The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

reply to post by Harte

His logic rests on an alien civilization using self-reproducing robotic probes to expand out over the galaxy, since there is no known method for traveling such vast distances.

The idea is that drones are sent out, they locate raw materials, they build new drones, they send those drones out, etc...

That is exactly the project I'm working on! Right now I'm just trying to get the thing to recharge itself.

reply to post by Harte

Linus Pauling showed the entire world his ignorance regarding vitamin C, and he won a Nobel in Chemistry.

Ouch!

I used to be a vitamin addict. Do have source to discredit him. Not arguing, just want to catch up with the current view. Sorry for off topic post.

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT


I agree with you in that the only value Bluebook had was what not to do if you are looking for ET.

Their psychological explanations are a joke. How many really bizarre cases did they attribute to religious fanatics or crackpots! It's really not valuable as evidence for ET. It was probably valuable to see if the Russians were buzzing around.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Harte

 

Linus Pauling showed the entire world his ignorance regarding vitamin C, and he won a Nobel in Chemistry.

Ouch!

I used to be a vitamin addict. Do have source to discredit him. Not arguing, just want to catch up with the current view. Sorry for off topic post.

Dude's got a listing on Quackwatch

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Harte

 

Linus Pauling showed the entire world his ignorance regarding vitamin C, and he won a Nobel in Chemistry.

Ouch!

I used to be a vitamin addict. Do have source to discredit him. Not arguing, just want to catch up with the current view. Sorry for off topic post.

Dude's got a listing on Quackwatch

Harte

thanks! I will add him to my growing list of people I believed in.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


(Remember, I don't care about ETH vs. EDH, time travel, etc. But ETH must be default, for now. The strangest reports might be explained by this principle: "any advanced civilization's technology would appear to us to be 'magic' ".)

Why must a hypothesis of pure speculation be the "default", for now or ever? Because "magic" might explain the strangest reports [which might have conventional, albeit yet unknown explanations]?

You don't see a fundamental problem with this approach?

And you JUST stated that not all hypotheses are equally likely, citing the little man in the black hole analogy... then you turn around and say that something that has not been proven to exist at all is the "default" over conventional explanations because they do not account for ALL of the data, after vehemently denying that you sought a singular hypothesis "to explain the entirety of the phenomenon"?

A little contradictory, isn't it?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

edit on 28-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

can we hand out Spocks instead of stars? I give you 3 Spocks for this.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
...
So to complete our math problem:
Twining memo = 0 aliens
SR14=0 aliens
Every UFO sighting =0 aliens
Knowns = 0 aliens
Unknowns = X aliens
Unknowns = an actual probability of being a known or future known

Summary: no hard proof of aliens.

No kidding. ????? ;-)

We tards call that a Blutarsky

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


(Remember, I don't care about ETH vs. EDH, time travel, etc. But ETH must be default, for now. The strangest reports might be explained by this principle: "any advanced civilization's technology would appear to us to be 'magic' ".)

Originally posted by draknoir2

Why must a hypothesis of pure speculation be the "default", for now or ever? Because "magic" might explain the strangest reports [which might have conventional, albeit yet unknown explanations]?

You don't see a fundamental problem with this approach?

And you JUST stated that not all hypotheses are equally likely, citing the little man in the black hole analogy... then you turn around and say that something that has not been proven to exist at all is the "default" over conventional explanations because they do not account for ALL of the data, after vehemently denying that you sought a singular hypothesis "to explain the entirety of the phenomenon"?

A little contradictory, isn't it?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

Be careful about espousing the "conventional yet unknown explanation" hypothesis, as it's essentially engaging in the same kind of magical thinking that one might attribute to the ETH. It's an appeal to an imaginary, completely unknown, and unidentified phenomenon. Just because you can call it a scientific or conventional unknown doesn't make it any more legitimate - it's still completely unknown.

For instance, some people around here like to espouse the idea that these things aren't the structured craft that people report seeing - instead they're more likely to be basically flying wormholes. Let's for a moment ignore the fact that there is no empirical, scientific evidence for the existence of wormholes, let alone flying wormholes, and ask why such an explanation was proposed. Well, it was proposed because they're trying to find a natural explanation for the objects that people have reported seeing for at least the past sixty years - the metallic, discoidal objects in particular.

