Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

If you flip a coin 5 times and it comes up heads each time that does not mean the 6th will also be heads.

You do understand that there are only two known outcomes to a coin flip, right? A coin will come up heads or tails and, as far as I know, a coin has never come up aliens. But lets say there are 1300 that we couldn't quite make out exactly what side the coin came out on, you are essentially saying that those came out aliens.

I never said any of them come out alien (or interdimensional). What I am saying is this; The subtext of Jim's argument is that they can all be explained as normal events if we have enough data. He IS implying this, read between the lines.

IF these 1300 cases constituted ALL the evidence pertaining to things ufological Jim's argument might be stronger (but not airtight; if 1299 were shown to be normal the remaining 1 could still be extraterrestrial).

But we must live in the real world. The fact is that the phenomenon is multi-faceted and complex. We must take this into account when making reasonable assumptions about these 1300. After all, we can only make reasonable assumptions because the data is so incomplete.

So, what are we to base our assumptions on? The best way to make these assumptions is to make them within the whole body of evidence of things ufological. Otherwise it is a futile exercise.

The surrounding body of evidence is not in contradiction to the hypothesis. And, since this is by far the best hypothesis we have, we are justified in arguing that many of these 1300 could be real craft.

a reply to: EnPassant

I never said any of them come out alien (or interdimensional). What I am saying is this; The subtext of Jim's argument is that they can all be explained as normal events if we have enough data. He IS implying this, read between the lines.

The part you are missing is the knowns. When determining likelihood, you need known outcomes. If there is something that is unknown you cant determine that it is something else unknown. The odds are in Jim's favor.

IF these 1300 cases constituted ALL the evidence pertaining to things ufological Jim's argument might be stronger (but not airtight; if 1299 were shown to be normal the remaining 1 could still be extraterrestrial).

That remaining one could be a brain tumor also.

The surrounding body of evidence is not in contradiction to the hypothesis. And, since this is by far the best hypothesis we have, we are justified in arguing that many of these 1300 could be real craft.

We are more justified arguing that they could be any combination of known psychological phenomenon.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: EnPassant
H: There are craft in the sky and they are behaving in a seemingly intelligent fashion. We don't have craft like this on earth.
AH: (1) We do, they could be secret military craft.
Wow. You remain clueless about the issues of MEASURING such performance parameters. No wonder you misunderstand other people's points of view. Let me spend some time on a longer response.
ADD -- Try this 1985 conference paper
www.debunker.com...

Here is a quote from the link you provided-

"Another analogy can be conjured up, and a syllogism constructed to test it. A leading pro-UFO argument is that since some UFO reports cannot be solved, then their stimulus must be extraordinary. Isn't this akin to suggesting that since some missing children are never found, they might well be on Mars?"

This is true and sometimes people are inclined to say 'It must be aliens'. Maybe even Keane, although in her case I suspect that her well founded conviction about ufos just gets the better of her. Not a terrible fault to have.

But, in general, it is not just a bunch of people saying 'It must be aliens'. There are far more factors in these people's convictions than misplaced excitement.

As for the performance of these craft. People, not just pilots, say that they fly away with breath taking speed. These reports about performance go back a long way and have been consistently reported by people who did not have any interest in flying saucers and were not well read on the subject. They are just reporting what they saw and 'reverse algorithms' are not likely to slow them down.

a reply to: EnPassant

AH: (3) Hallucinations.

H: But there have been multiple witness sightings. Are you suggesting they all had bugs in their brains and all those bugs just happened to kick in at the same time?

You mean like the Yukon case? That was once a giant mothership with multiple witnesses. As far as I know, nobody has suggested that "they all had bugs in their brains and all those bugs just happened to kick in at the same time". What I AM suggesting is that most believers have straw men in their brains telling them what to say.

Are you suggesting that those multiple witness cases that were once thought to be fantastic cases are due to multiple people with bugs in their brains? How else do you interpret that? Do you have a bug in your brain? Do you frequently tell mentally ill people that they have bugs in their brains? Is this the extent of your knowledge regarding all things psychological?

a reply to: EnPassant

As for the performance of these craft. People, not just pilots, say that they fly away with breath taking speed. These reports about performance go back a long way and have been consistently reported by people who did not have any interest in flying saucers and were not well read on the subject. They are just reporting what they saw and 'reverse algorithms' are not likely to slow them down.

