New Show Topic: Calling all Skeptics & Part-Time Skeptics

[ProphetofOccam]

Ok, I actually read through this entire exchange and the part I'm most bonded with is the role of the narrative. Jerome Clark also sees these anomalous experiences as only existing in the minds and memories of the teller of the tale. I was also greatly saddened by your dissolution of the burnt grass as evidence as I've always held on to the image of the radial arc of burnt and upturned shingles, alongside the huge slanted bunt upper portion of the tree beside the garage where I saw one of the two 'craft' hovering, as confirmation of what we saw the previous winter. Talk about wrecking my day. I'm going to go outside now, dig out my quinzee, sit inside there and have a long think.

I also am going to relish in the irony that this, my century post, is the signpost of some kind of nullification of the incident that led me to this forum in the first place.

Haha. Well, I'm not arguing whether or not these kinds of thing happen, just why the majority of the scientific community doesn't take it seriously. While I'm putting these things in my own words and elaborating on the explanations, these are just the standard reasons relevant scientists give for their disinterest in the subject.

Most common reasons are no verifiable data on record, no testable hypotheses, and no means of collecting verifiable data.

 

[Michael Allen]

We definitely will end up just disagreeing over semantics, then over whether or not science is good for detecting truth. I think we've got one more round until then, though.



Regardless of what they would verbally or textually consider it, it's exactly what happens. Everything you "know" about UFOs comes from unverified stories from previous sightings. If that wasn't the case, you'd actually know nothing, at all.

My position is that you don't. Maybe we agree there, but it doesn't sound like it.

Firstly I don't claim any knowledge about UFOs, but I reserve the right to discuss the literature of the subject and ask questions and ponder possibilities.

A report, in the strictest sense of the word, does become the working hypothesis for your investigation. There's no real way to argue around that. You are attempting, as part of your investigation, to use that hypothesis, that a particular sighting with particular details may have taken place, to "collect data" and guide your research into the incident.

Simply put, I am not treating the report as a hypothesis--you are.

Lets be REALLY clear because I feel that you are off the rails at this point.

A "report" in this context is not something that you take as a possible explanation among other alternatives. The report in this instance is a detailed account of something that lacks explanation (if it lacks explanation, why on earth are you calling it a "hypothesis?"). Explanations are formulated and tested against other reports.
In the case of Vallee, he felt the ET explanation was insufficient to explain the body of data in existence on UFOs and thus discarded it provisionally to search for a better explanation.

In journalism, that is exactly how a "report" is treated. it must be validated or invalidated, but the basic concept of a report is the hypothesis around which all investigation and fact checking is done.

Simply put, this straight up absurd and--at best--bad ufology. UFOs strictly speaking are "Unidentified" and therefore in need of an explanation, no one says "well, we have this report we need to validate so lets take it as our hypothesis and then use it to validate the truth of the report"

That isn't verified data. "Reliable sources" doesn't mean anything in science. Review means something. If your data can't be reviewed, because it doesn't actually exist as a verified set, then it isn't data. You have no data.

Science is more than just data--it is also observation. Observation of human behavior is part and parcel of a good ufological (and scientific) investigation. As far as data is concerned--it can be pulled from witness testimony -- azimuth of sighting, location, date and time, weather conditions -- and these can be analyzed for patterns very much in the same way other patterns are analyzed in other fields. Independent witnesses may corroborate a given sighting via triangulation and help the investigator determine (sometimes via triangulation) the speed of the object. While one must be on guard to take testimonies with a grain of salt till they cohere with others, this is not to say that they can be dismissed entirely as anecdotal or that they amount to ZERO data.

You just said that "" but here you say the opposite. The "patterns of behavior" you're talking about are just a bunch of report investigations, narratives, being used as actual data. A reliable source doesn't substantiate a claim by being reliable -- that's appeal to authority (which applies when someone's authority doesn't actually prove a statement or idea).


You are saying paradoxical things. Do you not realize that all the data that you "know" about UFOs and the paranormal come from the narratives of reports? You do realize there is no physical evidence anyone takes seriously for a reason?

I did not contradict myself--I said the reports are not hypotheses and you say that they are. The reports of unexplained events can be analyzed and a hypothesis proposed as an explanation for the same. And as far as "appeal to authority," we are not talking about one singular witness (your strawman) as an explanation for which to base the entire investigation, instead this mysterious "authority" you are invoking is your own broken stick caricature of the scientific process. Extracting elements from multiple witnesses of one event and piecing together the pieces from radar data is not an appeal to authority--ironically the "appeal to authority" in most of these cases was exhibited by the one official who would read off a bogus explanation and then walk back to his office with the inquirers stunned (i.e. remember the J. Allen Hynek swamp gas debacle) . If the official "expert" came out and claimed the sighting was "mass hysteria," "venus," or a "weather balloon" (i.e. travelling at 25000 mph or some other absurd speed) then everyone was supposed to accept the explanation and move on with their lives.

In short, it was the multiple witness, multiple visual-radar sightings that negated officialdom's attempt to exercise the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Far from being an argument from authority, good ufology takes independent corroborating reports and pulls them together to establish the facts of the experience (at least the phenomenology) .

It would be a straw man if your previous statement didn't invalidate your other previous statement. While noticing that, occasionally, there are patches of burnt materials at UFO siting locations would constitute a pattern, albeit a sloppy one, it would be essentially insgnificant without being able to verify that the burns were caused by a UFO. You can't verify that. There isn't even any reason to assume that's what happened, unless the current report your working has become you're working hypothesis for that particular investigation.

