Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

originally posted by: draknoir2
@tanka418


If you consider "fraud" the failure to follow through with one's "scientific" claims, then you need to review your post history.

Can't speak for the other @'s you listed, but I personally have made no such claims.

Perhaps you would like to point out those instances...seriously, no body is perfect, and I'd like to see my "failures"...can't improve without adequate knowledge and data.

So...please...point it out.

a reply to: tanka418

@Heart
@Astyanax
@draknoir2

Finally, I'm not on someone's shi# list!

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: draknoir2
@tanka418


If you consider "fraud" the failure to follow through with one's "scientific" claims, then you need to review your post history.

Can't speak for the other @'s you listed, but I personally have made no such claims.

Perhaps you would like to point out those instances...seriously, no body is perfect, and I'd like to see my "failures"...can't improve without adequate knowledge and data.

So...please...point it out.

originally posted by: tanka418

Ya know...sometimes it is actually better if the other party does a wee bit of the work themselves, helps them grasp the data better...sometimes.

Then again, there is a great deal to be said about "due diligence"...something many out there, like you, don't seem to want to do...that's your bad.

originally posted by: tanka418
Anyway, at the appropriate time; I'll give you the correct answer...I promise none of you will like it.

AS promised the probability of 14 items out of 300,000,000,000:
2.0910440582983083453568366685486e-161

And for completeness...the probability of 14 Hipparcos stars:
9.8683561292359918684745495095427e-72

As even the blind can see, the probability of the Hill map being random is so remote, that "remote" is a vast understatement. "Vanishingly small" doesn't even do justice...yet still not impossible.

Here is how that was calculated:

protected void bigFactrial(double value, int range)
[
double result = 1L;

for (int i = 0; i < range; i++)
[
result *= value;
value--;
]

textBox1.Text = result.ToString();
]

Copied and pasted from Visual Studio 2013

1 was divided by the result in each case to render a true "probability"...

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: draknoir2
@tanka418


If you consider "fraud" the failure to follow through with one's "scientific" claims, then you need to review your post history.

Can't speak for the other @'s you listed, but I personally have made no such claims.

Perhaps you would like to point out those instances...seriously, no body is perfect, and I'd like to see my "failures"...can't improve without adequate knowledge and data.

So...please...point it out.

originally posted by: tanka418

Ya know...sometimes it is actually better if the other party does a wee bit of the work themselves, helps them grasp the data better...sometimes.

Then again, there is a great deal to be said about "due diligence"...something many out there, like you, don't seem to want to do...that's your bad.

Ahhh...I thought you had something, but..it appears that all you have is sour grapes over me trying to get you to actually look at the data...you failed

I suppose that's my bad though, thinking you had the where-with-all to actually perform an Internet search and find the data more-or-less on your own.

So why is it that you won't put in the work to understand? Why is it you continue to ignore valid data in favor of our own delusions?

Oh well...as I said willful ignorance!

ETA:
As I see it these pseudo-scientific pseudo skeptics are lazy! They want custom tailored data handed to the on a platter and in a pretty box, complete with ribbons.

The reality is that Truth and reality are not free and must be worked for...and of course this wholly invalidates their opinion.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

There is plenty of actual evidence. it is kept classified or ignored or denied. Sorry, I can't produce it for an argument partly because of those things, and partly because I can't fax my lunch.

a reply to: tanka418
Hey Tanka-
I code all day so some things jump out at me. Is that supposed to be C#? Why no curly brackets? [] you have i= the letter o in your loop. And I'm not familiar with *= or what value--
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just really curious. you can chastise me if its for obvious reasons if you want.

I got some of the answer after I posted. Did the site do all that? Interesting.

originally posted by: sorgfelt
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

There is plenty of actual evidence. it is kept classified or ignored or denied. Sorry, I can't produce it for an argument partly because of those things, and partly because I can't fax my lunch.

Must be some lunch.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: tanka418
Hey Tanka-
I code all day so some things jump out at me. Is that supposed to be C#? Why no curly brackets? [] you have i= the letter o in your loop. And I'm not familiar with *= or what value--
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just really curious. you can chastise me if its for obvious reasons if you want.

I got some of the answer after I posted. Did the site do all that? Interesting.

Yes C#, and I noticed those things as well...it's the ATS editor... the I= is supposed to be zero...didn't make it...

*= is fairly old school and standard notation for times equals; m = m * I; would be the same as m *= I;
the I-- is very old school for a simple decrement...

No I won't chastise you, but I will give the editor here a sideways look...

originally posted by: sorgfelt
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

There is plenty of actual evidence. it is kept classified or ignored or denied. Sorry, I can't produce it for an argument partly because of those things, and partly because I can't fax my lunch.

Actually, they don't need to "classify" any of that anymore. They could release every bit of what has been hidden; it would be denied and argued by pseudo skeptics for decades, perhaps longer.

