The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I believe use of the null hypothesis shows that the ET hypothesis is a valid explanation for some U.F.O.'s. First off, the problem in this area is that blind debunkers want an all or nothing approach. They don't use any distinctions when dealing with U.F.O.'s and this is illogical.

When you study U.F.O.'s you have to use things like reason, logic and inference based on the available evidence. Most debunkers want it to be a zero sum game and we can't weigh the evidence and draw conclusions based on the available evidence.

So, let's be clear. I'm not saying ALL U.F.O.'S ARE EXTRATERRESTRIAL. The hypothesis is SOME U.F.O.'S ARE FROM AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SOURCE. This source can be intelligently controlled spacecraft or an intelligent lifeform.

The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.

The Null Hypothesis says, No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.

What's the next step?

The next step is to assume the alternative hypothesis is wrong and refute the null hypothesis.

Now the null hypothesis is easy to refute.

First we have to ask is there any evidence that SOME U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence. Again, it's not an all or nothing proposition. I'm not saying that all U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence but is there any evidence that SOME U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence.

This is easy to prove. You even have some U.F.O.'s that are said could be military aircraft. There's evidence from radar reports, U.F.O.'s being chased and evading capture, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts which say the U.F.O. behaved like it was controlled by intelligence, the fact that we haven't captured a U.F.O. and said here's an explanation for what people are seeing and I have seen 2 U.F.O.'s up close that looked to be controlled by intelligence as they hovered and one was flying against a strong wind.

Another thing we need to prove is if there's a possibility that Aliens exist or is just the something thought up by blind believers. Is there anything in science that says Aliens most likely exist. The answer here is yes. You have people like Stephen Hawking, Dr. Michio Kaku and Edgar Mitchell saying Aliens exist. This is based on things like exoplanets, extremophiles and access to Government personal that the average person doesn't have access to in the case of Edgar Mitchell.

The next question is how can they reach us? Again, this is something easy to prove. Just by accepting Aliens exist you can't turn around and limit the science and technology of these civilizations based on our current understanding. We're even looking into things like Warp Drive or other propulsion systems. How do we know these Aliens aren't closer to us than we think? There could also be intelligent lifeforms that have yet to be discovered.

The next question is, where's the evidence that any of these U.F.O.'s contain Aliens. You have close encounters, alien abductions, trace evidence, hypnosis (which is used by Police and is called Forensic Hypnosis), mass sightings and more.

In this instance, the null hypothesis is refuted. It's false to say that no U.F.O. are controlled by Extraterrestrials. That can easily be refuted based on the mountains of evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis that SOME NOT ALL U.F.O.'s are controlled by an extraterrestrial source. So the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true than false based on the available evidence.

Science never proves that something exists before a hypothesis is built based on the available evidence. So you look at the string theory landscape, Branes, Parallel universes, extra-dimensions, Hawking radiation and more. Look at Relativity before Eddington and others. Therefore the ET Hypothesis is valid hypothesis to explain SOME NOT ALL U.,F.O.'s.




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.

The Null Hypothesis says, No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.


The hypothesis as stated is not falsifiable.

That "null hypothesis" you stated is not the null for the original hypothesis. It would be the null for "all UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials."

The null for the hypothesis stated would be "some UFOs are not controlled by extraterrestrials." Which is pretty easy to demonstrate.

edit on 4/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

neoholographic
I believe use of the null hypothesis shows that the ET hypothesis is a valid explanation for some U.F.O.'s. First off, the problem in this area is that blind debunkers want an all or nothing approach. They don't use any distinctions when dealing with U.F.O.'s and this is illogical....

...Another thing we need to prove is if there's a possibility that Aliens exist or is just the something thought up by blind believers. Is there anything in science that says Aliens most likely exist. The answer here is yes. You have people like Stephen Hawking, Dr. Michio Kaku and Edgar Mitchell saying Aliens exist. This is based on things like exoplanets, extremophiles and access to Government personal that the average person doesn't have access to in the case of Edgar Mitchell.

I think both blind debunkers and blind believers are two sides of the same coin. While a blind debunker may NEVER believe in the possibility alien visitation, no matter what, the blind believer will think every UFO sighting is an alien unless absolutely proven otherwise. I remember I was replied on a thread that a potential UFO video looked like a plane (it clearly did look like a plane), and a person on that thread said that unless I could give them a flight number and tail registration to prove it was a plane, then she will still believe it was an alien craft.