Now think of the staggering amount of assumptions that you have to make about these flying wormholes in order for them to fit the descriptions of these craft: First, these flying wormholes must give the appearance of being intelligently controlled. Second, they must appear metallic. Third, they must give the appearance of having artificial lights around them. Fourth, they must give the appearance of having a constructed, symmetrical appearance. Fifth, they must sometimes give the appearance of having small windows or portholes that encircle them. Sixth, they sometimes travel in groups. Seventh, they can land on the ground. Eighth, they can hover in mid-air, and so on and so forth...

Not only do all of these requirements have to be satisfied, but you first need to prove that wormholes even exist.

On the other hand, you have the simple hypothesis that the craft that all of these people have been reporting are exactly that.

According to Occam, that is the preferred hypothesis, not any naturalistic hypothesis, because any such naturalistic hypothesis (and especially any combination thereof) would have to be so incredibly complex, and require the fulfillment of so many assumptions, that the likelihood of such a naturalistic phenomenon - or group of phenomena - fulfilling these requirements is so unlikely as to be wishful thinking.

Personally, I don't like talking about the ETH or IDH or whatever. I'm much more comfortable talking about structured aerial craft (which may or may not be human in origin), because that's what most people describe having seen - aerial craft. Most of the time, they don't report having seen who or what is controlling them (although some of course speculate due to their shock at their unusual properties).

But there is evidence (strong or weak depending on how you look at it) that some of these craft are not piloted by humans. Just look at a case such as the Ariel School in Ruwe, Zimbabwe mass UFO sighting, where small humanoids were reported. The Harvard professor John Mack interviewed the schoolchildren and was convinced that they weren't lying. I think he wrote about it in his book "Passport to the Cosmos".

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

In your card analogies, the significance of any face-down card is distorted by equating it to any "unknown" UFO hypothesis. Swamp gas, for example, really is as valid as the ETH on your cards. In reality, most know it's not. So your deck is stacked and the cards marked ... in favor of the ETH, actually. Yes, we know swamp gas exists, but that hypothesis doesn't account for all reasonably reliable data.

No. The distortion is your own. It has nothing to do with any hypothesis. We are not talking about any one case that sounds believable or unbelievable. I'm not interested in swamp gas either. Lets stay on topic. We are talking about SR14 and the significance of it. Right?

I'm not even going into the questionable methodologies they used. I'm just talking about the results. That's it. The problem is that your putting significance into a number that's virtually meaningless. Forget that it's a UFO report. It could be anything that you put into categories. Anything. You get all jumbled up that its UFOs. If we take the same data to try and find a new kind of monkey, at the end we don't have a new kind of monkey. All we have is bits and pieces that don't conform to any known monkey. But that one thing looked like a really cool monkey! That's what you sound like.

So if you take out all your swamp gas vs ET stuff, the data on its own is meaningless. They didn't find the thing they were supposedly looking for. That's it. End of story. I'm not "twisting" the data and throwing in swamp gas. That all comes from you. That's all your projection and not the real interpretation of the data.

What you are doing is arguing that the data is good and complaining that they concluded that they didn't find anything of significance. Which is the correct conclusion to draw regardless of how cool the drawings are at the end. So you go back and look at individual cases and think that surely that must be ET. What it really is is an individual report from someone from the 40's and 50's investigated by people who used terms like religious fanaticism and crackpots as their official classifications.

So if you don't like the data and want to talk about individual cases, we will still get nowhere.

I have absolutely no desire to prove ET doesn't exist or isn't here. I really don't care. It wouldn't surprise me if one of these things turns out to be ET but there is just really nothing of substance to go on. ET has either blended in perfectly with people's imaginations or its just imaginations. Just don't include me in your swamp gas straw man.

reply to post by Brighter


They are not wormholes, they are hallucinations. Well not all of them. The really weird ones are definitely. I just have absolutely no proof. But that's most likely what they are.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter

 

They are not wormholes, they are hallucinations. Well not all of them. The really weird ones are definitely. I just have absolutely no proof. But that's most likely what they are.

Well, you'd have to say that many of these events were mass, simultaneous hallucinations of the same apparently external object, that are so real that they induce the same reactionary and physiological responses at roughly the same time in these individuals that would ensue had that group of people seen the same real, external object.