I am dismissing this train, because it is completely at odds with the process. A straw man is a straw man and as I indicated earlier, you still don't know what a "hypothesis" is.

Uh... they have to support those kinds of hypotheses with previously collected verified data and literal models, either mathematical or physical (computer), based on known data (new and old). Nobody just makes shit up off the top of their head and calls it a day. That was a strange statement on your end. Do you really think those people aren't required to substantiate their hypotheses?

U mad bro?

There is nothing that can't be modeled in a laboratory based on known data -- again, either mathematically or literally.

An absurd statement. Plenty of phenomena defy mathematical models and you forget that most models fail because there is no possible way to include all the known data for many macroscopic or microscopic physical events. And even in certain systems, perfect information does not guarantee the model will work!

When something is so anomalous that there is no previous data available, and data collection is otherwise impossible, nobody develops a real hypothesis. They record the information and wait for more data -- they can't even be sure that the occurrence was properly perceived without verifiable data, let along craft hypotheses regarding its nature.

And you seem to confuse scientific investigation with fiction writing and postulation. You seem to think people form hypotheses with no legitimate basis, like the example you provided, they don't. You seem to think that astrophysicists and geologists aren't required to substantiate their hypotheses with known data and models, but they are. You basically just seem to think science is this big speculation orgy that, occasionally, in certain fields, requires validation and experimentation, but it's not.

No I don't think any of those things--if you don't mind, I will politely refrain from kicking your strawmen over and just answer the points that are on target.


Still, you have some 'splainin' to do:

1. You don't appear to know the difference between a hypothesis and a report--and I am not even sure you know what a hypothesis is
2. You don't appear to understand dynamical systems or mathematical modelling and yet you make grandiose claims of the power of mathematics to model everything.
3. You seem to have a distorted view of the scientific process.

 

[Michael Allen]

Most common reasons are no verifiable data on record, no testable hypotheses, and no means of collecting verifiable data.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There's a mountain of data and a working hypothesis which at this time has yet to be completely overthrown by a reasonable alternative explanation (visitors from other worlds) and investigators continually give the lie to that last statement. This statement is just wrong on so many levels.

 

[Michael Allen]

Often I wondered as I listened to a graphic account of a UFO experience, "But why are they telling me this?" I realized at length that the reporters were telling me because they wanted me to explain their experiences to them. The had been profoundly affected, and they wanted an explanation that would comfortably fit into their world picture so they could be relieved of the burden of the frightening unknown. Their disappointment was genuine when I was forced to tell them that I knew little more about it than they did. . . Though it cannot be explained -- yet -- the UFO experience (as UFO defined in this book) has every semblance of being a real event to the UFO reporter and his companions. That is our starting point.

J. Allen Hynek The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry (New York: Marlowe & Company, 1972), 15.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

A "report" in this context is not something that you take as a possible explanation among other alternatives. The report in this instance is a detailed account of something that lacks explanation (if it lacks explanation, why on earth are you calling it a "hypothesis?"). Explanations are formulated and tested against other reports.

Now we are getting into semantics.

A hypothesis is just a set idea, or series of predictions, based on relevant data, used as the inferred explanation for a particular idea/phenomenon that is designed to be tested against new data, physical model and/or experimentation. When you are conducting an investigation, all you have is the report. If the person says "I saw a giant cigar fly through this field and it burnt an area of the ground during this flight," then that is all you can propose to know about the situation. That report becomes the working hypothesis, that a cigar flew through a field, burning the ground. Your investigation involves collecting data that can substantiate or invalidate that hypothesis.

The only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, in the very simplest terms, is the use of a word.

Simply put, this straight up absurd and--at best--bad ufology. UFOs strictly speaking are "Unidentified" and therefore in need of an explanation, no one says "well, we have this report we need to validate so lets take it as our hypothesis and then use it to validate the truth of the report"

Not sure why you choose to use half of what i said and use it to make a point that was unnecessary, but here we go.

I said "validate or invalidate," meaning that all you're doing is investigating the hypothesis (that the report has a truth value, the suggestion being made by the originator that that value is true). You aren't attempting to do either of those two things outright, but attempting to collect data that will do one or the other. In the event not enough information is present at the site to determine whether or not the hypothesis can be tested, then it remains an unknown.

I'll get the rest later, but I wanted to address those now. Really, I think we've gotten about as far as we can.

 

[Michael Allen]

Alright I see where we are talking cross-purposes

My understanding: UFO reports are the "raw" unexplained events for which certain data points are extracted and compared against other reports in order to arrive or at least guide the investigator to a formal hypothesis or explanation of the entire corpus of correlated data. In essence I am saying that the actual existence of the UFO report is in need of explanation.

Your understanding: UFO reports are unverified events that need to be corroborated with additional data to determine the validity or veracity that a real event actually occurred.

The difference in our views is that your view does nothing to try to explain the source of the phenomenon, only that the phenomenon actually occurred and wasn't something imagined by the witnesse(s). In fact it looks as though your investigative method would arrive at a dead-end once several witnesses said they saw the cigar burning the circle into the ground and that other laboratory technicians happened to get optical and electromagnetic readings from the device (i.e. a video, along with several other trace readings showing that a real object was there) -- based on your understanding, even the best laid and accomplished plans of the observers and witnesse(s) establishing without a doubt the event occurred and had a more or less complete description, would still lack in any kind of theoretical framework for which to develop a hypothesis on the source.

