The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

skeptics don't want to believe because it makes them less ...American perhaps? its fear...fear that humanity can evolve be intelligent, peaceful beings sharing the cosmos with other races someday.... but right now we cant even handle it here.

I think they exist, are here now and always have been. but there's also a spiritual mission playing out in all of us.

reply to post by RebelHart

skeptics don't want to believe because it makes them less ...American perhaps?

Skeptics are limited to US citizens?
That's a new one. It seems to me that they tend to be critical thinkers, regardless of nationality.

neoholographic

First, off Hawking explanation as to why U.F.O.'s aren't visiting earth isn't plausible. If it were, I would agree with him. He says they only appear to cranks and weirdos. These people don't look like cranks and weirdos.

Hawking feels if aliens come here it would not be good, so since we have not all been eaten yet then they most likely have not come yet....

Once again at some point to take all this from a guess, speculation, belief, assumption, faith...etc we need tangible proof, so until then it is something to sip 18 year scotch over, but nothing much more than that.

Phage
reply to post by RebelHart

 

skeptics don't want to believe because it makes them less ...American perhaps?

Skeptics are limited to US citizens?
That's a new one. It seems to me that they tend to be critical thinkers, regardless of nationality.

edit on 4/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I was being sarcastic. btw my critical thinking lead me to question everything I thought I knew

reply to post by RebelHart

I was being sarcastic. btw my critical thinking lead me to question everything I thought I knew

I've run into the internet sarcasm problem on more than one occasion.

Questioning is an important part of critical thinking but in order for it to be effective a real effort to avoid confirmation bias is, perhaps, more important.

Socially created phenomena? huh! Really? Pity those people who took their time to investigate, get their *** out in the field. The evidence is overwhelming and now I wonder why these ufo threads are being beaten to death of late. Take a bow, ya all know a lot better than honest, intelligent people with impeccable careers.

reply to post by radkrish

Everyone is welcome to their opinions. Opinion and fact are not the same thing.
And, like the ETH (and to stay on topic), opinions are not falsifiable.

Phage
reply to post by EnPassant

 

It would be enough to demonstrate that trace evidence can be explained in another way and that it is not reasonable to believe ufo photos are what they seem. This would constitute falsifiability.

Yes. Incidents can be falsified. The ETH cannot be. It has been shown that Venus has been mistaken for a UFO. Does that falsify all eyewitness reports?

edit on 4/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

No. But if there is a preponderance of witness reports that strengthens the ETH it is a valid hypothesis and it is falsifiable. ETH is falsifiable if it is shown that a significant number of reports are bogus. But falsifying would also require that the evidence in other domains are also bogus - such as landing traces, abductee reports etc. this is very difficult but practical difficulties are not the issue here. All that is required is that in principle reports etc are falsifiable and I don't see anything in ufology that is not falsifiable.

ETH could be shown to be an unreasonable hypothesis by sufficient falsification, because it stands on the reasonable assumption that it explains the evidence in question.

There are two facets to the hypothesis. There is the general idea that ET could exist because there are billions of stars and they could have found a way to get here. But the OP is not talking about this simple hypothesis. His hypothesis is based on the evidence available and there is no item in that body of evidence that cannot, in principle, be falsified.

reply to post by EnPassant

ETH is falsifiable if it is shown that a significant number of reports are bogus. But falsifying would also require that the evidence in other domains are also bogus - such as landing traces, abductee reports etc.

ET may or may not be involved with sightings, landing traces or abduction reports. in fact, these all may be separate things. crop circles are lumped in with landing traces. if crop circles are falsified because people can make them easily, then that should falsify any circle left on the ground. abductions can be explained and even reproduced.

How does falsifying a "significant" number of reports falsify the ETH? To me a "significant" number was reached last week but more reports came in. At what point can we stop and say the ETH has been falsified and any future reports of UFOs are "bogus" by default?

As cool as all these reports are, there is nothing linking them to ET which we don't even know exists. Why cant my missing socks be due to aliens? There is no other explanation and I had a weird dream about aliens.

EnPassant
No. But if there is a preponderance of witness reports that strengthens the ETH it is a valid hypothesis and it is falsifiable. ETH is falsifiable if it is shown that a significant number of reports are bogus. But falsifying would also require that the evidence in other domains are also bogus - such as landing traces, abductee reports etc. this is very difficult but practical difficulties are not the issue here. All that is required is that in principle reports etc are falsifiable and I don't see anything in ufology that is not falsifiable.

With your clique's procedure we can use the same exact evidence to show Elvis is alive or that Santa Claus is real. We don't have to change anything in the stories other than replacing the label "alien" with Elvis or Santa. Collected stories are not evidence. They are just stories. There is nothing inherently alien in a story except for what you wish to believe. The entire assertion is mere self-delusion.

neoholographic
reply to post by Phage

 

First, off Hawking explanation as to why U.F.O.'s aren't visiting earth isn't plausible. If it were, I would agree with him. He says they only appear to cranks and weirdos. These people don't look like cranks and weirdos.