Is there documented evidence that a mass hallucination of the sort that fulfills the above requirements has ever happened? For example, is there a case where, say, several people were all looking at the same person at the same time with roughly the same properties and performing roughly the same actions, that later upon investigation turned out to not be a person at all, but a simultaneous hallucination that happened to exist in each of their minds separately?

It seems far more plausible to me that, at least in some of these cases, they were seeing a real, external object of roughly the description that they report.

reply to post by Brighter


You obviously don't know what hallucination is.

There are documented cases where there is some event where multiple people see the same actual event and describe the event in terms of alien craft. The event turns out to be a rocket reentry thingy.

Do you see the contours on these objects? Well, so do I.

If we are talking about visual hallucinations, then we are talking about seeing something thats not there in some ambiguous stimuli that really exists. Misperception is a more innocuous word I guess.

You don't need several people to see the same thing. You just need one person to inform the others that that is what they saw. It's the power of suggestion. Pretty basic.

Mass hallucination is just a straw man. It doesn't exist the way you describe. Either that or I was a sleep during that lecture.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

There are documented cases where there is some event where multiple people see the same actual event and describe the event in terms of alien craft. The event turns out to be a rocket reentry thingy.

And for every one of those cases, I can point to a billion cases where multiple people see the same event and it turns out to be real. Peoples' perceptual and higher-order interpretive faculties aren't nearly as bad as the debunkers would have us believe. One of the primary reasons humans survived as a species up to this point is due to the reliability of our judgment, which rests on the general accuracy of our perceptual and conceptual faculties combined. Sure, you could focus on mistakes, but then you'd be painting a generally inaccurate picture.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Do you see the contours on these objects? Well, so do I.

Yes, I know what illusory contours are. And I also know what a false analogy is. How can you even begin to suggest that the rich history of UFO sightings - and in particular sightings of moving, metallic discoidal objects - can be explained by illusory contours? People have repeatedly reported on the actual texture of the metal (?) finish on these objects, the lights around them, abrupt movements, their hovering over bodies of water and even interacting with the environment by drawing water into them, creating shadows on the ground, etc. Illusions aren't capable of that. Real objects are.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

If we are talking about visual hallucinations, then we are talking about seeing something thats not there in some ambiguous stimuli that really exists. Misperception is a more innocuous word I guess.

But there's no evidence that many of these sightings are the result of ambiguous stimuli.

The picture you're painting of this apparent ineptitude of human perception is comically inaccurate.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

You don't need several people to see the same thing. You just need one person to inform the others that that is what they saw. It's the power of suggestion. Pretty basic.

But that's also inaccurate. In many cases, you have people reporting the same object in the same region who don't even know one another.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Mass hallucination is just a straw man. It doesn't exist the way you describe. Either that or I was a sleep during that lecture.

Whatever the case may be, the arguments you've presented here don't stand up to simple scrutiny. It's pretty clear that they're the result of not having studied the particular details of cases throughout the history of the subject.

Originally posted by atlasastro

x is UFO.

Y is the ETH.

x is unknown and unexplained.

Y is the hypothesis you are using to explain it.

Quick question here:

Are you sober?

I just clearly demonstrated how your very question is broken on multiple levels. It's literally not even coherent. And instead of taking the time to defend and clarify those issues with an intelligent response, you just restate your original ill-formed question.

Not only is it not coherent, did you even realize that you're actually arguing against your own position? You claim that Y (extraterrestrials) can't be legitimately used as an explanation because they're unknown and unidentified. Yet right here:

I think that one could argue that those numerous cases could be explained if given greater time, resources and as much data and knowledge as possible.

you appeal to a completely unidentified and imaginary future discovery! Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Generally when someone forms a rational argument, they kind of make sure it isn't self-imploding.

Originally posted by atlasastro

If as you claim you have drawn a conclusions, please show one report were it is stated(Bluebook, Sturrock, SERPA, GEPAN.....The UK reports all the release UFO files from Canada, UK, USA, other governments) that x is intelligently controlled etc bla blah blah.

Ohhh, I see. Apparently no one should ever draw their own conclusions unless they've been officially spoon-fed to us in a formal report? Let's all hope you never lose your birth certificate, otherwise you might have an existential breakdown, being unable to affirm your own existence.

