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 Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by radkrish
 


Never heard of a rainbow that travels hundreds of miles in the sky..making gravity defying stunts.

Never heard of a UFO that did "stunts". Nor one that made pretty colors in the sky that could be photographed and studied. The question is How do you test a UFO for alien-ness or even intelligence?




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by radkrish
 



Unless one has an inner motive, I seriously doubt people would be close-minded to even deny the possibility of ufos being Alien in origin.

Its possible but how do you show that it is so? Some accounts are really interesting and it does make you think of that possibility. The problem is how do you test this assumption?


1. personal distaste of the phenomenon

Nope, I find it interesting.


2. the be-all know-it all folks who mock everything that sounds u...f....o

nope


3. allergic to unknown phenomenon

yes, its an UNKNOWN phenomenon.


4. it doesn't fit your world view

Aliens would fit in just fine.


5. shameful to admit it because you hung in there..trying to debunk it all your life( i know!)

Admit what? Point 3 is that its an unknown phenomenon. I agree.


6. you are all 'online' skeptics..in reality hiding behind your sheets praying for an alien invasion

Im not following your points. There are reports of UFOs. It is possible they are aliens. How do you IDENTIFY something UNKNOWN as being something else that is unknown like aliens?
edit on 12-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Don't forget Bigfoot.

Lets not. There are some very credible reports of Bigfoot and other evidence. How does neo reject the same evidence when it comes to Bigfoot? Witnesses aren't idiots when it comes to UFOs but turn into drooling idiots when they report bigfoot?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


I agree. To me, this is the bottom line here.

Is it possible that UFOs are alien-controlled craft? Sure.
Does the ET hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon have at least some evidence worth considering? Sure.

Personally, I don't think the evidence is enough to warrant calling the ET hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon "proven", but I'm sure some people do.

However, let us say (for the sake of this post) that using the scientific method, we can say that there IS enough evidence to call the ET hypothesis "proven". That's fine and dandy, but just because just because a hypothesis/theory is proven by the standards of the scientific method, that does not necessarily mean that the hypothesis or theory is in fact the Truth (and I mean "Truth" with a capital "T", meaning the honest-to-goodness truth of reality -- not simply a hypothesis or theory that seems to have enough evidence to call "proven").

Maybe it is true, but maybe it isn't. A theory proven by the scientific method does not necessarily make it a "hard truth". Granted, some theories have more supporting evidence than others, and those theories are very close to being considered "fact", at least in general (the theory of evolution, for example), but I don't see that ET hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon having nearly the amount of support evidence.

So, like I said in another post a few days ago, even if someone says "ok -- I accept the that the ET hypothesis have enough evidence to be a proven hypothesis", what would that really mean to UFOlogy? It doesn't change the evidence; that evidence remains what it is.


edit on 4/12/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Phage
 



Don't forget Bigfoot.

Lets not. There are some very credible reports of Bigfoot and other evidence. How does neo reject the same evidence when it comes to Bigfoot? Witnesses aren't idiots when it comes to UFOs but turn into drooling idiots when they report bigfoot?


Again, this shows the lack of just a little common sense used by blind debunkers.

Blind debunkers want to talk in absolutes because they can't refute the evidence. They want to put everything in an all or nothing box.

So it's foreign to blind debunkers how I can look at the evidence for bigfoot and then come to a conclusion and then look at the evidence for the ET hypothesis and then come to a different conclusion.

I'm not a blind believer so I look at the evidence for each of these things. A blind debunker can't understand this simple logic because they want the ET hypothesis, bigfoot, santa, easter bunny and now unicorns creating rainbows to all be the same thing.

I don't have to see people who say the saw bigfoot as idiots in order to be skeptical about bigfoot.

If you notice, the blind debunkers can't debate the evidence for the ET hypothesis. They have to constantly try to dilute the evidence by mentioning bigfoot, unicorns and who know what other nonsense will be next. This tells you the ET hypothesis is very strong.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



"Most researchers who study the bigfoot subject will point to the abundance of witnesses as the factor they found most compelling about the mystery when first becoming acquainted with it. Over the course of time, bigfoot researchers meet enough eyewitnesses to realize there are indeed many, many eyewitness across the continent who are indeed very credible. Often there are multiple witnesses to a given sighting or encounter.

There are, in fact, way too many eyewitnesses for this phenomenon to be purely imaginary, as skeptics assert. With such an abundance of eyewitnesses, who are so dispersed across the continent, and dispersed across the decades, the alternate skeptical explanation that the sightings are the result of hoaxers, in whole or even in large part, becomes much less likely.

Researchers eventually come to realize that if there are indeed so many credible eyewitnesses across the land, then the species they so consistently and emphatically describe probably exists also."


Combine that with photographs, videos, hair samples, plaster cast foot imprints, etc. It's basically the same argument you use for alien piloted UFOs. Apples and oranges. So why are you skeptical of Bigfoot and not aliens?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




If you notice, the blind debunkers can't debate the evidence for the ET hypothesis.