So lets just say you validate your hypothesis that the cigar burned a hole in the ground--what then? Does this mean you have to now collect more data and measurements of additional cigars and other craft burning holes in the ground around the world, and correlate all of these events into one gigantic corpus of cigars burning holes in the ground? Well then you have to explain the existence of the machine and the event (now that you've verified your hypothesis that its a cigar burning holes in the ground) and its source. That's where I think my understanding takes over an we start laying out multiple working hypotheses (i.e. was it a hoax, was it a secret government test, was it from another dimension, was it mass hysteria (even the scientists suffered), was it... ? etc etc.

I am not saying that your view is trivial, just saying that without the perfect observational framework ready at hand, the best an investigator can hope for is to transform the need to "replicate" as in a laboratory scenario by mapping the expectations to future reports that are collected. A hypothesis for ETH would go something like "well, based on the body of reports, radar data and testimony from individuals we think that intelligent beings are visiting us off-world. That being the case we expect additional reports in the field to have the following characteristics....A, B, C....etc.

Essentially I am saying that the investigator ( think CSI type of investigation) works with what they have and doesn't cry about the observational and experimental ready-at-hand framework available in other scientific disciplines.


That being said, I am having a really hard time parsing this statement

I said "validate or invalidate," meaning that all you're doing is investigating the hypothesis (that the report has a truth value, the suggestion being made by the originator that that value is true). You aren't attempting to do either of those two things outright, but attempting to collect data that will do one or the other. In the event not enough information is present at the site to determine whether or not the hypothesis can be tested, then it remains an unknown.

You seem have a different idea of "known" here, and I must admit it puzzles me as well so I am just going to lay them out

(1) "Known" means everything stated by the witness actually occurred and was verified by some other witness or perhaps data collected by a group of astronomers or scientists who happened to have all their data gathering instruments honed in on the site.

(2) "Known" means everything stated by the witness actually occurred and is known to fit in a class of observations that have no scientific explanation

(3) "Known" means everything stated by the witness actually occurred and is a known phenomena X that has been mistakenly identified as some fictional Y.

(4) "Known" means everything stated by the witness....is a known example of an extra-terrestrial entity (sub interdimensional entity, ultra-terrestrial entity, ghost entity, massive collective psychic force generated by many humans, etc) riding in a known vehicle for which that entity would be expected to use.

Here I think you are referring to the report itself as being the hypothesis, so we end up with either (1), (3) or a vacuous (2).

Still we don't have a solid point to continue the investigation unless we take the risk of widening the hypothesis beyond what is already at-hand with respect to data extracted from observational equipment and witness testimony. A good hypothesis (in my sense) doesn't just explain the existing reports and data, it should also predict events and data that have yet to be collected.

 

[Jeff Davis]

The UFO phenomena takes place in the mind of the observer as does the rest of reality, explainable via scientific means, or unexplainable via whatever means. No matter how eloquently we choose to treat UFOs as a stand alone phenomena on paper, via the very best of our linear reasoning and logic, apart from us as it's perceptive apex/host, IMO the exercise will bear out little understanding, and yet it's speculative fun to say the least. The problem with scientific methodology, apart from the inanity of the typical small minded empirical clique's hogwashing that it harbors, is that it's reasoning depends on environmentally derived co-relative finite elements. Elements that are established, maintained and verified via repetitive observational data sampling in an effort to create hard repeatable results based on points of reference within a given defined field. What mainstream (read: commercial) science is only now starting to accept and suckle between it's well weather lips, all the while pursed up tighter than a frog's bunghole I might add, is the fact that ANY given field of reference is first and foremost natively subjective to the observational envelope of our own human consciousness. What does this mean? It means that we human beings manufacture reality so efficiently that we exist as a dream within a dream infinitely. It's hilarious to me that many Eastern schools of thought have proclaimed this for thousands of years, but because we base our own practical understanding on that which is scientifically proved (read: commercially applicable) we are now just catching up in our typical one step forward, two steps back manner. And in what amounts to more of a scientific fashion statement than a true indicator of real progress. In short, human consciousness is first and foremost the fabric, indeed the very defined structure, of ALL we perceive as that which is temporally based (that which is physically relative to time and space) and therefore controllable, measurable, elementary composites within what we consider hard reality. Field of reference, within field of reference, within...ad infinitum. Please isolate, control, and repeatably demonstrate that for me. Imagine this. A tree falls in the woods but no one is around to hear it fall. All these years, based on our absence from the event, we have been having it out and pondering over whether or not it made a crashing sound when it fell. When in reality, within what is the present pretense of quantum mechanical possibilities, the whole nine never happened to begin with. Minus observation, there is no woods, no single tree, no act of falling, and certainly no crashing sound.