By the way, Edgar Mitchell himself has said on many occasions that his belief in ETs has nothing to do with any secret documents he may have seen during his time as an astronaut. He says his belief is based on publicly available documents and reports that we all know about. Edgar Mitchell is basically a guy who believes in alien visitation who was also an astronaut. His former job did not provide him with insider secret documents about aliens.



In this instance, the null hypothesis is refuted. It's false to say that no U.F.O. are controlled by Extraterrestrials. That can easily be refuted based on the mountains of evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis that SOME NOT ALL U.F.O.'s are controlled by an extraterrestrial source. So the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true than false based on the available evidence.

The idea that the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true is debatable, but let's stipulate that it is in fact "more likely" to be true...

Even with this stipulation, "more likely to be true" does not make it necessarily true.



Science never proves that something exists before a hypothesis is built based on the available evidence. So you look at the string theory landscape, Branes, Parallel universes, extra-dimensions, Hawking radiation and more. Look at Relativity before Eddington and others. Therefore the ET Hypothesis is valid hypothesis to explain SOME NOT ALL U.,F.O.'s.

Personally, I see "proof of a scientific theory" and the more mainstream definition of "proof" as being two different things. Science may say that any evidence supporting a theory is proof of that theory, but even science will tell you that a proven theory is subject to revision, change, and even total re-writing, even after proof has been attributed to that theory.

Even if the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence found through testing and experimentation establishes that theory of alien visitation is a valid one, the only real "proof" of alien visitation would be an alien coming down saying hello to the world in an open and public forum.

edit on 4/7/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

neoholographic
First off, the problem in this area is that blind debunkers want an all or nothing approach.

That's kind of a misrepresentation. My approach is that I'm perfectly willing to let a UFO report ride forever as an "unknown" without trying to force an explanation onto it, one way or another. That's nearly the exact opposite of an all or nothing, and it in fact all-inclusive.

You're right, however, that I don't care to "explain" any UFO as extraterrestrial, since that has NEVER, EVER, EVER been specifically proven to be the case in any instance.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
To debunk something means to expose a falsehood.

If a magician claims to have pulled a coin from your ear, and I demonstrate that this is a false claim, I would have successfully debunked him. If, on the other hand, someone really did pull a coin from your ear, it is, by definition, not possible to debunk the claim - it actually happened.

Therefore, debunkers serve to remove obvious nonsense from the discussion.


With the example above, even if I couldn't debunk the magicians claim, a reasonable amount of scepticism should be applied, lest we abandon all reason and logic in favour of tall stories.


edit on 7-4-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Exactly. Remember that the first word in the acronym UFO is unidentified. To label a UFO as extraterrestrial or terrestrial is to leave the realm of unidentified and enter into the identified realm.

To the OP: please don't label the beliefs of skeptics with what you think they believe, let them decide for themselves the values they hold. All you are doing is trying to setup a strawman argument to knock down.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It's basically the same thing and here we go with Apples and Oranges. I said No U.F.O,'s because the null would be saying out of all of these U.F.O. sightings none can be from an extraterrestrial source. This is because the alternative hypothesis states SOME U.F.O.'s are from an extraterrestrial source.

At the end of the day you can say none or some and the null hypothesis is still refuted.

A primer on the null hypothesis:


Definition: The null hypothesis is the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena. The null hypothesis is popular because it can be tested and found to be false, which then implies there is a relationship between the observed data.


Again, the null hypothesis is refuted rather you want to use some or none because of the evidence listed above. This makes the ET hypothesis a scientific hypothesis to explain the U.F.O. Phenomena.

In order for the null hypothesis to stand, you would have to refute the evidence that shows a relationship between U.F.O.'s and extraterrestrials.

The null hypothesis isn't a self evident truth. To say SOME U.F.O.'s aren't controlled by extraterrestrials you would have to show that there's no relationship between some U.F.O. and extraterrestrials based on the evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis listed above.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


You said:


That's kind of a misrepresentation. My approach is that I'm perfectly willing to let a UFO report ride forever as an "unknown" without trying to force an explanation onto it, one way or another. That's nearly the exact opposite of an all or nothing, and it in fact all-inclusive.


