Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paul2]

Q. Why should sighting reports be sufficient evidence for anyone?

A. Because sighting reports have the potential to be as sufficient or better than any other evidence. Why? For sighting reports, the principle is that when people report seeing something ( anything ), and subsequent investigations don't turn up an indication of a hoax or deception, and some instances include collaborating reports from independent witnesses and/or mechanical sensors ( photos, radar, whatever ), investigators tend to believe that it is reasonable to take the reports seriously, and as the numbers of such incidents grow, it becomes a virtual statistical certainty that things are being seen, and that they are probably close to being as described.

I'll grant that statistical probability isn't the same as other evidence, but what is forgotten by those seeking other evidence, is that there is a margin of error in the gathering and analysis of evidence of any kind ( including material evidence ). So where we have identical margins of error, there isn't any logical reason to say that one form of evidence is any less or more "sufficient" than the other.

Wait, are sighting reports sufficient, or do they only have the potential to be sufficient?

Furthermore, if there were other types of evidence besides sightings, and that was enough to draw a conclusion, then it seems like that conclusion would be drawn anyway without the sightings, so the sightings themselves were useless.

 

[Akhenaten]

Q. Why should sighting reports be sufficient evidence for anyone?

A. Because sighting reports have the potential to be as sufficient or better than any other evidence.

This is obviously incorrect.

Or perhaps you'd like to explain how a sighting report is ever going to be of better sufficiency (whatever that means) than a nice shiny flying saucer sitting in a hangar at the National Air and Space Museum.

Why? For sighting reports, the principle is that when people report seeing something ( anything ), and subsequent investigations don't turn up an indication of a hoax or deception, and some instances include collaborating reports from independent witnesses and/or mechanical sensors ( photos, radar, whatever ), investigators tend to believe that it is reasonable to take the reports seriously, and as the numbers of such incidents grow, it becomes a virtual statistical certainty that things are being seen, and that they are probably close to being as described.

Collaborating reports from independent witnesses?

I think you need to pick one or the other.


Anyway, apart from that glaring error, you seem to be saying that if investigators can't rule out a hoax then "flying saucer" becomes the default conclusion.

This is absurdly wrong.

I'll grant that statistical probability isn't the same as other evidence, but what is forgotten by those seeking other evidence, is that there is a margin of error in the gathering and analysis of evidence of any kind ( including material evidence ).

What is the statistic for the number of actual flying saucers per thousand sightings?

Per million sightings?

Per all sightings ever?

Zero, isn't it?

Which allows us to extrapolate, I believe, that for every infinite number of sighting reports there will be zero actual flying saucers.

Any number greater than zero has nothing to do with statistical probability and everything to do with wishful thinking.

So where we have identical margins of error, there isn't any logical reason to say that one form of evidence is any less or more "sufficient" than the other.

Your conclusion is faulty because your assumption (or rather, assertion) that we have identical margins of error is not just unsupported, it's complete nonsense.

 

[xtifr]

I'm starting to remember the lawyer from the Simpsons again: "I've got hearsay and conjecture--those are kinds of evidence."

 

[Stray Cat]

Q. Why should sighting reports be sufficient evidence for anyone?

A. Because sighting reports have the potential to be as sufficient or better than any other evidence.

They also have the potential to be much worse.
The problem being how does one determine which way that potential will fall.

Why? For sighting reports, the principle is that when people report seeing something ( anything ), and subsequent investigations don't turn up an indication of a hoax or deception, and some instances include collaborating reports from independent witnesses and/or mechanical sensors ( photos, radar, whatever ), investigators tend to believe that it is reasonable to take the reports seriously, and as the numbers of such incidents grow, it becomes a virtual statistical certainty that things are being seen, and that they are probably close to being as described.

No, all it shows is that sometimes people see stuff they can't identify.
We have been through countless examples of this and given the well understood reasons why it is so. That is why science requires objective, repeatable, verifiable evidence in order to develop testable/falsifiable hypotheses.