It's crystal clear that you're just reading the official conclusions without looking at the actual report itself.

Originally posted by atlasastro

Y is your Hypothesis to explain x.

You and Teabag are using X to insert Y as your hypothesis.

Because the only way to explain x acorrding to you is Y.

So simply show Y exists in order to validate your explanation of X.

It's beyond hilarious how you drape your nonsensical points in quasi-logical nomenclature (X and Y), hoping that the more naive members here will join in on the bandwagon because they're impressed by the use of variables. It's clear that you're attempting to avert having to engage in intelligent conversation, as repeated requests for basic clarification have fallen on your deaf ears. Not to mention the fact that you've already been exposed as only having read the first couple of pages of the very report you seem to deem yourself an expert on.

Anyway, taking a look at your comment that I've placed in bold above, would you care to back that statement up with evidence? This is important, as nearly your entire post rests on that assumption. Care to point out where I said that the only way to explain the best UFO cases is with the ETH? I'm obviously open to the idea that it's possible that some of them will be explained away in more mundane terms. Oh wait a second, did you here that? That's your straw man falling to pieces.

Originally posted by atlasastro

It is a simple equation.

Hahaha, good one. So now you're doing math? That is just so precious. Do you even understand the difference between math and logic? This pretty much displays your level of education, formal or otherwise. After reading that, I'm not even sure why I'm bothering replying...

Originally posted by atlasastro

What is really funny is that you state "we can draw conclusions" from SR14.

If you can draw a conclusion, you don't need a hypothesis.
You have an explanation.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation.

So all you have is a proposal.

You're playing a semantics game.

You seem to think that by 'conclusion' I meant 'the final, correct, unreviseable answer for all time'. Anyone can clearly see that that's not what I meant. By 'conclusion' I meant 'an hypothesis that is consistent with the data'. I'm saying that the data in those reports is compatible with the idea that what people were seeing in many cases were in fact aerial craft under intelligent control. Notice I didn't say anything about the ETH, IDH, or some ridiculous future discovery of science regarding the more precise nature of those craft. So it's somewhat bizarre (although not surprising) that you'd saddle my position with such an assertion. Oh wait, do you hear that sound again?

And once again, this is just further support for the 'logical trickery' (if you could even call it that) of the UFO 'skeptic', although I might revise it to include 'misrepresentation', 'confusion' and 'borderline incoherence'.

Originally posted by atlasastro

What a joke.

Hahaha. A joke indeed.

(On the edge of my seat waiting for your next "equation". Hahhaha.)

reply to post by Brighter


I think you underestimate what the human mind is capable of.

www.zipworld.com.au...

I think this is a good article and is evidence for what I describe. I don't think it explains every case and my "mechanics" might be wrong.

Now if we start applying this kind of thing using the SR14 methodology, do those unknowns start melting away?

The JAL1628 sighting did not hold up too well under scrutiny. That was a multiple witness case with radar returns of a giant mothership that turned out to be a cloud an some ambiguous lights that are in the same direction as a light source.

I'm not a debunker. I'm just searching for really cool hallucinations and maybe Ultraman. I'm still holding out that he is real.

So bring up a case.

reply to post by Brighter

Hahaha, good one. So now you're doing math? That is just so precious. Do you even understand the difference between math and logic? This pretty much displays your level of education, formal or otherwise. After reading that, I'm not even sure why I'm bothering replying...

Um, what? Logic is math. Binary code? Ones and zeros? True or false? Computers?
If, then? A logical statement is either true or false. That's how computers work.

I sucked so bad at algebra, my counselor told me take logic as my math.

What EXACTLY do you think logic is?

Education level? Just need google.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.math.psu.edu...

Originally posted by draknoir2
Why must a hypothesis of pure speculation [the ETH] be the "default", for now or ever? Because "magic" might explain the strangest reports (which might have conventional, albeit yet unknown explanations)?

You don't see a fundamental problem with this approach?

And you JUST stated that not all hypotheses are equally likely, citing the little man in the black hole analogy... then you turn around and say that something that has not been proven to exist at all is the "default" over conventional explanations because they do not account for ALL of the data, after vehemently denying that you sought a singular hypothesis "to explain the entirety of the phenomenon"?

