.com/category/videos/

How many photos or videos are there of meteorites in flight? Perhaps one or two, and given this site is for meteorite junkies, one would think there should be dozens and dozens. Thank goodness meteorites sometimes strike the earth or the sceptics wouldn’t believe they exist!
I think, if I read the skeptic position correctly, they believe nothing should ever be presented publicly until the UFO enthusiasts can produce the smoking gun which proves the UFO’s are alien entities.

How many photos of meteorites in flight? I don't know, but I do know there are much more than one or two. After every single metor shower lots of pics pop up in the net, as for example at universetoday. Try also checking youtube fireball and meteors vids and you'll see what you wrote is not real.

At this very thread we exposed a couple of times how a simple and cheap experimental set up would be able to gather imagery and other data on UFOs if UFO lore is correct. The required equipment is well within the budget of enthusiasts of amateur astronomy and wildlife photography, for example.Any large UFOlogy organization should be able to raise funds for it; top UFOlogists could raise funds for it (the make money out of UFOlogy, right?), a single UFO hunters episode could pay for it. When it comes down to UFOlogy not being able to produce reliable evidence, lack of funding, stigma and transient character smell, IMHO, as lame excuses.

Imagine if our justice system was run by those same skeptics. Trials would only occur when the prosecution possessed smoking gun proof of the crime. Since it is up to the prosecution to prove their claim a crime occurred, the weight of evidence or the body of evidence would be irrelevant. If the justice system is okay with incarcerating people without a smoking gun, why can't skeptics accept the existence of UFO's based on eyewitness accounts, photos and broken cars?

Sorry, but this comparisson has already been beaten to death more than once. For now, I'll just say that nowadays scientific (forensic) evidence beats eyewitness testimony in court. I will illustrate with present the following hypothetical examples:

1. If the fingerprints at the gun do not match those of the defendant, if the defendant has no powder remains at his hands and if nothing but eyewitness testimony places the defendant at the crime scene, the prosecution will have a pretty hard time. I would also like you to ponder about the differences between court and science.

2. Billie Jean says the kid is my son. If the kids' DNA do not match mine's, then she lost her case.

BTW, why should science and skeptics give a special status to UFO evidence, lowering the required quality levels?

 

[Rramjet]

Shooting Stars on the Moon..?

I am interested in a video posted on the site SnidelyW referenced – the one where a “meteorite” zooms past the moon (http://meteoriteblog.com/meteor-or-ufo-video/). My question is, given the moon for all practical purposes has no atmosphere, how can a meteorite “burn up” and produce a meteor tail in a practically non-existent atmosphere? For example:

“When Leonid meteoroids rain down on the airless Moon, they won't cause "shooting stars" as they do on our planet. There's no atmosphere on the Moon where cosmic debris particles can incinerate as fiery streaks of light. Lunar Leonids will simply hit the ground with a head-spinning velocity of nearly 140,000 mph.(http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast26oct_1/)​

... if not a meteor, then what?

 

[RoboTimbo]

As humans we have an inbuilt need to “explain” everything. Everything must have an explanation. We become terribly insecure if we cannot assign an explanation. We fear the unknown. Better to assign an incorrect explanation than to have no explanation at all. That is our nature. So it is with UFOs.

This seems to describe the UFO creduloid mindset to a T. Some creduloids would have every UFO be "alien" by definition, even going so far as to redefine terms to fit their preconceived mindset.

 

[Marduk]

its quite obviously a fast moving meteor that has passed through the reflected sunlight from the moons surface. Its not burning up at all, thats just a motion blur

how could you possibly think it was anything else.
PERHAPS ITS A BLIMP

 

[Rramjet]

…obtaining data on the phenomenon should not be as hard as some UFO buffs say (…) a simple and cheap experimental set up would be able to gather imagery and other data on UFOs…

Here is some of that data that you call for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc) - and it was not hard to obtain - and it is from a very expensive “experimental set up” (ie; NASA) – obviously of greater quality and more reliable than the “simple and cheap” set up you call for. I find it fascinating that the UFO debunkers continually assert that there is no reliable data when we have it in spades. Of course when that data is presented to the UFO debunkers…they simply ignore it.

I ask you then Correa Neto, what is your opinion of this data?

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Here is some of that data that you call for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc) - and it was not hard to obtain - and it is from a very expensive “experimental set up” (ie; NASA) – obviously of greater quality and more reliable than the “simple and cheap” set up you call for. I find it fascinating that the UFO debunkers continually assert that there is no reliable data when we have it in spades. Of course when that data is presented to the UFO debunkers…they simply ignore it.