I'll grant that statistical probability isn't the same as other evidence, but what is forgotten by those seeking other evidence, is that there is a margin of error in the gathering and analysis of evidence of any kind ( including material evidence ). So where we have identical margins of error, there isn't any logical reason to say that one form of evidence is any less or more "sufficient" than the other.

Which would maybe be relevant if you (or any other Ufologist) ever offered up a numerical margin for error as opposed to paying lip service to the need to have one.
The use of ambiguous language ("identical margins of error") is nothing more than unquantifiable fog you try to knit.
Skirting around the problem that "unevidenced claims" are not reliable sources of information in themselves by pretending they are reliable (by using ambiguous language) is not a good way to proceed.

 

[23_Tauri]

They are sufficient for me to believe that people have seen something they associate with those things, but insufficient for me to draw any conclusions about exactly what it was they saw.

Exactly, and that 'something' that they associate may be a preconceived notion in their minds of what they expect the thing to look like. If you are so capable of applying this sort of reasoning to Big Foot et al sightings, why do you not apply the same reasoning to people who report seeing alien space craft? Is this not a double standard on your part? If not, why not?

 

[ufology]

Wait, are sighting reports sufficient, or do they only have the potential to be sufficient?

Furthermore, if there were other types of evidence besides sightings, and that was enough to draw a conclusion, then it seems like that conclusion would be drawn anyway without the sightings, so the sightings themselves were useless.

Q. Wait, are sighting reports sufficient, or do they only have the potential to be sufficient?

A. Sighting reports have the potential to be equally sufficient as any other kind of evidence.


On your second point, sighting reports are observations of the phenomenon. Any other evidence would also end up being reported as an observation of the phenomenon. So essentially we're always dealing with reports no matter what kind of phenomenon related to the subject matter is being studied, and as mentioned before, it is the margin of error in these studies that should determine how sufficient they are. For example, a piece of metal may be more or less sufficient than a collection of observations without any metal. It all depends on the circumstances.

 

[ufology]

Exactly, and that 'something' that they associate may be a preconceived notion in their minds of what they expect the thing to look like. If you are so capable of applying this sort of reasoning to Big Foot et al sightings, why do you not apply the same reasoning to people who report seeing alien space craft? Is this not a double standard on your part? If not, why not?

Your misconception is that I don't apply the same reasoning to ufology when in fact I do. For example, you might recall that in an earlier discussion on the Point Mugu UFO sighting, I expressed the view that there was insufficient evidence to form a reasonable case that the object was a UFO ( alien craft ). If you were to follow me on other websites you would know that I recently posted my opinion that the Blue Springs Missouri sightings earlier this year were caused by misidentification of the star Arcturus. You would also know that I'm very dubious of the Travis Walton case. You would also know that I readily accept that most UFO reports turn out to be something other than UFOs. You might even recall that the main reason I joined the JREF was to find constructive skeptical input for my ufology articles. Also, it's a faulty argument to conclude that because I don't agree that all UFO sightings can be accurately explained away as something mundane, I must therefore have the same rationale for believing in the FSM or whatever other nonsense skeptics will sometimes try to equate with UFOs ( in a rather straw-man like fashion ) usually for the purpose of ridicule and mockery.

 

[Resume]

Q. Why should sighting reports be sufficient evidence for anyone?

They shouldn't without some sort of corroboration.

Done.

 

[TjW]

Sightings aren't evidence, they're claims. For claims to be considered likely, they need to be balanced by evidence. More sightings aren't more evidence, they're just more claims.