What has always puzzled me is typically the same skeptics who strike down subjects such as UFO's using the catchphrase "because there is no evidence" go on to believe in modern ideas that don't have much more tangible evidence such as the multiverse, string theory, climate change, etc. They can't come up with any truly physical reason backed by data as to why a multiverse should exist, or why string theory is a true candidate for a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity, or why climate change is a fact, and it all essentially boils down to taking the word of a bunch of very smart "mainstream" people. One of these very smart people, Sean Carroll, who possibly dismisses the field of UFOs believes the scientific method should be altered so that it can accommodate ideas such as the multiverse.

originally posted by: Diablos
What has always puzzled me is typically the same skeptics who strike down subjects such as UFO's using the catchphrase "because there is no evidence" go on to believe in modern ideas that don't have much more tangible evidence such as the multiverse, string theory, climate change, etc. They can't come up with any truly physical reason backed by data as to why a multiverse should exist, or why string theory is a true candidate for a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity, or why climate change is a fact, and it all essentially boils down to taking the word of a bunch of very smart "mainstream" people. One of these very smart people, Sean Carroll, who possibly dismisses the field of UFOs believes the scientific method should be altered so that it can accommodate ideas such as the multiverse.

True, though I think there's at least some math to back the more heavily theoretical physics... not that I'd be able to understand it.

originally posted by: Diablos
What has always puzzled me is typically the same skeptics who strike down subjects such as UFO's using the catchphrase "because there is no evidence" go on to believe in modern ideas that don't have much more tangible evidence such as the multiverse, string theory, climate change, etc. They can't come up with any truly physical reason backed by data as to why a multiverse should exist, or why string theory is a true candidate for a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity, or why climate change is a fact, and it all essentially boils down to taking the word of a bunch of very smart "mainstream" people. One of these very smart people, Sean Carroll, who possibly dismisses the field of UFOs believes the scientific method should be altered so that it can accommodate ideas such as the multiverse.

Falsifiability was never been a real part of science in the first place...the whole notion violates the idea of scientific law. And, it has never been more than a philosophic notion anyway...

originally posted by: tanka418
Falsifiability was never been a real part of science in the first place...the whole notion violates the idea of scientific law. And, it has never been more than a philosophic notion anyway...

Sorry, but falsifiability is the hard line between science and philosophy. A model that makes no predictions that can be verified by experiment is wholly worthless, even if it unifies completely distinct laws into a comprehensive framework and derives these laws from more fundamental arguments. Such a model must be relegated to the realm of philosophy until it makes accurate predictions that are consistent with observational and experimental data. Every scientific law to date (Newton's laws, classical electrodynamics, the fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics, and relativity theory) are all consistent with this principle in making very constrained and precise predictions that, if found to be contrary to observational and experimental evidence, would be definitively proved wrong and discarded. This has always been the tradition of science and is well captured in Alder's razer, "If something cannot be settled by experiment then it is not worthy of debate".

a reply to: Diablos

Falsify Ohm's law...

Ohm's law states that if I have one volt and one ohm of resistance then the current is one ampere. V/R = I

You are making a common mistake...however, if you check the literature you will find that it is only a philosophical idea, nothing inherently scientific about it.

Oh, and please don't make the mistake of thinking that if something is un-falsifiable, then it can not be tested or make predictions...another instance where this idea fails.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Diablos

Falsify Ohm's law...

Ohm's law states that if I have one volt and one ohm of resistance then the current is one ampere. V/R = I

This is a very bad example. It is well known by even a sophomore physics student that "Ohm's Law" is not actually a law, but rather an approximation of a law (namely the Lorentz force law with the magnetic contribution neglected) that applies to a very special class of materials called 'Ohmic' materials. There are no shortage of materials that falsify Ohm's "law", and no one actually takes it to be some fundamental axiom of electrodynamics.

originally posted by: tanka418You are making a common mistake...however, if you check the literature you will find that it is only a philosophical idea, nothing inherently scientific about it.

A 'common mistake' that lies at the heart of the modern scientific method? Why don't you cite your sources of this literature that is completely at odds with how modern scientists actually conduct science?

originally posted by: tanka418Oh, and please don't make the mistake of thinking that if something is un-falsifiable, then it can not be tested or make predictions...another instance where this idea fails.

I see, playing semantics huh?

a reply to: tanka418

All of my data, all of my work is right out in plain sight, albeit, unorganized at present

You mean it's scattered all over your basement floor? Great help that is.

I don't feel I'm under any obligation, at this time, to organize my data and technique.

Of course you aren't. We will just continue to dismiss your claims as crackpot gibberish.

I like the way you cut and paste and then try to make it look like they're your words...kind of transparent though.

Is that really what you think? Thank you for the entirely unintended compliment.

a reply to: tanka418

Gosh, I bet that made you feel good.

By the way...the data, the math that y'all can't find; has been there all along, you simply refuse to see it.

Indeed, Your Majesty, now that I look more closely I see that you are draped, from head to foot, in the most exquisite raiment imaginable.

a reply to: Diablos

What has always puzzled me is typically the same skeptics who strike down subjects such as UFO's using the catchphrase "because there is no evidence" go on to believe in modern ideas that don't have much more tangible evidence such as the multiverse, string theory, climate change, etc.

Multiverses are hypothetical. String theory is by no means universally accepted among physicists; and in fact there are many string theories. I'll assume you added 'climate change' in the same spirit that a naughty boy pokes an anthill with a stick.

It all essentially boils down to taking the word of a bunch of very smart "mainstream" people

You are absolutely right. And do you know what? That's exactly what the very smart mainstream people do, too.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Finally, I'm not on someone's shi# list!

I feel left out.