I ask you then Correa Neto, what is your opinion of this data?

Anomalies hunting isn't what I would call a reliable data technique. You keep playing this game of shifting the burden of proof and keep calling anyone skeptical of your claims "UFO debunkers". So I'll ask you:

What evidence do you have the anomalies of this video are alien of origin?

When did any of the skeptics say they don't believe in UFO's or UFO's are bunk?

How did you eliminate the mundane causes of the said anomalies of the video?

 

[wollery]

Just because something is “anecdotal” does not mean it is “bad” data. Eyewitness descriptions can and do constitute good data – especially when there is a consistent body of that data that is built up over time. As for the issue of replicability, it is not so simple. I have spent a large portion of my life outdoors, a lot of time at night. Over many years I have had relatively few UFO encounters (considering the time spent outdoors). One could spend years staring at the sky every night and not encounter a UFO. On the other hand one might “get lucky” and encounter one on the very first night one looks. Most people who encounter UFOs simply write them off as mundane objects without a second thought. I will go further, most people are in positive denial about UFOs and even when encountering something truly inexplicable will still write it off as mundane – preferring not to trust their senses rather than conclude something that has no explanation. As humans we have an inbuilt need to “explain” everything. Everything must have an explanation. We become terribly insecure if we cannot assign an explanation. We fear the unknown. Better to assign an incorrect explanation than to have no explanation at all. That is our nature. So it is with UFOs.

So why is it that almost everyone here is perfectly happy to say that we don't have an explanation for most of the cases you've presented?

Unfortunately, even if a UFO landed and LGM got out and said “Take me to your leader”, most people would still not believe it! There are vast groups of people who believe we never went to the moon, that the earth is flat, that the holocaust never happened, that there is a god that acts on personal exhortations, that there is no such thing as UFOs…

Vast groups? No, mostly just loud groups.

I think you'll find that the majority of people on Earth (who have access to the relevant information) do believe that we landed on the Moon, that the Earth is a ball, that the holocaust did happen, that God exists and does act on personal exhortations. As for UFOs, anyone with half a brain must accept that they exist, since there are objects that appear in the sky that cannot be identified.

The question isn't whether UFOs exist, the question is, what are they?

Most scientist do not “ignore” UFOs, they simply see no way in the current climate to make a living out of researching them. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with the data – there is a wealth of that.

No, they see no way of reaching any real scientific conclusion about what they are. That's also why there's no way to make a living out of it - how do you make a living as a scientist if you can't produce result to be peer reviewed?

And there isn't a "wealth" of data. There is some data that isn't too bad, mixed in with a vast amount of data that is either so bad that it's unusable in any way or proven to be fraudulent.

You have simply misunderstood the history and philosophy of science. Perhaps I can refer you to A. F. Chalmer’s (1976) What is this thing called Science? In the introduction he states:

“An inscription on the façade of the Social Science Research Building at the University of Chicago reads. “If you cannot measure, your knowledge is meagre and unsatisfactory”. No doubt, many of its inhabitants, imprisoned in their modern laboratories, scrutinize the world through the iron bars of the integers, failing to realize that the method they endeavour to follow is not only necessarily barren and unfruitful but also is not the method to which the success of physics is to attributed.

(…)

Modern developments in the philosophy of science have pinpointed and stressed deep-seated difficulties associated with the idea that science rests on a sure foundation acquired through observation and experiment and with the idea that there is some kind of inference procedure that enables us to derive scientific theories from such a base in a reliable way.” (p. xvi) ​

Chalmers goes on to state (and here I am paraphrasing heavily) that the common conception of the progress of science (as described above by wollery) is simply not reconcilable with how science progresses in fact (in the real world). Theories do not change and paradigms do not shift because of any immediate relation to data, peer-reviewed publication, scientific consensus, or even its opposite, scientific censure and renegade endeavour. They change because of a relationship between a social world view and the ability of a ‘scientific “ theory to support (or not) that social world view. If the cultural zeitgeist changes, then so scientific paradigm shifts might occur. What is acceptable under the “old” becomes not acceptable under the “new”, and vice versa. There is simply no empirical foundation that can supply us with the “truth”. For example:

“As we have seen, both Kuhn and Feyeraband have stressed the extent to which the mechanical world as described by Newton’s theory is very different from the world as described by Einstein’s theory. The outmoded and inadequate conceptions of mass, force, space and time, that are utilized in the formulation of Newtonian theory, are transmitted to all its deductive consequences. Therefore, strictly speaking, if we are talking in terms of truth and falsifyability, all of those deductive consequences are false. The truth content of Newton’s theory is zero, as is the truth content of all mechanical theories prior to Einstein. The truth content of Einstein’s theory itself may prove to be zero after some future scientific revolution. Viewed this way, Popper’s attempt to compare “false” theories by comparing their truth and falsity contents, and thereby to construe science as approaching the truth, breaks down” (p. 158).​

It's interesting that you use Chalmers, since he shows how science is actually theory driven. It's interesting because you don't actually have a theory.