We are at the very crux of the most powerful awareness paradigm imaginable. It is literally the present volume of what is a full scientific age's progressively shifting chapters coming to a close. If not for the empirically regulated bureaucracy of commercial scientific regressive tendencies run amok, most likely we would have crossed that threshold long ago

The UFO phenomena is only a conundrum when one attempts to look back at it based on the vantage point of what I and others consider to be an ultimately faux scientific plateau. For most of us what has become of science as we know it exists solely in the rear view mirror of corrupt empirical redundancy. Temporal synchronicity is always moving forward within and without us because all other considerations exist as memory based projections, inter and co-mingled as fragmentary prospective constructs, or future reality composites in the making. Does this mean that I can author and offer you plans for $9.95 in the back of some comic book to build and fly your very own garage built UFO? No it does not, and yet as absurd as that much buffoonery would seem to proclaim, that's precisely the type of full forward in reverse processed awareness that the boys at empirical corporate would have us BELIEVE. If we can't control it, it shall not exist, officially that is. We have spoken. They love to warm themselves with their own breath which is at times is all it seems to be good for.

The bottom line is that the boundaries once represented by Material Physics are ultimately passe with respect to measurable, thereby temporal, reference field derived evidence. We have seen and surpassed the outermost boundaries of friction based air travel. Shit, we retired those machines publicly over twenty years ago. However, because quantum physics is too new and eccentric in application to be commercially provident apart from a hypothetical dubious power grid elite, there is no common empirical awareness of what practical applications could, can, and may in fact exist in and of our own privately manufactured means. Does this mean that human beings are responsible within some imagined elite scientific circle for all UFOs? Not at all certain. Personally, I really don't think so, but I'd damn well bet good money that we have more than a few varied examples of technology that operate based on physics models not yet publicly acknowledged, and that we have had a progressive line of technological hardware representing such machinery for upwards of 50 years now. What it does do is to introduce a quantifiable means that would certainly change the focus of technological developments based solely on subtractive adaption to material physical law. These same valid principles no longer providing a sole scientifically valid constraint for identifiable performance attributes resulting in a consensus of what must be untenable observations by the mistaken or ignorant. The same constraints have become more likened to the proverbial flea on a big failed elephants ass, for what may be even now a hypothetically legitimate technological aspect that UFOs demonstrate when observed. This being whether they are ours or not. Logic be damned with respect to reference field derived data related to phenomenology in general. JMO

 

[Michael Allen]

"A thing is a think" -- Alan Watts

Well said Jeff, however I believe there's still room in the one-at-a-time sequence of thought-symbols that we use in our own language and logic to model reality as well as the ways at which our own brains creates a model of the world and itself both within that model of the world (c.f. Metzinger's "phenomenal self-model"). I don't think real science flows along the bare metal scientistic superstitions of armchair philosopher's of science. Otherwise the great discoveries of our own century would have never happened. Physicalism, with all the atrocities committed in its name, is still the reigning paradigm that allows science to proceed--in essence it is an expression of the unified background of all experience under one manifold, regardless of whether we know what that stuff is at its foundation. Presumptions of regularity, uniformitarian processes that are universal have provided powerful insights into the world because we find basically all carbon atoms (whatever they may be) are the same throughout the universe. All stars are formed by the same fixed laws, and electromagnetic forces form the basis of all appearances that something is "solid" to our fingertips. That being said, putting discrete labels on every phenomenal object or concrete particular doesn't necessarily add to our knowledge of the "whatness" or even the "whyness" of existent particles, but it gets us closer than assuming everything is open to imagination or interpretation (which I don't think you are advocating in your comments btw).

And, regarding linear models and linear thinking, its nice to know we have higher orders to work with even if we end up with something that exceeds our limited intuition

 

[Jeff Davis]

Michael,
The overt cynicism that my "anti empirical" post echoes to the point of utter annoying tedium is really just an emphasis of my disdain for that which has corrupted the processes of the"flow" to which you refer. In nature we find very little "bare metal" because nature itself imparts no fundamental memory based interpretive ancillary cognitive disruptions such as those necessary to serve our ego's instinct driven environmental rational abstractions. IMO, these abstractions (tools) serve simultaneously to assure and preserve our survival in what manifests itself with utter predictable cyclic routine as we toil to maintain our progressive stance as a species. Sadly in this sense, albeit a genuine linear progressive pathway, we glue ourselves in place increment by increment and as we do so thereby magnanimously increasing resistance to our own perpetual evolutionary progress.

So often times we bypass the obvious in lieu of "the want of a nail". Collective responses are abstractions introduced and demonstrated based on the level of their efficient and effective interactions to varying fields of reference via any number of design applications. This is progressive material science. You could say that for mankind, it's been a fasten-ate-ing experience.

So what is to be gained from quantum consciousness modeling with regard to Physicalism? In a most rudimentary sense it analogously teaches us that the former high profile theatrical actor that is material science is not about the modeling of abstraction based components as interjected and implemented within a field of reference, but rather it's about the choreography and setting of the actor's stage itself. It teaches us to recognize the predominance of conscious observation as it entrains the relationship of each to the other.

Many times when we speak of reality's composition as a dream within a dream we discern and dismiss such mental meandering minutia as fanciful imaginings not much different at their core from most other faith based assertions and/or "belief systems". That is until we study the undeniable perplexity of predictable small particle observed and unobserved behavior in critical and controlled direct relationship to fixed fields of reference. Energy fast becomes the only constant wherein both particle and wave exist as one. Our very DNA itself dances like a giddy glowworm as light energy entrains it via human consciousness.

What one asks himself, are UFOs observations of technologies that temporally navigate our native space/time, are they navigating their own native entrained trappings of which we are only garnering an observed sentient portion thereof, or are UFOs possibly technologies that use AI to modulate multiple native entrainment of reality itself? Could the manipulation of multiple reference field envelops produced by such technologies allow them to do what we presently, in ever proud armchair fashion no less, refer to as multidimensional navigation?