The missing data is the reports that were exactly the same initially but were later identified.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

The surrounding body of evidence is not in contradiction to the hypothesis. And, since this is by far the best hypothesis we have, we are justified in arguing that many of these 1300 could be real craft.

We are more justified arguing that they could be any combination of known psychological phenomenon.

I don't think so. As I have pointed out, hallucinations don't convincingly explain things because there are multiple witness accounts, landing traces etc.

You said "any combination of psychological phenomenon". This is another example of fragmentation; you must cobble together a motley crew of phenomena to plug all the holes. One psychological quirk won't do it so you have to add on more. It sounds too much like pulling rabbits out of hats to get you through.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

AH: (3) Hallucinations.
H: But there have been multiple witness sightings. Are you suggesting they all had bugs in their brains and all those bugs just happened to kick in at the same time?

You mean like the Yukon case?

I would suggest the Cash Lundrum case. Or a case related by Timothy Good about two Norwegian girls who saw a craft landed on the ground and spoke to the pilot. (I forget the details, names etc.)

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

The surrounding body of evidence is not in contradiction to the hypothesis. And, since this is by far the best hypothesis we have, we are justified in arguing that many of these 1300 could be real craft.

We are more justified arguing that they could be any combination of known psychological phenomenon.

I don't think so. As I have pointed out, hallucinations don't convincingly explain things because there are multiple witness accounts, landing traces etc.

You said "any combination of psychological phenomenon". This is another example of fragmentation; you must cobble together a motley crew of phenomena to plug all the holes. One psychological quirk won't do it so you have to add on more. It sounds too much like pulling rabbits out of hats to get you through.

And your "Bugs in their brains" comments have convinced me that you are not even remotely qualified to make any statements to rule out psychological explanations.

Of the 95% of cases that are explained, how many do you suspect had multiple psychological components? All of them maybe?

And then you have some elaborate theory that its the aliens playing psychological games with everyone in order to account for the psychological aspect. So who is pulling rabbits out hats now?

a reply to: JimOberg

Again, many thanks.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

The surrounding body of evidence is not in contradiction to the hypothesis. And, since this is by far the best hypothesis we have, we are justified in arguing that many of these 1300 could be real craft.

We are more justified arguing that they could be any combination of known psychological phenomenon.

I don't think so. As I have pointed out, hallucinations don't convincingly explain things because there are multiple witness accounts, landing traces etc.
You said "any combination of psychological phenomenon". This is another example of fragmentation; you must cobble together a motley crew of phenomena to plug all the holes. One psychological quirk won't do it so you have to add on more. It sounds too much like pulling rabbits out of hats to get you through.

Of the 95% of cases that are explained, how many do you suspect had multiple psychological components? All of them maybe?

Maybe none of them. They could be just ordinary misunderstandings. You are the one saying people are experiencing multiple psychological components, not me.

And then you have some elaborate theory that its the aliens playing psychological games with everyone in order to account for the psychological aspect. So who is pulling rabbits out hats now?

But they ARE playing games with people. The whole of ufology is replete with ambiguity and contradictions. You can see it here on ATS. People are divided into all kinds of camps. This is the way ufology is because the ufonauts have it this way. The confusions and divisions are a direct result of the way these beings present themselves. What is happening on ATS is very much a result of the alien's behaviour. That's how far reaching their agenda is.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

The surrounding body of evidence is not in contradiction to the hypothesis. And, since this is by far the best hypothesis we have, we are justified in arguing that many of these 1300 could be real craft.

We are more justified arguing that they could be any combination of known psychological phenomenon.

I don't think so. As I have pointed out, hallucinations don't convincingly explain things because there are multiple witness accounts, landing traces etc.
You said "any combination of psychological phenomenon". This is another example of fragmentation; you must cobble together a motley crew of phenomena to plug all the holes. One psychological quirk won't do it so you have to add on more. It sounds too much like pulling rabbits out of hats to get you through.

And your "Bugs in their brains" comments have convinced me that you are not even remotely qualified to make any statements to rule out psychological explanations.

