It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
neoholographic
First off, the problem in this area is that blind debunkers want an all or nothing approach.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 window. 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)
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.
CHECK
(1.) First we have to ask is there any evidence that SOME U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence.
SO?
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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.
I do not appreciate being called a liar.
WOW, WHAT A FLAT OUT LIE!!
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.
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 we have to leave it unknown ad infinitum when we can use common sense to weigh the available evidence?
"Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" is not falsifiable. It's no different than saying "some rainbows are created by unicorns."
neoholographic
NEWSFALSH!!
SCIENCE REACHES CONCLUSIONS ALL THE TIME BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!