I think we'll know within a hundred years. Maybe less. Quite possibly we already do.

 

[Burnt State]

My two favourite lines from this latest deluge of word weaving: "You basically just seem to think science is this big speculation orgy,"and "Our very DNA itself dances like a giddy gloworm as light energy entrains it via human consciousness." With these two insights I will refashion the vivid narrative in my mind again, glowing, speculative and as orgiastic as memory can get.

 

[Michael Allen]

My two favourite lines from this latest deluge of word weaving: "You basically just seem to think science is this big speculation orgy,"and "Our very DNA itself dances like a giddy gloworm as light energy entrains it via human consciousness." With these two insights I will refashion the vivid narrative in my mind again, glowing, speculative and as orgiastic as memory can get.

Well I certainly don't think "science is a big speculation orgy," but Prophet has a habit of twisting the opposition thesis into a nice pretzel of a scarecrow (species of strawmen) and then setting it on fire.

Or...was that my habit?

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There's a mountain of data and a working hypothesis which at this time has yet to be completely overthrown by a reasonable alternative explanation (visitors from other worlds) and investigators continually give the lie to that last statement. This statement is just wrong on so many levels

There is an unjustified hypothesis that aliens visit from other worlds, yes. It is about as coherent, and has as much verifiable evidence, as the hypothesis that there is an invisible, sentient, male who lives in the sky and controls the universe. What you call evidence, science doesn't. You're playing a different game altogether, but using the same name.

The difference in our views is that your view does nothing to try to explain the source of the phenomenon, only that the phenomenon actually occurred and wasn't something imagined by the witnesse(s). In fact it looks as though your investigative method would arrive at a dead-end once several witnesses said they saw the cigar burning the circle into the ground and that other laboratory technicians happened to get optical and electromagnetic readings from the device (i.e. a video, along with several other trace readings showing that a real object was there) -- based on your understanding, even the best laid and accomplished plans of the observers and witnesse(s) establishing without a doubt the event occurred and had a more or less complete description, would still lack in any kind of theoretical framework for which to develop a hypothesis on the source.

The only hypothesis that would be possible would be just whether or not the event took place, if you're going to avoid assumptions, invented parameters or biased research. I don't see how any other hypothesis could really come about. You can't know any more about the event.

Several identical events would have to take place, all with the same field and lab results, before someone could say there was a legitimate pattern. This is the other big problem with the paranormal/ufo field; I have read many, many reports and pretty much never do two reports from separate events resemble one another beyond the superficial or sociologically recognized mythological constructs (which, even then, still manage to contain blaring differences). It generally requires stretching the information from two or more cases, and unjustly filling in blanks with speculative assumption, to tie most cases together. Even then, the original information from the cases generally remains unverified by any reasonable scientific standard.

If I were to do a field investigation, I would be thrilled if I could just somehow verify that something actually happened. It would be further than pretty much any report has ever gotten. You're trying to move to the next step (classifying a phenomenon) without completing the first one (verifying that a phenomenon occurred). That's the scientific community's problem with this field.

You seem have a different idea of "known" here, and I must admit it puzzles me as well so I am just going to lay them out

(1) "Known" means everything stated by the witness actually occurred and was verified by some other witness or perhaps data collected by a group of astronomers or scientists who happened to have all their data gathering instruments honed in on the site.

(2) "Known" means everything stated by the witness actually occurred and is known to fit in a class of observations that have no scientific explanation

(3) "Known" means everything stated by the witness actually occurred and is a known phenomena X that has been mistakenly identified as some fictional Y.

(4) "Known" means everything stated by the witness....is a known example of an extra-terrestrial entity (sub interdimensional entity, ultra-terrestrial entity, ghost entity, massive collective psychic force generated by many humans, etc) riding in a known vehicle for which that entity would be expected to use.

I guess we have just reached some kind of misunderstanding. "Known" means that which can be verified empirically and otherwise academically.

Empirical, in the scientific arena, doesn't mean "something someone observed with the senses." It means that it is something that can be observed, and replicated to be observed by others, in a controlled or field study environment (though, most field study research ends up being scrutinized in a lab). Unless the spaceship or light phenomenon or whatever is alright with returning on command for study, that part of a report can never be empirically verified. Given the human mind's need to fill in data for unknown observations, it's also the least compelling part of a report.

The only thing knowable, for certain, is that someone said something happened. So, your hypothesis begins with that as the parameter to be tested. The goal is to push the known beyond that to, "somebody said something happened and evidence suggests that it did/did not." Given the fact that most "evidence" can't be verified, in any way, or compared to any other verified (thus known) data, this step is generally impossible. Mass sightings can generally move into a position of confirmation of an event having taken place, but whether or not it was as described by witnesses is generally unable to be verified (especially if cross communications between witnesses could have reasonably taken place between the time of the event and the time of the investigation). All of this means that the hypothesis revolving around the report can't move in any direction as far as a truth value is concerned, so the truth value portion of the hypothesis, in regards to the narrative of the report being 100% accurate, remains "unknown."

That's why most scientific investigations into these types of things that have been conducted in the past landed on "inconclusive" as an explanation for a handful of reports. Most of the others were explained as misidentification of known phenomena.