He also shows how the inductive method is fundamentally flawed, a position I agree with wholeheartedly. However, the deductive method is also fundamentally flawed in terms of scientific endeavour. So science must be a combination of induction and deduction.

Not “whining”, just relating the facts…

Testable Hypothesis: The Rogue River object was a misidentified mundane object.

(or more generally)

All UFO sightings have mundane explanations.

You keep saying that this is a testable hypothesis, but I think you fail to realise that it isn't. In order to test your hypothesis you either have to prove definitively that no mundane explanations are possible, or show one case that is provably non-mundane. In the first case you have to show that you have accounted for all possible mundane explanations, which is pretty much impossible to do, because it's essentially asking to prove a negative. The second case requires the definitive identification of something as non-mundane, which requires that a UFO be shown to be a spacecraft from another planet, or time-travelling humans, or whatever it may be. This in turn requires accurate and reliable testing of (for instance) the spacecraft.

So I return to a question I keep asking, but you never really answered, and add a couple more.

How do you ensure that you have considered all mundane explanations?

What do you consider to be a mundane explanation?

Do you have any evidence of a UFO being accurately and reliably tested?

 

[Jocce]

I have also pointed out that there was probably at least one genuine UFO involved in the Campeche incident (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).

Which one(s) and why?

(I guess by "genuine UFO" you mean a not mundane object)

I stated:
“There is still some argument about the process of elimination. Surely it is not that difficult a concept to grasp. I even pointed to some websites explaining the process and have outlined how it works in (for example) the Rogue River case (and especially in conjunction with the historical and eyewitness evidence to rule out blimps).”

Then you have simply not been following the debate. For example my posts #7078, #7093, #7114, #7138, #7159, #7162, #7175, #7176 and #7178 all explore to varying degree the process of elimination! I find it hard to believe you could have missed ALL these posts. In my latest post on the matter (#7281) I stated:

You say you went through a process of elimination and yes, it's not a hard process to grasp. However, we only see that you dismiss the mundane explanations you can think of without much reasoning behind it. How did you go about eliminating military test flights of new hardware for example? How did you eliminate hallucination caused my environmental hazards in the location of the observation? How did you go about eliminating fraud? Etc... in detail please.

It is our interpretation of evidence that is the key here. The evidence itself is neither good nor bad. One person might interpret specific evidence as good evidence for UFOs. Another might interpret that same evidence as good evidence for fraud (meaning of course that they think it is “bad” evidence for UFOs). The evidence however does not change in nature – it is what it is – neither good nor bad.

Evidence is just data if it's not applied in a context to prove something. This is yet another philosofical debate about semantics which is pretty meaningless in this discussion. You try to provide evidence for aliens. When we say it's bad evidence, obviously it means bad evidence for aliens.

 

[Jocce]

The lack of research funding, the inability to get published in peer reviewed journals and the cultural zeitgeist all add to make serious research in the field a virtual impossibility. It is not because of a lack of evidence – there is a wealth of that – it is a social, rather than scientific barrier that is being thrown up – and it is the UFO debunkers such as those posting in this thread that are determined to build that barrier as high as they can and to maintain it for as long as possible.

So it's all one big conspiracy against the Truth(TM) and the debunkers in threads like this are leading it? Wow, I never knew I had the power to accept or deny research grants. I will notify all scientists at my university at first opportunity.

My “scientific” credentials are not (nor should they be) the issue. My arguments stand or fall on their own merits

How many attempts have you made to get your UFO research into peer reviewed journals? How many research grants have you applied for? Can you share some of your research proposals?

 

[Jocce]

Just because something is “anecdotal” does not mean it is “bad” data. Eyewitness descriptions can and do constitute good data – especially when there is a consistent body of that data that is built up over time.

Anedotal evidence is always unreliable evidence to a greater or lesser degree, period. Also, you can't just lump together eyewitness observations of unrelated unidentified objects and claim that the totality somehow strengthens your case.