 

[23_Tauri]

Your misconception is that I don't apply the same reasoning to ufology when in fact I do. For example, you might recall that in an earlier discussion on the Point Mugu UFO sighting, I expressed the view that there was insufficient evidence to form a reasonable case that the object was a UFO ( alien craft ). If you were to follow me on other websites you would know that I recently posted my opinion that the Blue Springs Missouri sightings earlier this year were caused by misidentification of the star Arcturus. You would also know that I'm very dubious of the Travis Walton case. You would also know that I readily accept that most UFO reports turn out to be something other than UFOs. You might even recall that the main reason I joined the JREF was to find constructive skeptical input for my ufology articles. Also, it's a faulty argument to conclude that because I don't agree that all UFO sightings can be accurately explained away as something mundane, I must therefore have the same rationale for believing in the FSM or whatever other nonsense skeptics will sometimes try to equate with UFOs ( in a rather straw-man like fashion ) usually for the purpose of ridicule and mockery.

So I'm clear on this, are you saying that single every reported case of an unidentified flying object that has not been clearly identified (go figure) is sufficient for you to believe that people who saw the object (or whatever it was) saw something they associated with UFOs, but that every sighting was insufficient for you to draw the conclusion that was they saw was actually an alien space craft (i.e. your definition of UFO)?

 

[Paul2]

Q. Wait, are sighting reports sufficient, or do they only have the potential to be sufficient?

A. Sighting reports have the potential to be equally sufficient as any other kind of evidence.

So they are potentially sufficient, that is different from just being sufficient, correct?

If something is just plainly sufficient, then there's no qualification that it's just *potentially* sufficient, it's sufficient all by itself, wend of story. That's what being sufficient means.

If something is only potentially sufficient, however, then it could be sufficient later on, or it might not be.

Do I have that right? I was slightly confused by what you wrote, so I'm just looking for clarification.

 

[Krikkiter]

I'm starting to remember the lawyer from the Simpsons again: "I've got hearsay and conjecture--those are kinds of evidence."

Ahhh Lionel Hutz. Now there's a lawyer!

 

[Stray Cat]

On your second point, sighting reports are observations of the phenomenon.

But you're forgetting that "the phenomenon" they are observations of, has never been shown to be aliens in flying saucers.

What has been quite well established is that "the phenomenon" is people seeing things they can't identify. As human perception isn't perfect, it's exactly what we'd expect to happen every so often.

 

[ufology]

So I'm clear on this, are you saying that single every reported case of an unidentified flying object that has not been clearly identified (go figure) is sufficient for you to believe that people who saw the object (or whatever it was) saw something they associated with UFOs, but that every sighting was insufficient for you to draw the conclusion that was they saw was actually an alien space craft (i.e. your definition of UFO)?

What I'm saying is exactly what I wrote. If it is not clear, try restating your question using a specific example. Maybe we can make some progress by trying some different approaches.

 

[ufology]

So they are potentially sufficient, that is different from just being sufficient, correct?

If something is just plainly sufficient, then there's no qualification that it's just *potentially* sufficient, it's sufficient all by itself, wend of story. That's what being sufficient means.

If something is only potentially sufficient, however, then it could be sufficient later on, or it might not be.

Do I have that right? I was slightly confused by what you wrote, so I'm just looking for clarification.

Q. So they are potentially sufficient, that is different from just being sufficient, correct?

A. Some context is needed. Potential sufficiency involves a discussion of the principles by which we determine the sufficiency of reports in general and is not in the same context as examples of specific reports that are either sufficient or not on their own. For example, potential sufficiency for reports is like a group of diagnoses from separate sources about a similar group of medical cases. Within the group of diagnoses may lie the correct diagnosis, but because there may be different diagnoses, not all of them can be correct, and therefore any individual diagnoses may or may not be correct. However sufficiency for recommending a course of treatment can still be reached after a certain number of diagnoses become prevalent enough e.g. 9 out of 10 doctors reached a particular conclusion, therefore that conclusion is probably what we are dealing with.

 

[Paul2]

I don't see how that applies. You're talking about how something becomes sufficient, and I'm just trying to see if you can plainly and clearly state the difference between sufficient and potentially sufficient.