Why?

Why do we have to force an explanation after all of these years of evidence?

Why can't we do what humans usually do and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely or less likely based on the available evidence?

Why do we have to leave it unknown ad infinitum when we can use common sense to weigh the available evidence?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Thank for the primer, I know how the system works.


To say SOME U.F.O.'s aren't controlled by extraterrestrials you would have to show that there's no relationship between some U.F.O. and extraterrestrials based on the evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis listed above.

No.

To say that some UFOs aren't controlled by extraterrestrials you have to show that just some (even just one) UFOs are not controlled by extraterrestrials. That would prove that some UFOs are not controlled by extraterrestrials.

The hypothesis as stated, "some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials", cannot be falsified.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


You said:


That's kind of a misrepresentation. My approach is that I'm perfectly willing to let a UFO report ride forever as an "unknown" without trying to force an explanation onto it, one way or another. That's nearly the exact opposite of an all or nothing, and it in fact all-inclusive.


Why?

Why do we have to force an explanation after all of these years of evidence?

Why can't we do what humans usually do and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely or less likely based on the available evidence?

Why do we have to leave it unknown ad infinitum when we can use common sense to weigh the available evidence?


Because the available evidence doesn't point to a satisfactory answer. It points to an unknown event happening and that's it. There is no evidence to suggest that these crafts are terrestrial, extraterrestrial, extrauniversal, or any other possible location. You just asked why can't we as humans jump to conclusions since we do it all the time. Well just because it is done all the time doesn't mean it is right and we should just chuck the scientific method out the _ Until satisfactory evidence produces itself to definitively point the origins of the craft to space or earth, we cannot make a claim in one way or the other.

ETA: why did the censor edit out the word 'window' from my post?
edit on 7-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


(post by neoholographic removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


But Phage is correct... Unless you literally checked the origins of EVERY UFO that appears in our atmosphere, the statement "some UFOs are extraterrestrial" cannot be falsified.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

neoholographic
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


You said:


That's kind of a misrepresentation. My approach is that I'm perfectly willing to let a UFO report ride forever as an "unknown" without trying to force an explanation onto it, one way or another. That's nearly the exact opposite of an all or nothing, and it in fact all-inclusive.


Why?

Why do we have to force an explanation after all of these years of evidence?

Why can't we do what humans usually do and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely or less likely based on the available evidence?

Why do we have to leave it unknown ad infinitum when we can use common sense to weigh the available evidence?


Because the available evidence doesn't point to a satisfactory answer. It points to an unknown event happening and that's it. There is no evidence to suggest that these crafts are terrestrial, extraterrestrial, extrauniversal, or any other possible location. You just asked why can't we as humans jump to conclusions since we do it all the time. Well just because it is done all the time doesn't mean it is right and we should just chuck the scientific method out the _ Until satisfactory evidence produces itself to definitively point the origins of the craft to space or earth, we cannot make a claim in one way or the other.

ETA: why did the censor edit out the word 'window' from my post?
edit on 7-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


What??

What points to an unknown event happening?

Alien abductions, close encounters, eyewitness accounts tell you what they say. Why can't you use common sense to reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely.?

We do it all the time in all walks of life.

NEWSFALSH!!

SCIENCE REACHES CONCLUSIONS ALL THE TIME BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!

People love to throw out science but this is exactly what Science does.

Scientist have reached conclusions for string theory, Hawking radiation, extra dimensions and more based on the available evidence.

How do you think Hawking and Kaku came to the conclusion that Aliens exist??

IT WAS BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

neoholographic
I believe use of the null hypothesis shows that the ET hypothesis is a valid explanation for some U.F.O.'s. First off, the problem in this area is that blind debunkers want an all or nothing approach. They don't use any distinctions when dealing with U.F.O.'s and this is illogical.


I believe you are confusing logic with facts. "Logic" is a method, a kind of protocol for argument, but it isn't foolproof. For example, using symbolic logic you can prove "A" or "not-A" depending on which way you go. When I pointed out an example to my logic teacher, he said that pointing it out with a tight apologetic smile that I wasn't being "being fair."


(1.) First we have to ask is there any evidence that SOME U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence.
CHECK


and I have seen 2 U.F.O.'s up close that looked to be controlled by intelligence as they hovered and one was flying against a strong wind.
SO?