I know a lot of you guys feel that science isn't the only way one can arrive at the understanding of a universal truth, and will reference the way the legal system handles things as an alternative. I'd ask you to consider this, though:

Let's say that the legal system recognized that there was a man, Mr. Ufo, who was routinely accused of crimes that he did not commit, as this was a sociologically recognized joke that people enjoyed playing, he was now a household name as far as crime goes, and it could get a few minutes in the paper or on TV. The majority of the cases brought against Mr. Ufo involve eyewitness testimony, yet the majority are also shown to be deliberately or mistakenly false. Almost 100% of these cases are even investigated at all based on eyewitness testimony, not due to the circumstantial discovery of a crime (the discovery of a murdered body, the discovery of a building that had been vandalized, etc). In none of Mr. Ufo's cases are elements of physical evidence beyond the extremely circumstantial ever presented before the court, nor are these rare pieces of circumstantial evidence ever verified in any way by a forensics team. In the extremely rare cases where Mr. Ufo isn't proven to be outright innocent, the small amount of unverified, circumstantial evidence that is being used to build the case against him is never enough to remove doubt or even point directly at him. Due to all of this, Mr. Ufo is a very famous individual who has become to go-to name everyone thinks of when they see what they believe to be a crime being committed.

Do you think the legal system would really put a whole lot of weight into its review of eyewitness testimony in these cases, or would they increasingly demand that the physical evidence be verified beyond a shadow of doubt?

Now, this is not why science doesn't care about eyewitness testimony, in and of itself. As I said, the reason for that is that eyewitness testimony can't be verified in a scientifically empirical way. This is just so you guys can think about how a lot of us feel about the situation when you bring up the legal system.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

But, yeah, we're just going to go around in circles after your response. This is pretty much where the pinnacle resides in all of these discussions. We've put everything we think out there. You'll respond to this, and that should wrap things up as far as our conflicting interests go. It's been interesting, though.

 

[Michael Allen]

There is an unjustified hypothesis that aliens visit from other worlds, yes. It is about as coherent, and has as much verifiable evidence, as the hypothesis that there is an invisible, sentient, male who lives in the sky and controls the universe. What you call evidence, science doesn't. You're playing a different game altogether, but using the same name.

You really do suffer from chronic exaggeration.

We have beings from another planet living right here -- its called Earth, and the aliens that live on it are human, they are alien to whatever other planet in the entire universe that almost certainly exists given the vastness of space . The probability of an invisible, sentient, male deity controlling the universe in no way compares in probabilistic terms.

The only hypothesis that would be possible would be just whether or not the event took place, if you're going to avoid assumptions, invented parameters or biased research. I don't see how any other hypothesis could really come about. You can't know any more about the event.

Well, good researchers do not avoid assumptions, nor do they consider the parameters "invented" and there are ways to work through the noise of biases. So again, if you actually READ any of the literature on this subject aside from tabloids, you might have a better idea on the real science that has been done on this subject.

Several identical events would have to take place, all with the same field and lab results, before someone could say there was a legitimate pattern. This is the other big problem with the paranormal/ufo field; I have read many, many reports and pretty much never do two reports from separate events resemble one another beyond the superficial or sociologically recognized mythological constructs (which, even then, still manage to contain blaring differences). It generally requires stretching the information from two or more cases, and unjustly filling in blanks with speculative assumption, to tie most cases together. Even then, the original information from the cases generally remains unverified by any reasonable scientific standard.

In bold above because it is simply the most ridiculous and obvious red-herring you've cooked up so far. There simply is no such thing as "identity" with respect to events in nature--you are asking for the impossible. Even in other fields, such a criterion would quickly stifle any movement towards the advancement in our understanding because we'd expect stellar spectra from two different stars (an example) to be completely identical in order to discuss a physical process which may underlie the similarities between the two. How silly you are trying to force science into such a tiny box. And then you go on to say indicate that not living up to this impossible standard is equivalent to being superficial or simply under mythological biases. So there are blaring differences not accounted for, that's why you analyze why these differences occur and try to find a refined explanation.

If I were to do a field investigation, I would be thrilled if I could just somehow verify that something actually happened. It would be further than pretty much any report has ever gotten. You're trying to move to the next step (classifying a phenomenon) without completing the first one (verifying that a phenomenon occurred). That's the scientific community's problem with this field.

No, as I said before there are multiple-witness, multiple radar contact cases showing something not fitting in with our current scientific understanding or technology. Just because you've cherry-picked a handful of IFO cases and decided the rest must be the same, doesn't mean there aren't cases that are truly unexplained by conventional technology or current scientific understanding.

I guess we have just reached some kind of misunderstanding. "Known" means that which can be verified empirically and otherwise academically.

This is too broad -- too easily twisted into something that does not apply to a particular case. In this case the generalization doesn't help us understand what you mean. In fact it muddies the water because you've already doubled-down on the ridiculous notion that "the report is the hypothesis" and continue to say that "known" means that the event actually occurred (regardless if an explanation of its source is postulated or given by the report itself). This simply is not a complete theoretical framework for which to continue any kind of meaningful investigation. You might be stuck at the need for some kind of perfect world where every event can be coaxed out of reality on demand and scribbled into a log or collected by some kind of measuring device, but the reality is that others continue their investigation with a cautiously open mind weighing the details and traces from one case to another.