Rather than providing context, can you just say with what from my previous post you agree and what don't you? No explanations or justifications or context for the moment, please, just make a list of what statements or parts of statements from my previous post you agree with or not. I would appreciate that very much.

 

[Paul2]

Q. So they are potentially sufficient, that is different from just being sufficient, correct?

A. Some context is needed. Potential sufficiency involves a discussion of the principles by which we determine the sufficiency of reports in general and is not in the same context as examples of specific reports that are either sufficient or not on their own. For example, potential sufficiency for reports is like a group of diagnoses from separate sources about a similar group of medical cases. Within the group of diagnoses may lie the correct diagnosis, but because there may be different diagnoses, not all of them can be correct, and therefore any individual diagnoses may or may not be correct. However sufficiency for recommending a course of treatment can still be reached after a certain number of diagnoses become prevalent enough e.g. 9 out of 10 doctors reached a particular conclusion, therefore that conclusion is probably what we are dealing with.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I am just asking for a clear distinction between potentially sufficient and sufficient.

Try this for me, humor me for a second. Make two lists; one list contains all the statements in my previous post that you agree with, and the other list contains the ones you don't agree with.

 

[Akhenaten]

What I'm saying is exactly what I wrote. If it is not clear, try restating your question using a specific example.

Problems with clarity aren't the result of poorly stated questions - they are the result of people using oxymoronic and therefore meaningless terminology such as:

I expressed the view that there was insufficient evidence to form a reasonable case that the object was a UFO ( alien craft ).

UFO ≠ alien craft​

An easy way to remember this is to keep in mind that the former exist and the latter don't.

Maybe we can make some progress by trying some different approaches.

Indeed.

One different approach that might help would be to stop referring to unidentified flying objects as things that have actually been identified, albeit as something that's never been shown to exist.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

You would also know that I readily accept that most UFO reports turn out to be something other than UFOs.

I can't imagine why you would think this would make sense the way it's written.

UFO reports remain UFO reports, no matter what happens after they're made. They don't 'turn out' to be anything else.

The subjects of those reports may turn out to be all manner of things (although they never turn out to be flying saucers) but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

This haphazard conflation of terms coupled with a penchant for using non-standard definitions is at the heart of the difficulty you are experiencing in getting people to understand what you're talking about.

You might even recall that the main reason I joined the JREF was to find constructive skeptical input for my ufology articles.

Well here's something I can definitely help with.

"There's no such thing as flying saucers"​

Are there royalties involved when these contributions are published? I'm sure I'd be able to help out with a few more if there was sufficient incentive.

 

[GeeMack]

Some context is needed. Potential sufficiency involves a discussion of the principles by which we determine the sufficiency of reports in general and is not in the same context as examples of specific reports that are either sufficient or not on their own.

Definitively gibberish.

For example, potential sufficiency for reports is like a group of diagnoses from separate sources about a similar group of medical cases. Within the group of diagnoses may lie the correct diagnosis, but because there may be different diagnoses, not all of them can be correct, and therefore any individual diagnoses may or may not be correct. However sufficiency for recommending a course of treatment can still be reached after a certain number of diagnoses become prevalent enough e.g. 9 out of 10 doctors reached a particular conclusion, therefore that conclusion is probably what we are dealing with.

Attempting to support the existence of something which has never been objectively shown to exist often seems to move into ambiguous discussions about chance and probability. But okay, rather than the vague comparisons to something wholly unrelated to the topic, let's work with the real numbers as they really apply to the real discussion....

Of all the things which were initially perceived to be flying objects, the identities of which were initially undetermined, of the ones where the actual identity was eventually objectively determined, how many of them turned out to be alien craft? That's a quantitative issue. The acceptable answer will be a number.

If you're going to say, "therefore that conclusion (some UFOs are alien craft) is probably what we are dealing with," you must compare the number of actual alien craft with the number of reports.