(2.) Another thing we need to prove is if there's a possibility that Aliens exist or is just the something thought up by blind believers. Is there anything in science that says Aliens most likely exist. The answer here is yes. You have people like Stephen Hawking, Dr. Michio Kaku and Edgar Mitchell saying Aliens exist. This is based on things like exoplanets, extremophiles and access to Government personal that the average person doesn't have access to in the case of Edgar Mitchell.


SO? This isn't proof; it's probability. Edgar Mitchell didn't see anything. His is hearsay non-admissible evidence. You're actually using faulty logic here in an "appeal to authority." Kaku, Hawking, and Mitchell say aliens exist, and they are bright guys, THEREFORE they do? No. Sorry. That isn't logical.


(3.) The next question is how can they reach us? Again, this is something easy to prove. Just by accepting Aliens exist you can't turn around and limit the science and technology of these civilizations based on our current understanding. We're even looking into things like Warp Drive or other propulsion systems. How do we know these Aliens aren't closer to us than we think? There could also be intelligent lifeforms that have yet to be discovered.


You're mixing your metaphors here. Are you trying to prove aliens can reach us or are you trying to prove there are undiscovered life forms here? Ignorance of advanced technology does not prove it exists. If there are undiscovered lifeforms "here" then they aren't extra-terrestrial, are they? Warp Drive is science fiction.


(4.) The next question is, where's the evidence that any of these U.F.O.'s contain Aliens. You have close encounters, alien abductions, trace evidence, hypnosis (which is used by Police and is called Forensic Hypnosis), mass sightings and more.


"Close encounters" includes just seeing a light in the sky. Alien abductions is highly suspect. Define "trace evidence." Hypnosis. once again, a can of worms. Mass sightings of a UFO does not prove aliens. Neither does "and more."


(5.) In this instance, the null hypothesis is refuted. It's false to say that no U.F.O. are controlled by Extraterrestrials. That can easily be refuted based on the mountains of evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis that SOME NOT ALL U.F.O.'s are controlled by an extraterrestrial source. So the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true than false based on the available evidence.


You've proved no such thing. In fact, you have completely ignored what you are trying to prove: that "extraterrestrials control UFOs" You flit back and forth between "UFOs are controlled by intelligence" and "UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" and "UFOs are controlled by lifeforms "closer to us" that we have not discovered. They aren't the same thing. You've created a moving target here.

There is no doubt in my mind that some UFOs are controlled by intelligence. I'll give you that much, but from then on you are speculating. That alien life probably exists is also, I think, very more likely than not. But you can't get "them" "here" just by saying we may not understand advanced technology. You can use your "logic" to prove nearly ANYTHING that way just by proclaiming we are ignorant. You could just as well say, "Dinosaurs still exist but we haven't seen them because they live in the forest or something." What you are saying is, "We are ignorant of advanced technology, therefore the aliens must have it." That is not in any sense logical.

Your local evidence is also extremely suspect. You toss them off as if they were one-liners. Mass sightings do not prove aliens. Close encounters do not prove aliens. Hypnosis (What a can of worms! ask David Jacobs!) does not prove aliens. Abductions? Are you sure they are real? What if they are staged? You're not even addressing alternatives, then throwing on "trace evidence" as if it were equal to the others.

1.) Are some UFOs controlled by intelligence? Answer: Yes.
2.) Is there life elsewhere? Answer: It's very likely; effectively, Yes.
3.) Have aliens reached us? Answer: We don't actually know. According to today's science: No.
4.) Do we have local evidence? Answer: It's anecdotal and usually pretty flaky, unfortunately.
5.) Are UFOs controlled by aliens? Answer: We don't know.

Look, it may very well be true that some UFOs are controlled by your "aliens." It's possible. But your game of logic here has not proven it and is full of holes. You haven't proven "aliens are from another planet" here at all. Your #1 and #2 are easy and really not in dispute. Your #3 is suspect in the sense that you have to get past Einstein and relativity to say "Yes" here and you can't do that without something other than ignorance as a point in your favor. Science fiction warp drives are no substitute and are not at all logical. But even if you accept #3 on faith (and that's what it is: Faith, not science) Your #4 is a mess and needs serious work. Most of your "evidence" here is highly suspect. There is so much fraud here that it is difficult to separate truth from fiction. Your logical leap is in #5. Everything prior could be a result of military projects, not aliens. There is no way to tell the difference based on logic alone.

edit on 4/7/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


The Alternative Hypothesis said some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials and this is why the null would be none of the U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.