No amount of qualifications will make landing traces go away. Anyhow, I did not say there were no psychological explanations, I said that they must be minimal because they cannot explain different aspects of the phenomenon, such as photographic evidence, landing traces etc. You could always have somebody imagining or hallucinating but this is bound to be a minimal effect because the evidence from other aspects don't come under this heading.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

a reply to: EnPassant

The surrounding body of evidence is not in contradiction to the hypothesis. And, since this is by far the best hypothesis we have, we are justified in arguing that many of these 1300 could be real craft.

We are more justified arguing that they could be any combination of known psychological phenomenon.

I don't think so. As I have pointed out, hallucinations don't convincingly explain things because there are multiple witness accounts, landing traces etc.



You said "any combination of psychological phenomenon". This is another example of fragmentation; you must cobble together a motley crew of phenomena to plug all the holes. One psychological quirk won't do it so you have to add on more. It sounds too much like pulling rabbits out of hats to get you through.

I'm not a fan of hallucination explanations, with all its pejorative insinuations. I'm fully satisfied that for most witnesses their cerebral cortexes [cortices?] are functioning properly, following time-tested [their ancestors survived] recognition algorithms fine-tuned by each one's life experience and consequent reference library.

I don't think it's malfunctioning at all.

They're just applying proper processing to rare, even once-in-a-lifetime visual stimuli. And the answer provided is the one nature/nurture has prepared them for, recognizing something in the most startling and hazardous form so that survival flight/fight can begin in a timely manner.

We're NOT 'programmed' and 'trained' to be dispassionate observers. We're programmed and trained for rapid responses to survive, and if we 'jump the gun' on occasion ['false positives'], or even often, that's MUCH more survival-positive than NOT acting ['false negative'] the single time your life [and your DNA] was under lethal threat.

How else are we descendants of the survivors, not of the about-to-be-lion-turds?

originally posted by: EnPassant
...
No amount of qualifications will make landing traces go away. ....

A good point. So why are THEY even more ambiguous than the witness stories?

Your notions that it's all a deliberate strip tease, perhaps for cultural conditioning over generations, strikes me as a valid hypothesis.

But since it explains everything, it is untestable and un-refutable. So it leaves us helpless to do any investigations at all.

That's why I don't LIKE the idea, while admitting i can't disprove it.

originally posted by: EnPassant
The Hypothesis asserts that there are sentient beings associated with real craft in the sky. The Alternative Hypothesis says...well, what does it say? Let's have a look.

Let H be an advocate for the Hypothesis. Let AH be an advocate for the Alternative Hypothesis.

H: There are craft in the sky and they are behaving in a seemingly intelligent fashion. We don't

have craft like this on earth.

AH: (1) We do, they could be secret military craft.

H: But there are photos from the 20s and 30s showing these craft. We certainly did not have advanced craft like this in those days.

AH: (2) Hoaxery. Charlatans fooling people.

H: But people have seen these craft up close and have seen beings in them. Remember Jessie Rosenberg?

AH: (3) Hallucinations.

H: But there have been multiple witness sightings. Are you suggesting they all had bugs in their brains and all those bugs just happened to kick in at the same time?

AH: (4) Cultural conditioning. They saw stuff on tv and imagined they saw it for real.

H: I doubt it. There are many people in high places with integrity that have come out and said there is a cover up. They are hardly covering up hallucinations and cultural conditioning.

AH: (5) Anecdotal. I don't do the anecdotal thing.

H: But you are hardly arguing that ALL of these people are out of their minds or making things up? All of them?

AH: (6) Don't trust 'em.

I could go on but there are enough points here. Can you see what is happening here? There are 6 different answers to 6 different facets of the phenomenon. One answer fails as each new aspect of the phenomenon is discussed. If they keep failing like this they are not likely to be the right answers.

In other words the alternative hypothesis fragments, disintegrates, when it comes in contact with the evidence.

The Hypothesis itself does not do this. The hypothesis coherently explains ALL the evidence and does not fragment. This is exactly what scientists require of a proper hypothesis; an overarching theory that makes sense of the evidence and is even strengthened as new evidence comes on stream.

This is exactly what the hypothesis does. It explains the phenomenon and unites all its aspects into a coherent statement. Other hypothesis disintegrate immediately on contact with the evidence because each aspect of the evidence negates arguments that pertain to other parts of the evidence.