Empirical, in the scientific arena, doesn't mean "something someone observed with the senses." It means that it is something that can be observed, and replicated to be observed by others, in a controlled or field study environment (though, most field study research ends up being scrutinized in a lab). Unless the spaceship or light phenomenon or whatever is alright with returning on command for study, that part of a report can never be empirically verified. Given the human mind's need to fill in data for unknown observations, it's also the least compelling part of a report.

IF we are talking about a possible event with no intelligent agency at work, this may be the case. However when you add the intentionality component (which you will say is assuming what we are trying to prove and I will say "no, its natural to expand the explanation when all other natural or non-intentional explanations are insufficient to address the phenomenon), you cannot place an "agency" into a lab and conduct controlled experiments.

For instance, lets just take as given that we are truly being visited by agents from outside our world (however you want to think of it--multidimensional, space travel, time travellers, etc) then all hypotheses toward that end would be rejected by your camp without evidence.

The only thing knowable, for certain, is that someone said something happened. So, your hypothesis begins with that as the parameter to be tested. The goal is to push the known beyond that to, "somebody said something happened and evidence suggests that it did/did not." Given the fact that most "evidence" can't be verified, in any way, or compared to any other verified (thus known) data, this step is generally impossible. Mass sightings can generally move into a position of confirmation of an event having taken place, but whether or not it was as described by witnesses is generally unable to be verified (especially if cross communications between witnesses could have reasonably taken place between the time of the event and the time of the investigation). All of this means that the hypothesis revolving around the report can't move in any direction as far as a truth value is concerned, so the truth value portion of the hypothesis, in regards to the narrative of the report being 100% accurate, remains "unknown."

Now you are talking about the hypothesis "revolving around the report" and assuming "evidence" is separate from the testimony of the witnesses. Where is the evidence if a witness is taking measurements and publishes the data? Where is the "evidence" (a color plate?!) of a star going supernova when pictures are taken by observatory technicians. Where is the "evidence" revolving around the anecdotal story that Hiroshima was destroyed by an Atomic explosion in WWII -- where's the evidence that WWII even happened. I ask these questions because you seem to play around with words not knowing what they mean, either that or you purposely shade around words to change their meaning according to what you want to believe.

That's why most scientific investigations into these types of things that have been conducted in the past landed on "inconclusive" as an explanation for a handful of reports. Most of the others were explained as misidentification of known phenomena.

"Most" =/= "All"

I know a lot of you guys feel that science isn't the only way one can arrive at the understanding of a universal truth, and will reference the way the legal system handles things as an alternative. I'd ask you to consider this, though:

Why are you dividing verbally what is not in reality? Courtroom procedures are scientific and some scientific procedures advance through an adversarial give and tack between competing camps. Here, let me throw in another analogy with the "marketplace of ideas" or the "courtroom of science." Or we could talk about the "economy of truth" (which you should like, since it alludes to your Occam's Hammer razor.)

Let's say that the legal system recognized that there was a man, Mr. Ufo, who was routinely accused of crimes that he did not commit, as this was a sociologically recognized joke that people enjoyed playing, he was now a household name as far as crime goes, and it could get a few minutes in the paper or on TV. The majority of the cases brought against Mr. Ufo involve eyewitness testimony, yet the majority are also shown to be deliberately or mistakenly false. Almost 100% of these cases are even investigated at all based on eyewitness testimony, not due to the circumstantial discovery of a crime (the discovery of a murdered body, the discovery of a building that had been vandalized, etc). In none of Mr. Ufo's cases are elements of physical evidence beyond the extremely circumstantial ever presented before the court, nor are these rare pieces of circumstantial evidence ever verified in any way by a forensics team. In the extremely rare cases where Mr. Ufo isn't proven to be outright innocent, the small amount of unverified, circumstantial evidence that is being used to build the case against him is never enough to remove doubt or even point directly at him. Due to all of this, Mr. Ufo is a very famous individual who has become to go-to name everyone thinks of when they see what they believe to be a crime being committed.

A nice story, but it does not conform to reality. The fallacies you make in this toy example are the same you make with the referenced phenomenon.

Generalization Fallacies: In none of Mr. Ufo's cases are elements of physical evidence beyond the extremely circumstantial
Completely False, not even worth calling a fallacy: Almost 100% of these cases are even investigated at all based on eyewitness testimony, not due to the circumstantial discovery of a crime (the discovery of a murdered body, the discovery of a building that had been vandalized, etc).

Do you think the legal system would really put a whole lot of weight into its review of eyewitness testimony in these cases, or would they increasingly demand that the physical evidence be verified beyond a shadow of doubt?

Well ... no ... its your toy example, of course you set it up to fail, so I will agree with you.

Now, this is not why science doesn't care about eyewitness testimony, in and of itself. As I said, the reason for that is that eyewitness testimony can't be verified in a scientifically empirical way. This is just so you guys can think about how a lot of us feel about the situation when you bring up the legal system.

Eyewitness testimony can be verified in scientific ways by taking measurements or corroborating the elements of the testimony with others. There are cases where this is done, you just need to get up out of your armchair and go read about them.

*washing hands of Prophet--the one who claps hands over the ears and rocks back and forth saying "there is no science but science...there is no science but science....there is no science but science, and Occam is the Prophet of science....there is no science but science" *

 

[Randall]

There is an unjustified hypothesis that aliens visit from other worlds, yes. It is about as coherent, and has as much verifiable evidence, as the hypothesis that there is an invisible, sentient, male who lives in the sky and controls the universe. What you call evidence, science doesn't. You're playing a different game altogether, but using the same name ...