Sure we can, a lot of it anyway. It's just that the topic of this thread is that the ETH can be falsified. It can't be.

edit on 4/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


Yeah. I'd say the evidence supporting the hypothesis that bigfoot is real is just about the same as saying that UFOs are alien controlled craft.

Maybe sightings of bigfoot are sightings of a real unknown creature, or maybe it isn't. Maybe UFOs are alien-controlled craft, and maybe they are other things. However (and going back to what I said above) even a majority of people decide to agree that bigfoot sightings are sightings of a real unknown creature, what does that mean? Will bigfoot finally come out of the woods and say "Finally! -- Now that you believe in me, I can come out of the woods and introduce myself to the public".

I suppose what I'm asking is this: To what end do you want the world's acceptance of the ET hypothesis for UFOs to be? Why do you see it as so important to use the null hypothesis against alien visitation to prove the alternate hypothesis for Alien visitation?

Where are you going with this method of trying to prove the ET hypothesis?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What happens when we apply this approach to the ETH? First, the problem is that UFOs are a lot more rare than rainbows. This makes them difficult to study but since the vast majority of UFO cases have been falsified, the ETH can be said to have been statistically falsified. Does this mean that the hypothesis is falsified? No, it means that statistically, it is unlikely to be valid.


With all due respect, that paragraph seems to demonstrate some significant gaps in understanding with respect to how inferential statistics and the concept of 'falsifiability' are used in science.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not a scientist and am certainly not any kind of expert here, but I suspect that most anyone who's had a college-level Introduction to Statistics course can see the error in that reasoning.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



If you notice, the blind debunkers can't debate the evidence for the ET hypothesis.

Being blind is challenging and makes examining the evidence difficult. You say there are photos? I guess I have take your word because I am blind and cant see. Ridiculing blind people is just wrong.

What I notice is repetition of the same rhetoric without any substance. What evidence for the ET Hypothesis? The links you provided are evidence that there is an ET Hypothesis. So the question I have is how do you demonstrate that the evidence is due to ET or not? As far as I know, there is not one confirmed verified case of aliens. There are a lot of interesting cases that make you wonder and if you put them all together like you do, they don't somehow verify each other.

I could produce the same amount of links for Bigfoot.

edit on 12-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


It's simple.

I'm skeptical of bigfoot because he hasn't been caught. How can a primitive primate that big escape capture for so long especially as technology increases? I think bigfoot is most likely a misidentification of a known species.

There's a hypothesis that bigfoot is an alien. This hypothesis answers the question as to why bigfoot has been able to evade capture for so long. They're cases where U.F.O.'s have been seen with ape like beings.

In my mind, I can accept bigfoot as an alien before I can accept bigfoot as an unknown primate. I'm not saying bigfoot is an alien but you asked the question.

I have an open mind about things where most blind debunkers never look at evidence, So if evidence were presented to me that bigfoot is an alien, I wouldn't scoff at it.

At this point, I think bigfoot is most likely a misidentification of a known species whereas U.F.O.'s are an observed phenomena that can evade capture, move in ways that defies current understanding, cause malfunctions in cars and at nuclear sites and more.

So again, simple common sense tells you there's evidence for and against bigfoot which is different from the evidence for the ET hypothesis. It's very telling that blind debunkers want to lump all of these things together. It's all or nothing and they lack the common sense to make these simple distinctions.

So again, how can bigfoot evade capture even as technology advances, with U.F.O.'s this can easily be explained by the ET hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


but I suspect that most anyone who's had a college-level Introduction to Statistics course can see the error in that reasoning.

I guess I more than qualify. There is nothing wrong with the statement.

What happens when we apply this approach to the ETH? First, the problem is that UFOs are a lot more rare than rainbows. This makes them difficult to study but since the vast majority of UFO cases have been falsified, the ETH can be said to have been statistically falsified. Does this mean that the hypothesis is falsified? No, it means that statistically, it is unlikely to be valid.

Please point out there error.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


It's simple.

I'm skeptical of bigfoot because he hasn't been caught.

More silly nonsense.

It's simple.

I'm skeptical of aliens because they haven't been caught.

But you have a problem with that?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You just show that you can't refute the evidence for the ET hypothesis because you keep bringing up bigfoot.

It really shows how weak your position is. If you want to debate bigfoot, go and start a thread about bigfoot.

Bigfoot has nothing to do with the evidence for the ET hypothesis.

I know why you want to lump all of these things together because the evidence for the ET hypothesis is so strong. I will list some of it again.

Radar reports

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Vehicle interference cases

www.ufoevidence.org...

Electromagnetic effects

www.ufoevidence.org...

Physical evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Government U.F.O. Documents

www.ufoevidence.org...

U.F.O. articles published in scientific journals

www.ufoevidence.org...






posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


More nonsense:

Why would Aliens be caught or easily evade capture when they possess the technology to malfunction nuclear sites and evade our planes?

Again, you have to use just a little common sense.

I know you have an all or nothing view that makes no sense but you can at least try to let a little common sense into the picture.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



I suppose what I'm asking is this: To what end do you want the world's acceptance of the ET hypothesis for UFOs to be? Why do you see it as so important to use the null hypothesis against alien visitation to prove the alternate hypothesis for Alien visitation?