Incorrect. "Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" is not falsifiable. It's no different than saying "some rainbows are created by unicorns."

Turn it around. I say "some UFOs are not controlled by extraterrestrials." According to you the null hypothesis would be, "all UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials."


WOW, WHAT A FLAT OUT LIE!!
I do not appreciate being called a liar.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by neoholographic
 


But Phage is correct... Unless you literally checked the origins of EVERY UFO that appears in our atmosphere, the statement "some UFOs are extraterrestrial" cannot be falsified.


That's just flat out wrong.

The Alternative hypothesis states that some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

Again, you don't know how Science works.

It would be like saying you have to check every black hole to check for Hawking radiation. That's just silly. You build a hypothesis based on the available evidence. My point here is that the ET hypothesis is a valid hypothesis.

There's theories for Parallel universes. Do you think they need to check every parallel universe before Scientist come up with a theory for parallel universes or Branes before they can build a hypothesis????

The only time you here this type of silliness is when it comes to things like U.F.O.'s. Then all Common Sense is thrown out of the _



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

neoholographic
Why can't we do what humans usually do and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely or less likely based on the available evidence?

Why do you feel it necessary to reach a "conclusion?" What needs to be decided and settled in such a hurry? If a bomb was going off and I needed to clip either a red wire or a blue wire to stop it, then I would need to reach a conclusion. Otherwise, I can relax and wait for more information to show up. If it does, great. If not, oh well. I can't know everything.

Why do we have to leave it unknown ad infinitum when we can use common sense to weigh the available evidence?

I've never seen any UFO evidence that specifically points toward an extraterrestrial explanation. Even supposed alien beings talking directly to abductees/contactees. That's just hearsay. And "It couldn't possibly be anything from Earth" is not evidence, its an assumption.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Wow, this is just a total misunderstanding on how science works. You said:


"Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" is not falsifiable. It's no different than saying "some rainbows are created by unicorns."


If your statement were true then there would be no science.

Unicorns are not like U.F.O.'s. When you have close encounters and eyewitness accounts from Police, Military, high ranking government officials and more talking about unicorns creating rainbows then list the evidence.

This is the sad dishonesty from blind debunkers.

There's no equivalence between unicorns creating rainbows and U.F.O. encounters. Again, that's just dishonest.

According to your logic Scientist could never come to conclusions and build hypothesis based on things like black holes, parallel universes, branes, extra dimensions and more.

If it was up to you, there wouldn't be any science.

This is because you make these illogical statements when it comes to ufology.

This is because you make U.F.O. sightings equivalent with Unicorns creating rainbows.

This is just dishonest.

Falsify the theory that parallel universes exist. Falsify string theory or falsify Hawking radiation. Many of these things are built on the available evidence and we don't have the technology to test these theories but we have evidence to come to a conclusion as to what's most likely or less likely.


edit on 7-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

neoholographic
NEWSFALSH!!

SCIENCE REACHES CONCLUSIONS ALL THE TIME BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!



Correct. But in this instance there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions.

I'm well aware that there are some interesting cases out there. But I happy to leave it at "insufficient data, therefore I don't know". You go from insufficient data to "must be aliens". You're not following the 'evidence', but taking a blind leap of faith.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Unidentified flying objects do not exist in the sense of what people believe to be spacecraft controlled by extraterrestrials which do not exist either in the sense of how the word extraterrestrial is defined as a being not of planet Earth. If thought about asking if people have seen thought amount of spacecraft controlled by extraterrestrials since 1950 then does that mean there are thought amount that exist which does not make sense meaning the extraterrestrials have been seen every time and that leads to the question thought how could they be seen only some of the time and at those locations when if they did exist as portrayed it is obvious they could remain invisible.

What people see as unidentified flying objects has no other definite explanation other than they are projected images which purpose is and only is to distract people with thoughts of what does not exist from what does exist which is a half truth of the definition of extraterrestrial meaning they were and still are created by people on planet Earth.
edit on 7-4-2014 by mrtoidclover because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join