Under the same rules that skeptics apply to the verifiability of UFO reports, scientific reports aren't verifiable either. Let's begin with the concept of repeatability. Repeating an experiment in a lab under controlled conditions doesn't verify that the alleged previous experiment ever took place. Perhaps there may have been some witnesses to the previous experiment, but if no value is placed on firsthand experience from witnesses, then the last experiment doesn't count. Perhaps there is a film of the experiment, but a film only verifies that there was a scene that looks like it might have been the alleged experiment, not that it was the alleged experiment. For all we know it could be pure fiction.

Perhaps the experiment resulted in some assumed predictability, but predictability is based on past experiments, and if reports from the past don't count as evidence, then we can't use them. We might be tempted to propose that if the experiment involves some material substance that could be repeatedly used then we'd have some verification, but how can we really be 100% certain that the material is actually the same piece of material? We can't. We can only assume that it is the same material based on the records ( reports ) or memories from past experiments. But since they don't count we can't use them either.

But it gets even more murky. What do we do in the case of temporary or transient phenomena? It may have snowed at 15:30 hours yesterday in Yakutsk. So if we are to test that if that is true by hypothesizing that it will again snow at 15:30 hours in Yakutsk, but it doesn't snow at 15:30 hours on any other day of the year, is that evidence that it never snowed? Of course not. So how can we tell whether or not it did? Once again we go back and look at the records ( reports ). The fact of the matter is that the whole concept of verifiability is based on what we believe to be the case based on records and memories from the past. Therefore the value of the data we use for verification is only as good as the case we can make for a report's reliability.

With the above in mind, are there any reliable UFO reports? The position of most skeptics is that there aren't any, and they base their opinion on their version of the concept of verifiability, which as we've just seen is a slippery slope that leaves every kind of report ( including scientific ones ) in the same trash basket. So then what? Well the claim usually goes that we can trust scientific reports because scientists are reliable report writers. But as I've posted in the past there have been thousands of cases of fraud in scientific reporting, so that reasoning doesn't allow for any certainty. If we are to be truly unbiased, it all boils down to how much we can trust that the evidence in any report ( scientific or otherwise ) corresponds to what actually took place, and in the case of UFOs, there are many cases where the evidence is far more reliable than the thousands of fraudulent scientific papers I've mentioned in the past.

The above doesn't mean that all scientific reports are fraudulent and all UFO reports aren't. It just means that if we're all going to play by the same rules, then logically the evidence found in select UFO reports has a value greater than zero compared to some scientific reports, and because that is the case, they are valuable enough to study and determine how reasonable any hypothesis might be. Returning to the original point, this means that the hypothesis that the subject matter of some UFO reports probably represents UFOs ( alien craft ) is entirely reasonable. To claim otherwise is an admission of bias. How much evidence we need before we can say we have proof ( or disproved the null hypothesis ) is another matter.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Michael -- And that's where the circle would begin. We disagree on too many fundamental points to advance the conversation. We also seem to be misunderstanding one another pretty regularly, but it was still a pretty good exchange. It seems others had fun with it, as well.

Ufies -- We definitely disagree regarding your model of verification and what it means. We already know that, though. We can't go back down that road. Still, perhaps the write up will help clarify for those who might not have understood (or new guys) where you are coming from.

Thanks guys. Maybe you two can branch things off into a new direction. Do you see any areas where you guys might disagree/agree that needs commentary?

 

[Michael Allen]

Recommended Reading

The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry: J. Allen Hynek: 9781569247822: Amazon.com: Books
Amazon.com: The UFO Evidence (9780760706275): Richard Hall: Books
The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence: Peter A. Sturrock: 9780446677097: Amazon.com: Books
Amazon.com: The Hynek UFO report (9780760704295): J. Allen Hynek: Books
UFO's: A Scientific Debate: Carl Sagan, Thornton Page: 9780760701966: Amazon.com: Books
Amazon.com: UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973 (9781571743176): Richard M. Dolan, Jacques F. Vallee: Books
The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial: Jerome Clark: 9781578590292: Amazon.com: Books
The UFO Evidence - Volume 2 : A Thirty Year Report: Richard H. Hall: 9780810838819: Amazon.com: Books

 

[ProphetofOccam]

A Scientific Debate is a good book. My favourite article in it is this one: "UFOs: The Extraterrestrial and Other Hypotheses"

Kind of sums up where I'm at with the whole deal. Good suggestion, Michael.

 

[Randall]

A Scientific Debate is a good book. My favourite article in it is this one: "UFOs: The Extraterrestrial and Other Hypotheses"
Kind of sums up where I'm at with the whole deal. Good suggestion, Michael.

Oh yes ... good ole' Carl Sagan, the "good cop" from CSICOP ( now just "CSI" because the association with popular TV shows makes it sound cooler ). There are a number of problems with that article, not the least of which is that despite being part of the so-called "Scientific Debate" it isn't the least bit scientific. It does however meet the definition of pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism. This is evidenced by Sagan's personal and obviously biased views, a faulty analogy, and a red herring of a premise that is based on data that is now 20 years out of date, all set out in a brief and unscientific manner under the guise of a "scientific debate".

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Agree to disagree, I guess.