Where are you going with this method of trying to prove the ET hypothesis?

It pretty much gets you nowhere. Threads like this are evidence of that. It has to do with proving something that has nothing to do with ET. OP sure can pee pretty far.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Even more nonsense:


Why would Aliens be caught or easily evade capture when they possess the technology to malfunction nuclear sites and evade our planes?

That's your assumption. They crash. right?

Again, you have to use just a little common sense.



I know you have an all or nothing view that makes no sense but you can at least try to let a little common sense into the picture.

Seems like you have an all or nothing view that makes no sense. ET is a possible explanation for sightings as are other explanations that are also not falsifiable. What middle ground do you have? Do you consider the possibility that you are wrong?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



You just show that you can't refute the evidence for the ET hypothesis because you keep bringing up bigfoot.

What evidence for ET hypothesis? Those links again? There is an ET hypothesis. How do you test a UFO for aliens? That's my question that you cant answer. You pointed out that you can test comets.

For instance, if over the next 50 years we test every comet that flies by earth for an icy discharge and we don't find an icy discharge then the theory would be falsified.

How do you test UFOs for aliens? For the last 50 years, we didn't find any aliens flying UFOs. Does that mean the theory is falsified? What are you suggesting with your comment about comets? How is that relevant to aliens while Bigfoot is not?



Bigfoot has nothing to do with the evidence for the ET hypothesis.
Correct. The evidence I provided for Bigfoot pretty much confirms that bigfoot is real. The "evidence" you provided for ET is sad.
edit on 12-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


The problem with all of these "reports" is there is not a single one which is outside the possibility of one or more of:
a natural occurrence,
an equipment or tool artifact (eg radar blip),
a misidentified or misreported observation,
an actual hoax

Just because there are a lot of these around doesn't impress when you consider the immense number of things which have been observed which could also end up being unexplained without additional information or knowledge of some phenomena. While a reasonable person may become interested upon hearing about an unknown phenomena, if it is well within the bounds of possible or of misidentification or of hoax, a reasonable person will not leap to an ET conclusion. It is in fact far more likely the observer made some sort of error, whether equipment was involved or not. We are quite likely merely collecting are the most extreme cases of what are known as "outliers" -- the part of the distribution of normal things that are observed which are quite rare but also quite normal even if quite rare.

On the other hand, if we had something physical with readily examinable properties, such as an alien craft or actual alien in our possession, that could be repeatedly examined and had measurable properties consistent with "impossible on Earth or by Man" there would be no problem with accepting that aliens were present on Earth. Only one such item would be required.

Probably the best refutation of the "ET hypothesis," as badly stated as it is, is that no unambiguous evidence has been left behind by any of the reputedly hundreds or millions of aliens that are supposed to have visited Earth. How is that possible? It's easily possible if no visitation has occurred but it's almost impossible if any substantial amount of visitation has occurred and the aliens are using less than perfectly reliable craft and have perfectly reliable methods of collecting all possible unambiguous alien artifacts but readily leave non-alien artifacts behind.

The supposed aliens must be very sloppy if they intended to be undetected because we "observe" a lot which is unexplained. But, if they did not care about being detected, why would they be so perfect at leaving no unambiguous evidence behind?

As much as I would like it to be otherwise, the evidence so far is not in favor of alien visitation. We would have found SOMETHING by now which was unambiguously alien. What we have instead is some rare occurrences which sound odd and "trace" evidence that seems odd but 100% of it is all possible to have: occurred somehow, be a tool artifact, be misidentification, or be a hoax.
edit on 124pm14America/Chicago42059kAmerica/Chicago by BayesLike because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


If U.F.O.'s have crashed in the past what does that have to do with them evading capture and causing nuclear sites to malfunction?

This actually gives more support to the ET hypothesis because we're dealing with technology and technology isn't perfect. Things crash.

Of course the ET hypothesis can be falsified by refuting the evidence.

The same way that crop circles created by aliens was falsified by showing humans can create very intricate patterns.

So with crop circles scientist can say no crop circles are created by aliens.

It's not the job of science to prove the alternative hypothesis.

People who are proponents that crop circles are created by aliens have to show evidence of a crop circle that couldn't be made by human beings. It's a very high bar. At the end of the day the hypothesis that aliens create crop circles has been falsified in part by the evidence that human beings can create these intricate patterns.

Just like science can say no unicorns create rainbows. Again, it's the job of proponents of the alternative hypothesis to present evidence to refute the null hypothesis. In science the null hypothesis is assumed to be true. It's like in court where the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt.

The null hypothesis:

No U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

The alternative hypothesis:

Some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

How do you falsify the hypothesis? You refute the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is refuted by this evidence.

Radar reports

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Vehicle interference cases

www.ufoevidence.org...

Electromagnetic effects

www.ufoevidence.org...

Physical evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Government U.F.O. Documents

www.ufoevidence.org...

U.F.O. articles published in scientific journals

www.ufoevidence.org...

How can you refute the null of unicorns creating rainbows when there's no evidence to refute that supports the alternative hypothesis?




top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join