A little contradictory, isn't it? Or am I misunderstanding you?

There's nothing contradictory. And I said nothing close to "magic" in the way you imply here. And other inaccuracies.

Conclusion: you're either misunderstanding or purposely distorting my position, and also (no offense intended) you seem to not be familiar with the actual definitions or use of the terms "hypothesis" and "working hypothesis", nor do you seem to be familiar with some very fundamental statistical concepts.

Just to give you a starting point...

The definitions of
Hypothesis:
1) A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2) A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
(I googled "define hypothesis". This appeared at the top.)

Working Hypothesis
"A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails." (I googled "define "working hypothesis" ". This was the first result.)

Now think about this in terms of the Air Force's position from the beginning, the meanings of "null hypothesis" and "significance level", the alternative hypotheses (ETH, EDH, etc.), which of all of those can or has been shown or rejected or could not be rejected, and which should be or even can be.

Show me you understand these concepts. It appears you do not.

What's the appropriate null hypothesis?

Need the Air Force show that Unknowns = misidentified Knowns?

Has it?

Need anyone show that the ETH is "true"?

Need anyone show that the EDH is "true"?

Need anyone show that some unknown but non-mundane alternative is "true"?

Need anyone show that the Unknowns do not appear to equal misidentified Knowns?

What significance levels are appropriate for these?

Please, demonstrate that you have some understanding of these concepts. So far, you're misunderstanding them.

And please quit misrepresenting my position!!!

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Looks like you know how to use google as well as anybody. You haven't demonstrated anything beyond that.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

There's nothing contradictory. And I said nothing close to "magic" in the way you imply here. And other inaccuracies.

Didn't feel the need to qoute you, since it's there for all to see, but here you go.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

(Remember, I don't care about ETH vs. EDH, time travel, etc. But ETH must be default, for now. The strangest reports might be explained by this principle: "any advanced civilization's technology would appear to us to be 'magic' ".)

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Conclusion: you're either misunderstanding or purposely distorting my position, and also (no offense intended) you seem to not be familiar with the actual definitions or use of the terms "hypothesis" and "working hypothesis", nor do you seem to be familiar with some very fundamental statistical concepts.

Conclusion: you are purposely deflecting. My questions were based on your statements. Questions for which you could have provided answers to clarify your "misrepresented" positions, as I requested, but you instead decided to lecture, condescend, and deny saying what was clearly said.

Answer my questions directly. They are plain and simple enough.

But as Zeta pointed out, you seem to have problems with this... not sure why. From experience my guess would be fear of being trapped by your own previous statements or an inability to answer in such a way that would make you appear correct.

Just to give YOU a starting point...


1. Why must a hypothesis of pure speculation be the "default", for now or ever? Because "magic" might explain the strangest reports [which might have conventional, albeit yet unknown explanations]?

2. You don't see a fundamental problem with this approach?

3. And you JUST stated that not all hypotheses are equally likely, citing the little man in the black hole analogy... then you turn around and say that something that has not been proven to exist at all is the "default" over conventional explanations because they do not account for ALL of the data, after vehemently denying that you sought a singular hypothesis "to explain the entirety of the phenomenon"? A little contradictory, isn't it?

Feel free to answer them one at a time. They do not require google definition searches or advanced degrees in statistical analysis.

Originally posted by Brighter

Blah blah blah......again.

But this is pure gold:

You're playing a semantics game.

And then you go on to state this:

You seem to think that by 'conclusion' I meant 'the final, correct, unreviseable answer for all time'. Anyone can clearly see that that's not what I meant. By 'conclusion' I meant 'an hypothesis that is consistent with the data'.

You redeine the meaning of the word conclusion, whilst acusing me of semantics. You can't even clain it was a reasoned deduction because without evidence of ET existing, how do you introduce it to explain an unknown.

Oh, wait, you have a statistic, wow.

What a joke.

Here is a new equation.

x= unknown phenomena.
Y= Your conslusion, which not really a conclusion but merely a hypothesis that is consistent with the "data".

Question.

Show me the data that shows Extraterrestrials existing.

It is a simple equation really.

I look forward to more of your excremental dribblings.