First off, Hawking's feelings towards Alien life (which he seems to think DOES exist) seem to indicate that if the aliens were visiting Earth, we would all be keenly aware because they would have conquered/exterminated us or used us for other nefarious means.

Secondly, Hawking understands that people can have misidentifications. I do NOT think he feels that if a person sees something strange and assumes it is an alien spaceship, that person is necessarily a crank. Again, it comes down to evidence. Seeing something that can't be explained does NOT automatically mean that the "something" was an alien craft. We can't use Giorgio Tsoukalos version of "evidence" and say "I don't know what that was, so it must be alien".

If Hawking was to call someone a weirdo or crank, it would probably be the people who said they met an alien being, talked to an alien being, or touched an alien being.

The existence of strange objects in the sky that could not be identified or other strange events that did not have an easy explanation can still be consistent with Hawking's views, but the reports of people who say they personally met ET or talked to ET are not consistent with his views.

Pages and pages of what boils down to common logical fallacies:

1: Negative proof - Claimant demands proof that the "null hypothesis" is true.

2: Burden of Proof - Claimant demands others prove the claimant's assertions to be true as "due diligence".

3: Appeal to popularity - If enough people make a similar claim then it's "tantamount" to proof.

4: Genetic fallacy - Claimant rejects anything from those they label as "skeptic" and "blind debunker".

5: Ad Nauseum - Claimant repeats claim throughout entire thread rather than addressing specific indictments.

6: Ad Hominem - Claimant attacks the character of others instead of responding to their arguments.

7: Appeal to Authority - If Edgar Mitchell said it, it must be true.

8: Appeal to common belief - Edgar Mitchell said it.

9: Straw Man Fallacy - Claimant misrepresents the position of those with whom they disagree in lieu of addressing their actual position.

JiggyPotamus
I think that denying the possibility that some UFO's are controlled by extraterrestrials is quite ignorant. How can anyone think they possess a knowledge so advanced that they can answer such questions by dismissing the possibility? Even someone who doesn't believe in aliens, or in aliens visiting earth, should at the very least acknowledge the possibility. It just seems like common sense to me to be honest.

Agreed. And the Universe is (by earthly accounts) vast. We can't even travel, what, a mere light year yet? Who are we to make or jump to conclusions?

What's amusing is that in just a few thousand (or tens of thousand—your guess is as good as mine, if we survive as a species) years time, our race may play role of extraterrestrial visitor to a primitive civilisation light years (or in another dimension, if such a thing exists) from planet Earth, and elect to study them quietly, or risk provoking widespread panic. This theory is easily debunked, too.

JiggyPotamus
I think that denying the possibility that some UFO's are controlled by extraterrestrials is quite ignorant. How can anyone think they possess a knowledge so advanced that they can answer such questions by dismissing the possibility? Even someone who doesn't believe in aliens, or in aliens visiting earth, should at the very least acknowledge the possibility. It just seems like common sense to me to be honest.

Correct. "Denying the possibility" that UFOs are alien craft would be wrong. However, I'm not sure how many skeptics outright deny that possibility.

The ET explanation for UFOs is one possible explanation (i.e., it is within the realm of possibility), but that does not necessarily make the ETH proven.

reply to post by Defragmentor

What's amusing is that in just a few thousand (or tens of thousand—your guess is as good as mine, if we survive as a species) years time, our race may play role of extraterrestrial visitor to a primitive civilisation light years (or in another dimension, if such a thing exists) from planet Earth, and elect to study them quietly, or risk provoking widespread panic. This theory is easily debunked, too.

Very true.
If you are in accordance with the "humans created by ET intelligence theory", you have to wonder that in the not too distant future, humanity will be able to journey to distant worlds, find primitive life, and then alter it genetically for whatever desired purpose the same way our geneticists conduct experiments today such as cloning. By then we would have a deeper understanding of subjects such as DNA code sequencing just like our alleged alien ancestors had. If you are a advocate of there being intelligent life out there somewhere, then this theory is very highly plausible, taking into consideration the human nature to explore, create, and control. The aliens would have these same desires as well.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant

 

ETH is falsifiable if it is shown that a significant number of reports are bogus. But falsifying would also require that the evidence in other domains are also bogus - such as landing traces, abductee reports etc.

ET may or may not be involved with sightings, landing traces or abduction reports. in fact, these all may be separate things. crop circles are lumped in with landing traces. if crop circles are falsified because people can make them easily, then that should falsify any circle left on the ground. abductions can be explained and even reproduced.