In fact, there is no real Alternative Hypothesis. It is more like a desperate scramble to explain things in a piecemeal way, but these 'explanations' fail each time a new aspect of the phenomena is presented. Cross referencing these different aspects of the phenomenon creates a powerful hypothesis and dispenses with the arguments against it. This is a properly scientific hypothesis.

Are you getting my drift Jim?

Beautifully said, en Passant.

The argument against aliens just falls apart against the totality of evidence. The deniers have to keep changing the foundation of their argument again and again, grasping at straws, twisting the truth into convoluted, impossible pretzel logic. You summed that up very nicely.

Your post is very insightful, an intelligent, reasoned person would be compelled to agree wit what you say. Unfortunately, it will probably not make a difference to a lot of people in this thread.

originally posted by: Scdfa
Beautifully said, en Passant.
The argument against aliens just falls apart against the totality of evidence. The deniers have to keep changing the foundation of their argument again and again, grasping at straws, twisting the truth into convoluted, impossible pretzel logic. You summed that up very nicely.
Your post is very insightful, an intelligent, reasoned person would be compelled to agree wit what you say. Unfortunately, it will probably not make a difference to a lot of people in this thread.

Thanks. There are two (actually more) aspects of this that convince me. One is that when an overarching view of the situation is taken everything becomes united without contradiction. The other is that the alternatives keep failing and not only that; the subtext of the alternatives is that there is something so utterly weird going on in people's minds that it is even harder to believe than to believe in aliens who have found some clever way to exceed the speed of light.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Scdfa
Beautifully said, en Passant.
The argument against aliens just falls apart against the totality of evidence. The deniers have to keep changing the foundation of their argument again and again, grasping at straws, twisting the truth into convoluted, impossible pretzel logic. You summed that up very nicely.
Your post is very insightful, an intelligent, reasoned person would be compelled to agree wit what you say. Unfortunately, it will probably not make a difference to a lot of people in this thread.

Thanks. There are two (actually more) aspects of this that convince me. One is that when an overarching view of the situation is taken everything becomes united without contradiction. The other is that the alternatives keep failing and not only that; the subtext of the alternatives is that there is something so utterly weird going on in people's minds that it is even harder to believe than to believe in aliens who have found some clever way to exceed the speed of light.

Well, I happen to know you're right, for whatever that's worth to you . It is the only answer, and it is the right answer.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant
...
No amount of qualifications will make landing traces go away. ....

But since it explains everything, it is untestable and un-refutable. So it leaves us helpless to do any investigations at all.
That's why I don't LIKE the idea, while admitting i can't disprove it.

Perhaps death by a thousand cuts will do it; if everything else fails the hypothesis is strengthened.

a reply to: EnPassant.

Maybe none of them. They could be just ordinary misunderstandings. You are the one saying people are experiencing multiple psychological components,

None of them? Huh? Were they witnessed by robots? I'm talking about people that have psychology. There is no psychological components to "ordinary misunderstandings"? So the cases that were described with the same profound dramatic histrionics as the cases you are talking about but later identified are just non psychological ordinary misunderstandings? OK. Please continue.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant.

Maybe none of them. They could be just ordinary misunderstandings. You are the one saying people are experiencing multiple psychological components,

None of them? Huh? Were they witnessed by robots? I'm talking about people that have psychology. There is no psychological components to "ordinary misunderstandings"? So the cases that were described with the same profound dramatic histrionics as the cases you are talking about but later identified are just non psychological ordinary misunderstandings? OK. Please continue.

I think we are at cross purposes here. When you said that sightings are explained by psychological components I understood that you were talking about something more profound, like the hallucinations you mentioned. That's the way I read your post.

In ordinary misidentifications, that are easily explained, simple errors can explain things. Most of these misidentifications are just a light in the sky, Chinese lanterns etc. These are just mistakes that don't require profound psychological components. I am not clear whether you are talking about simple things like lanterns or deeper things like being abducted or seeing aliens. There is a qualitative difference here.

a reply to: EnPassant

I don't think so. As I have pointed out, hallucinations don't convincingly explain things because there are multiple witness accounts, landing traces etc.

Right, throw out the single witness cases.

I would stay with this line of reasoning... which cases have the most of the following conditions? Then you have some basis for your confidence in them.

pre 1970
multiple witness
landing /physical evidence
multiple sightings
sightings with long duration
daylight sightings
high speed turns / stop and go mid-air
sightings with physical harm