When is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?

[PCarr]

Hmmm...it looks like a classic saucer. Nice closely taken series of pics. It looks worthy of study to me. Too bad it's anonymous. And they appear to be seven years old. Is that correct?

Yes. Happened around the same time as the O'Hare case and in the same general area.

 

[PCarr]

It's child's play to produce this kind of stuff today--the anonymous source should also kill this as worthy of pursuit. Now lets say some footage surfaced from 5 or six surveillance cameras in the area that also showed this object and 5 people with cell phone from different locations who didn't know each other, that is the only kind of photographic evidence worthy of discussion today. There is NO case like that. And there should be.

Lance

If you look closley at these I think you'll find that it's more than child's play. Still, it could be faked by someone with sufficient skill. Given that it was a rural area, multiple cameras seem pretty unlikely.

Whether you think there "should" be multiple camera cases depends entirely on how common such events are.

BTW, I've talked to many witnesses who could have taken photos and did not. They never seem to know exactly why.

 

[stonehart]

hahaha nice twist on the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" which is more or less an argumentum ad ignorantiam (the appeal to ignorance) if I am reading this right... maybe not but never mind.

Well in rearguard to the UFO question the best we can do (in my opinion) is to draw no conclusion either way and I am not being sarcastic at all.

The simple fact is we do not know and we have next to zero solid evidence, oh yes for sure we have photos that look interesting but I would call them far from conclusive and I more or less stopped trusting video footage years ago (and we all know why).
I know there are eye witness reports and story's some of which are very compelling as they have come from pilots etc but I still take it all with a huge grain of salt. Why?
They are human and can make mistakes, and because you have to if you wish to remain objective in this subject because even if we add up all the evidence obtained thus far the best we can do is say "who the hell knows" because I don't.

For those who might be as mathematically challenged as the above saucer buff (if that is even possible) 1 million hours is 114 years of continuous fantastic footage. Ever wonder why you haven't seen any of it?

You may need to close your eyes and click your heels!

Not sure how to respond to such a statement. But good luck to you (and hey, nice command of the language--I would respond in kind but skeptics get banned for that sort of thing).

Lance

You know that is why I love having Lance around... good use of the mushy stuff between the ears ... brains that is.


Look I have had my own UFO experiences but I still keep a healthy skeptical mind about them because I do not know conclusively that they were not human tech that I have not identified correctly (Hence UFO).

Just my opinion on the matter because that is all one can really give is an opinion.

 

[trainedobserver]

If you look closley at these I think you'll find that it's more than child's play. Still, it could be faked by someone with sufficient skill.

I floated the idea of a Paracast fake UFO photo/video contest some time ago and it never really went anywhere. I think I wound up posting my photo in the reptilian dove thread.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Skeptics are just people that are afraid of their imaginations. They look at a photo and call it shit due to the fact that it's a photo and not an actual flying saucer. They constantly look for negatives while telling you, "don't bother arguing, you can't prove a negative." They dismiss so much curiosity that their tolerance for as much turns to an obsessive attention getting addictive transference just to "fit in". If all the believers and all the skeptics were 100% honest with themselves, they would simply look directly at one another and exclaim while shrugging their shoulders, "I don't have a clue" None of them do on either side of that fence.

Healthy skepticism is great. Typical skepticism is utterly predictable and is more likened to a simple antitheses of debate. Not very fun, and everyone knows, that what UFOs are supposed to be all about...wait a minute here!

 

[trainedobserver]

Skeptics are just people that are afraid of their imaginations. They look at a photo and call it shit due to the fact that it's a photo and not an actual flying saucer. They constantly look for negatives while telling you, "don't bother arguing, you can't prove a negative." They dismiss so much curiosity that their tolerance for as much turns to an obsessive attention getting addictive transference just to "fit in". If all the believers and all the skeptics were 100% honest with themselves, they would simply look directly at one another and exclaim while shrugging their shoulders, "I don't have a clue" None of them do on either side of that fence.

Healthy skepticism is great. Typical skepticism is utterly predictable and is more likened to a simple antitheses of debate. Not very fun, and everyone knows, that what UFOs are supposed to be all about...wait a minute here!

I am skeptical of any paranormal claim, photograph, or artifact. Why? Personal experience with hoaxers, deluded thinkers, religious zealots, true-believers, and bald-faced liars. Some might say I am a skeptic with an over active imagination, as I often entertain alternative theories and put credence in things many of my skeptical brothers would not. I actively try to "believe" as little as possible, and often fail.