How does falsifying a "significant" number of reports falsify the ETH? To me a "significant" number was reached last week but more reports came in. At what point can we stop and say the ETH has been falsified and any future reports of UFOs are "bogus" by default?

As cool as all these reports are, there is nothing linking them to ET which we don't even know exists. Why cant my missing socks be due to aliens? There is no other explanation and I had a weird dream about aliens.

The ETH is not based on missing socks. People don't arbitrarily ascribe ET to ufos, abduction reports and so on. The hypothesis is based on sound arguments. And it is built up on an accumulation of data. Falsifying ETH requires that much of this evidence and the arguments based thereon can be reasoned to be an unlikely explanation. This has not been done so the hypothesis still stands.

A significant number of falsifications is determined by what is a reasonable percentage. People will disagree on what is reasonable but that is not the point. The point is that in principle the various items of evidence can be falsified. Not all of them can so many of them would have to be put on hold. But there are also the arguments that support ETH and these arguments would have to be shown to be unreasonable. We are not dealing with one thing here, we are dealing with many things so it is a question of percentages.

BayesLike

EnPassant
No. But if there is a preponderance of witness reports that strengthens the ETH it is a valid hypothesis and it is falsifiable. ETH is falsifiable if it is shown that a significant number of reports are bogus. But falsifying would also require that the evidence in other domains are also bogus - such as landing traces, abductee reports etc. this is very difficult but practical difficulties are not the issue here. All that is required is that in principle reports etc are falsifiable and I don't see anything in ufology that is not falsifiable.

With your clique's procedure we can use the same exact evidence to show Elvis is alive or that Santa Claus is real. We don't have to change anything in the stories other than replacing the label "alien" with Elvis or Santa. Collected stories are not evidence. They are just stories. There is nothing inherently alien in a story except for what you wish to believe. The entire assertion is mere self-delusion.

You can't compare ufo evidence to Elvis. This shows that you have not thought seriously about the evidence that is available. They are not merely a collection of stories. They are accounts that back each other up and show a consistent pattern.

reply to post by neoholographic


Did you check the links you are posting yourself? The majority seem to be invalid. The few that work use the term UFO, but there is no mention of extraterrestrials piloting this UFOs. So how are they supposed to support your ET hypothesis?

Btw, I think this has been asked already, but how do you define or identify an extraterrestrial being?

reply to post by EnPassant

The ETH is not based on missing socks.

I have ruled out every conceivable explanation yet my socks remain missing? If abductions occur than why couldn't my abductors steal my socks?

People don't arbitrarily ascribe ET to ufos, abduction reports and so on. The hypothesis is based on sound arguments. And it is built up on an accumulation of data. Falsifying ETH requires that much of this evidence and the arguments based thereon can be reasoned to be an unlikely explanation.

Who determines unlikeliness? Mainstream science has determined this unlikely already. Even if we were all to agree to an unlikeliness, there will still be a likeliness. There is no real "likeliness" or "unlikeliness" but the possibility remains. Likelihood is a mathematical term. What math can you show to determine likeliness? I think what you mean is show how ETH is not possible which can't be done.

This has not been done so the hypothesis still stands.
A significant number of falsifications is determined by what is a reasonable percentage. People will disagree on what is reasonable but that is not the point. The point is that in principle the various items of evidence can be falsified. Not all of them can so many of them would have to be put on hold. But there are also the arguments that support ETH and these arguments would have to be shown to be unreasonable. We are not dealing with one thing here, we are dealing with many things so it is a question of percentages

There is no defined way to do this.
At what point do we agree that there is a reasonable unlikeliness and all future sightings are bogus? If we decide right now that 99% of cases must be shown to be "bogus" and that figure is reached today, tomorrow it will be 98%.

ZetaRediculianI have ruled out every conceivable explanation yet my socks remain missing? If abductions occur than why couldn't my abductors steal my socks?

There is no surrounding argument to your missing socks to make it reasonable to assume ET took your socks. There are many connected arguments that back up ETH

Who determines unlikeliness? Mainstream science has determined this unlikely already. Even if we were all to agree to an unlikeliness, there will still be a likeliness. There is no real "likeliness" or "unlikeliness" but the possibility remains. Likelihood is a mathematical term. What math can you show to determine likeliness? I think what you mean is show how ETH is not possible which can't be done.

So much for mainstream science. There are no hard rules to determine what is likely in terms of falsification. But ETH has not even begun to be falsified.

At what point do we agree that there is a reasonable unlikeliness and all future sightings are bogus? If we decide right now that 99% of cases must be shown to be "bogus" and that figure is reached today, tomorrow it will be 98%.

I can't speak for future sightings. Reasonable people will agree on what is reasonable (more or less). At what point does global warming threaten civilisation? Nobody knows but that point exists (somewhere below sea temperatures of 99 degrees Celsius, I should think) and disagreeing about it will not make it go away.