What's the difference between Ufology, A.I. and Extra Dimensions?

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Fact - Ufology and the ET Hypothesis are science.

Fact - There's an "ology" on the end of one and an "hypothesis" on the other. This makes them more sciencey.

edit on 8-4-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

I call that Scientology or has that been taken?

Originally posted by neoholographic


An eyewitness account by pilots, police officers and more is a fact. it's a fact they see unidentified flying objects which the ET Hypothesis is built on.

So the foundation of your "hypothesis" is an unverifiable account of a sighting of an unknown thing of unknown nature and unknown origin?

Very sciencey indeed.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Fact - Ufology and the ET Hypothesis are science.

Fact - There's an "ology" on the end of one and an "hypothesis" on the other. This makes them more sciencey.

edit on 8-4-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

I call that Scientology or has that been taken?

As are parapsychology and demonology.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by neoholographic


An eyewitness account by pilots, police officers and more is a fact. it's a fact they see unidentified flying objects which the ET Hypothesis is built on.

So the foundation of your "hypothesis" is an unverifiable account of a sighting of an unknown thing of unknown nature and unknown origin?

Very sciencey indeed.

Yes draknoir2, the point the OP is making is that facts are basically anything someone says. For instance, if someone says they saw a flying saucer going 5 billion miles an hour, that's a fact. We can now build our theory because verification of facts is pointless. This is what we call science. Anyone can do it. Did you know that ants look like some descriptions of aliens? So I can take that fact and build a hypothesis.

It really makes things a lot easier if you don't get bogged down with all the pointless verification.

What is a fact? (With some slight modifications)

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that (not necessarily) has really occurred or is (not necessarily) actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be (not necessarily) proven to correspond to experience (not necessarily). Standard reference works are often used to (not necessarily) check facts. Scientific facts are (not necessarily) verified by repeatable experiments.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


This is really sad. First you don't understand what a hypothesis is. Now you don't understand what facts are.

This really shows that belief blinds people. The only time science becomes convoluted like this by those within and without the scientific community is when you're dealing in areas like Psi or Extraterrestrials.

What did I say that wasn't a fact?

It's a fact that there's eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police Officers and more.

It's a fact that there's pictures and videos of U.F.O.'s

It's a fact that there's trace evidence cases.

It's a fact that there's abduction cases.

It's a fact that we have discovered exoplanets.

It's a fact we found water on other planets.

It's a fact that we have found the building blocks on comets and meteorites.

It's a fact that we have discovered extremophiles living in places we thought life may not exist.

It's a fact that Kaku, Hawking, Mitchell and others have reached the same or similar conclusions.

What have I mentioned that's not facts?

The ET Hypothesis is built on these FACTS.

Pictures, video, abduction cases, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police and more, exoplanets, microbial life in diverse places, billions of planets and stars, building blocks of life found in meteorites and comets, liquid water found outside of earth and people like Kaku, Hawking and Edgar Mitchell saying they exist.

You keep confusing the hypothesis with the underlying facts that are used to build the hypothesis. This is because you have a blind spot of belief. This is why you can't grasp simple things like what's a hypothesis and what are facts to build a hypothesis.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

This is really sad. First you don't understand what a hypothesis is. Now you don't understand what facts are.

I admit that i confuse "hypothalamus", "hypothesis", and "hippopotamus" sometimes. I know what a fact is, I just don't want to say it.

This really shows that belief blinds people. The only time science becomes convoluted like this by those within and without the scientific community is when you're dealing in areas like Psi or Extraterrestrials.

Yes, I agree with you. Did you mean to reply to draknoir? I was helping him understand our way of thinking.

What did I say that wasn't a fact?

They are all facts? Or was that a trick question? Maybe you are wanting to argue with someone else since I agree with you? You are really confusing me!

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact that there's eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police Officers and more.

Of unidentified, unexplained things.

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact that there's pictures and videos of U.F.O.'s

Yes... supposed pictures of unidentified, unexplained things

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact that there's trace evidence cases.