 

[PCarr]

hahaha nice twist on the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" which is more or less an argumentum ad ignorantiam (the appeal to ignorance) if I am reading this right... maybe not but never mind.

I wouldn't say that. The argument from ignorance takes the general form that X is true because it has not been shown false. This is nearly always a fallacy, but it really does depends on how hard you have tried to show it false. We don't really "prove" ideas in the real world - we just throw lots and lots of tests at them to see if they continue to hold up.

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence under certain conditions, but first you need a real hypothesis against which you can evaluate the evidence. I have argued elsewhere that the ET conjecture for UFOs does not qualify as a hypothesis.

 

[PCarr]

Skeptics are just people that are afraid of their imaginations.

That's a pretty broad generalization. I know lots of skeptics, and I don't see that your claim applies to a single one of them. In fact, "fear" doesn't seem to be much of a driver at all. Not that skeptics don't have blind spots - but so do you, I'll bet.

Listen if you would, to my conversation with Bing Garthright, former NICAP investigator, who is now a member of the National Capital Area Skeptics. A more sincere person you will not find:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/wowsignal/bing_episode_wsp.mp3

 

[Jeff Davis]

I am skeptical of any paranormal claim, photograph, or artifact. Why? Personal experience with hoaxers, deluded thinkers, religious zealots, true-believers, and bald-faced liars. Some might say I am a skeptic with an over active imagination, as I often entertain alternative theories and put credence in things many of my skeptical brothers would not. I actively try to "believe" as little as possible, and often fail.

"Belief" is critical to survival. You must believe you will survive if you are to. I find you to be perfect. An extremely solid balance of scepticism while allowing for the full roam of your imaginations specualtive powers. You do not adopt scepticism as a religion whereas many of your "brethren" do. They have a stronger set of beliefs than most "true believers" because they themselves in all reality *are* true believers. They believe in scepticism to the effect that it forbids the most critically important aspect of all scientific exploration. Faith and the Imagination. Both are absolutely essential to scientific advancement. They get a kick out of a certainty that they themselves hide behind that is no different than a scared child pulling the bed covers up over their head to ward off the boogey man. They walk around like proud cocks with their heads held high, strutting as if to impress someone, while claiming like MC Hammer, "you can't touch this". My question is to them: "Who wants to?"

 

[Jeff Davis]

I wouldn't say that. The argument from ignorance takes the general form that X is true because it has not been shown false. This is nearly always a fallacy, but it really does depends on how hard you have tried to show it false. We don't really "prove" ideas in the real world - we just throw lots and lots of tests at them to see if they continue to hold up.

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence under certain conditions, but first you need a real hypothesis against which you can evaluate the evidence. I have argued elsewhere that the ET conjecture for UFOs does not qualify as a hypothesis.

PCarr,
Are you honestly stating that to venture a legitimate guess as to UFOs, it's unqualified to hypothetically propose that they may represent transportation for non human civilizations from other planets than Earth? My friend, that's insane and *is* the epitome of a belief system in and of itself. You cannot logically equate the possibility with an illogical premise. To do so means that you limit all scientific considerations to that which is presently possible for us in accord with the currency of scientific progress. That's ultimately ludicrous. The ETH is a perfectly valid guess as to the origin of some UFOs.

You would not stand a snowball's chance in Hell arguing that point with Randall. No way.

Whether science determines through falsification that the answers we seek are that which lie well beyond our imagination presently, or that which is literally too strange not to be true once it has been discovered and placed to rest, there is simply NOTHING illogical about the ETH.

BTW, I don't accept the ETH for a second as the answer to UFOs. But it's still a very valid guess and is rooted within our own deterministic behavioral patterns.

 

[PCarr]

We all have our delusions, but I think my only insanity here was trying to make a nuanced point.

The problem with the so called ETH is that it is a very poor hypothesis. I wish that it were otherwise, but I have yet to find anything like a cogent argument to the contrary.

 

[trainedobserver]

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence under certain conditions, but first you need a real hypothesis against which you can evaluate the evidence. I have argued elsewhere that the ET conjecture for UFOs does not qualify as a hypothesis.

In the strictest sense you are correct. How do you test for the "ETness" of the evidence at hand ,when the evidence is essentially no evidence at all? You have to make s*#^ up and stack assumptions until you have essentially what qualifies as a religious belief about something. Or were you thinking of something else?

 

[PCarr]

In the strictest sense you are correct. How do you test for the "ETness" of the evidence at hand ,when the evidence is essentially no evidence at all? You have to make s*#^ up and stack assumptions until you have essentially what qualifies as a religious belief about something. Or were you thinking of something else?

Well, yeah, that's pretty close, although anecdotally I think people don't so much make stuff up as they borrow it from popular culture, often without realizing it. Now THAT is something that could be studied scientifically - where do people get their conceptions of ET?

 

[trainedobserver]

"Belief" is critical to survival. You must believe you will survive if you are to.

I disagree. Suspending judgement where we have incomplete data is an essential survival skill. Besides, our thoughts, beliefs, and fears are demonstrably subservient to the laws that dictate the physical universe. If it were the other way around, the world would be a very different place.

 

[PCarr]

In the strictest sense you are correct. How do you test for the "ETness" of the evidence at hand ,when the evidence is essentially no evidence at all? You have to make s*#^ up and stack assumptions until you have essentially what qualifies as a religious belief about something. Or were you thinking of something else?

Another point is that no data or lack thereof is evidence in vacuo. Evidence is evidence for against a hypothesis. No hypothesis, no evidence (for or against). My call is for epistemic humility on both sides of the issue.

 

[PCarr]

"Belief" is critical to survival. You must believe you will survive if you are to. "

Me, I am on the fence whether belief is a bug or a feature of human cognition, although it does seem to be built in. I believe in doubt.

Dream of the Open Channel: Doubt is a Core Value

 

[trainedobserver]

Well, yeah, that's pretty close, although anecdotally I think people don't so much make stuff up as they borrow it from popular culture, often without realizing it. Now THAT is something that could be studied scientifically - where do people get their conceptions of ET?

Yes, exactly. True originality is rare. Practically everything we come up with is based on a previously encountered pattern.

Where do people get their conceptions of ET? It's either experience or imagination. Are there any other possible sources? The answer then seems to be the imagination. Something is seen, what it is remains unknown, however we must ascribe some meaning to it. We imagine ourselves a space traveling species and can easily look toward that as a ready explanation. In reality we may not turn out to be great space travelers from either a biological or energy standpoint. Most science fiction imagines ET as much like ourselves. We superimpose our beliefs, fears, and methodologies on these phantoms. That seems to be an obvious mistake.

 

[Jeff Davis]

We all have our delusions, but I think my only insanity here was trying to make a nuanced point.

The problem with the so called ETH is that it is a very poor hypothesis. I wish that it were otherwise, but I have yet to find anything like a cogent argument to the contrary.

You are right. It *is* a very poor hypothesis due to the fact that the experiments required to forward the matter to a theory stage are ultimately impossible to perform. However, it still "qualifies" as a hypothesis due to reason alone. Reason such as what is forwarded within the Drake Equation, the plethora of earth like planets in the Universe, and the fact that we ourselves are working on hypothetical interstellar travel. So, whereas I understand that "testing" for the principles that would in a composite sense make for a sound overall theory is not possible, it's still a very real possibility.

I agree with you however, it is a weak hypothesis as is any that finds itself in the similar far reaching waters of our fertile imaginations.

Personally, I have never seen ANYTHING with relation to the UFO phenomenon that clearly suggests "space travel", then again, I don't know all there is to know about space travel. Neither does anyone else on the planet. New discoveries will be made. That's the only real certainty at this point apart from millions of falsifications in the process.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Yes, exactly. True originality is rare. Practically everything we come up with is based on a previously encountered pattern.

Where do people get their conceptions of ET? It's either experience or imagination. Are there any other possible sources? The answer then seems to be the imagination. Something is seen, what it is remains unknown, however we must ascribe some meaning to it. We imagine ourselves a space traveling species and can easily look toward that as a ready explanation. In reality we may not turn out to be great space travelers from either a biological or energy standpoint. Most science fiction imagines ET as much like ourselves. We superimpose our beliefs, fears, and methodologies on these phantoms. That seems to be an obvious mistake.

Relative contextual projection. It's a personification thing in which we find ourselves poised to be the center when in all reality we are riding the rim at best. JMO.

 

[Randall]

... Where do people get their conceptions of ET? It's either experience or imagination. Are there any other possible sources?

Yes there are other sources. My reason for thinking that the ETH is the leading hypothesis for UFOs ( alien craft ) is based on extrapolation via deductive reasoning. This process doesn't prove that the ETH is correct. However it's not simply my "imagination" or mere "opinion" either. The ETH could be wrong in some cases. Or maybe it's always right or always wrong. But of all the possibilities, it remains the most reasonable explanation until something else comes along to give us a reason to think otherwise.