Supposed trace evidence of the unidentified, unexplained things.

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact that there's abduction cases.

Supposedly, according to the "abductees". There are people here who claim to be members of the Galactic Federation.

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact that we have discovered exoplanets.

Yes, there are other planets out there.

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact we found water on other planets.

Yes, there's water out there.

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact that we have found the building blocks on comets and meteorites.

Yes, there's carbon out there.

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact that we have discovered extremophiles living in places we thought life may not exist.

Yes... on Earth.

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact that Kaku, Hawking, Mitchell and others have reached the same or similar conclusions.

Which conclusions would that be? That Aliens are here tooling around in flying saucers?

Originally posted by neoholographic
What have I mentioned that's not facts?

That Ufology, A.I., and extra dimensions are all the same, just off the top of my head.

Originally posted by neoholographic
The ET Hypothesis is built on these FACTS.

Like I said - very sciencey.

reply to post by draknoir2


Oh! You are going to get it!

reply to post by draknoir2


Of course it's science. Again, people who never worked in a scientific field of study, throw around the word science and they have no clue how science works.

Science isn't rigid. The only time rigidity comes into science is when people's beliefs are challenged.

Again, let me clue you in on something.

Ufology is the study of UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS. It's just the study of an observed phenomena that you just said exists.

You said:

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's a fact that there's eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police Officers and more.

Of unidentified, unexplained things.

This is what Scientist usually do when there are unidentified objects in our atmosphere or in space. We build a hypothesis to explain these things.

What is Ufology? Let's look at the dictionary definition.

ufol·o·gy
noun, often capitalized U&F & 1st O yü-ˈfä-lə-jē
Definition of UFOLOGY
: the study of unidentified flying objects
— ufo·log·i·cal adjective often capitalized U&F & 1st O
— ufol·o·gist noun often capitalized U&F & 1st O

The problem is belief. People are scared to admit the obvious because of belief. Ufology and the ET Hypothesis is science in every way.

People think admitting it's science means they admit extraterrestrials exist or have been visiting earth. This just shows belief is a powerful thing and it causes all reason and logic to be thrown out of the window.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by draknoir2

 

Of course it's science. Again, people who never worked in a scientific field of study, throw around the word science and they have no clue how science works.

So you're saying that you have never worked in a scientific field of study?

reply to post by neoholographic

First, this shows you don't have a clue as to what a hypothesis is. You said this is based solely on the assumption that U.F.O.'s are intelligently controlled craft. A hypothesis is an assumption based on facts.

Are you saying its a fact that UFOs are intelligently controlled? And an hypothesis is an assumption based on facts?

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

en.wikipedia.org...

I believe ufology conforms to this definition. It doesn't have to, but as it is now, it does. For instance pictures and videos of UFOs are all ambiguous and don't really show anything that could be labeled as extraordinary. Alien abduction cases don't prove anything other than people experience something. There is absolutely no evidence that there are ufos flying around under intelligent control. There is the "appearance" of intelligence but it can never actually be proved. ETH is just wild speculation on unprovable facts. Facts that can't be verified are useless and not really facts. I mean its cool and all, way cool, but it just doesn't seem to hold up to being real science.

A.I. will never occur with a classical computer.

Why isn't the study of Artificial Intelligence called pseudo science? Why isn't it just wishful thinking? Why don't we need extraordinary evidence for A.I.? These things are said about Ufology hmmmm.

So the point is that AI does exist and on classical computers(whatever that is), it also exists on iPhones and video games. It is a real science. "Consciousness emerging from computers" is not really necessary for AI and as has been shown, not really part of AI. AI plays a part in the study of machine consciousness as do philosophy and psychology.

Ufology , on the other hand, is just plain and simple pseudoscience. ETH is based on nothing verifiable and is rather useless in anything related to science.

"Oh look! A light in the sky! It's a UFO space alien!" That's what ufology is. Useless.

I am waiting to see some real scientific studies on ufos that give some plausibility to ETH. Internet rumors don't count. Even the best cases don't really seem give much credibility to ETH when examined.