The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

If you're posting examples of UFO evidence you find credible, you're kinda missing the point of this thread.

EnPassant
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.

This isn't being argued. In fact, it has been said many times on this thread by the people labeled as skeptics that it is impossible to totally falsify the ETH. I mean, how could it be falsified?. Even if we find that 99.9999% of the cases have non-ET explanations, how can we be sure that their isn't one of those 0.0001% out that that is truly an ET.

However, not being able to falsify 0.0001% is not the same as proof that the 0.0001% only has an ET explanation -- it is not proof in the ETH.

Specific UFO sighting reports may be able to be falsified by finding a non-ET explanation. Other specific UFO reports maybe cannot be falsified, and an explanation (ET or non-ET) may not be able to be proven at all, which leaves those reports "unidentified". However a report that winds up being "unidentified" in of itself is not proof of the ETH.

Personally, I think the ET hypothesis is an explanation for UFOs that falls within the realm of possibility. Could some UFO reports actually be alien craft? Sure, I suppose; why not?

I can NOT prove that no UFO sightings are alien craft...

...But so what?

EnPassant

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.

edit on 14-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Great points!

The problem is, blind debunkers misuse science when it comes to U.F.O.'s and the paranormal.

For instance, eyewitness accounts. They will say eyewitness accounts can't even be mentioned with science and this just isn't the case. Eyewitnesses helped Scientist understand things like comets, meteors, the northern lights and more.

Scientist look at data and then build a hypothesis that best explains the data. Here's an example:

Inflation. Many scientist came to the conclusion that inflation was most likely correct because it was an explanation that best fit the observed data. It explained things like why is the CMB is uniform. Sometime technology isn't in place to test these things but scientist still weigh the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the observed data.

With the ET hypothesis you have mountains of evidence and the ET hypothesis is the best explanation to fit the data. Just think about it, if you accept the ET hypothesis as true it explains everything. The only questions that would remain is the origin of these extraterrestrials. If you assume the ET hypothesis is true, there isn't any more questions about the data. The U.F.O. phenomena would be explained.

The only reason the U.F.O. phenomena is still unexplained is because of the blind rejection of the ET hypothesis. This blind rejection stems from fear, a belief or something else. There isn't any other explanation that fits the data. If there was there wouldn't be a need to invoke the ET hypothesis.

Look at crop circles. If you were to assume that aliens create crop circles it wouldn't be plausible because you have a much better explanation of the data that you have to get past which is humans can create these intricate patterns. So the null isn't refuted.

Like I said, this isn't the case with the ET hypothesis. There isn't any better explanation that fits all of the data. Blind Debunkers act like people who accept the ET hypothesis just rolled out of bed and said, maybe I'll believe that ET hypothesis today. The fact is there's mountains of data associated with the U.F.O. phenomena and the best explanation that fits the data is the ET hypothesis.

So if you accept the ET hypothesis, U.F.O.'s are explained. If you reject the hypothesis you're still in the land of the unknown and it's because you reject the explanation that fits the data.

reply to post by EnPassant

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

I have read reports about abductees being returned to their beds with their clothes on wrong. It is quite possible that if I was abducted that they forgot to put my socks back on or just picked them up of the floor. Others have reported missing socks. There was a UFO report in my area. What exactly is the requirement?

Soylent Green Is People

EnPassant
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.

This isn't being argued. In fact, it has been said many times on this thread by the people labeled as skeptics that it is impossible to totally falsify the ETH. I mean, how could it be falsified?. Even if we find that 99.9999% of the cases have non-ET explanations, how can we be sure that their isn't one of those 0.0001% out that that is truly an ET.

However, not being able to falsify 0.0001% is not the same as proof that the 0.0001% only has an ET explanation -- it is not proof in the ETH.

Specific UFO sighting reports may be able to be falsified by finding a non-ET explanation. Other specific UFO reports maybe cannot be falsified, and an explanation (ET or non-ET) may not be able to be proven at all, which leaves those reports "unidentified". However a report that winds up being "unidentified" in of itself is not proof of the ETH.

Personally, I think the ET hypothesis is an explanation for UFOs that falls within the realm of possibility. Could some UFO reports actually be alien craft? Sure, I suppose; why not?

I can NOT prove that no UFO sightings are alien craft...

...But so what?

edit on 4/14/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

You are taking things to extremes. 'Totally falsify' means to disprove. A hypothesis is not a proof, it is just that, a hypothesis. It is based on the idea that ET is a good explanation for the evidence being considered. Falsifying this hypothesis means showing that it is not a good explanation. The thing is, you cannot fit this into ordinary science, no more than you can fit psychology into science or psychoanalysis. It is not the kind of science that can be measured with a micrometre or put in a test tube. It is more fluid than that and requires a great deal of intelligent argument to deal with. It is not necessary to totally falsify it. It is only necessary to show that the ETH is not reasonable.

It is not a truly scientific hypothesis, it is a common sense hypothesis but a hypothesis nonetheless and it needs to be considered in these terms. Trying to fit it into scientific criteria only complicates the debate. Some of it, but not all of it, can be fitted into science but we need very smart people, like Vallee, to both state the facts and interpret them.

neoholographic

Like I said, this isn't the case with the ET hypothesis. There isn't any better explanation that fits all of the data. Blind Debunkers act like people who accept the ET hypothesis just rolled out of bed and said, maybe I'll believe that ET hypothesis today. The fact is there's mountains of data associated with the U.F.O. phenomena and the best explanation that fits the data is the ET hypothesis.

How about magic? No proof of that either and it's just as convenient a panacea.

Or are you one of those blind debunkers who act like there's no such thing as magic... or Bigfoot?

neoholographicInflation. Many scientist came to the conclusion that inflation was most likely correct because it was an explanation that best fit the observed data. It explained things like why is the CMB is uniform. Sometime technology isn't in place to test these things but scientist still weigh the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the observed data.

The ETH is not a strictly scientific hypothesis. It is a common sense hypothesis but scientific method can be used to analyse it - that is why we are talking about falsifiability. But, because the hypothesis will not truly lend itself to science, we are not justified in requiring it to fit the criteria of scientific proof. There are other kinds of proof and there are standards such as 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The ETH is entirely justified by common sense - not to mention those aspects of it that can be analysed scientifically, such as landing traces etc.

We can still apply the concept of falsifiability to a common sense hypothesis and the fact that it is a common sense hypothesis makes it no less a (falsifiable) hypothesis.

reply to post by neoholographic

Or you replace ET with time travelers, visitors from parallel universes, paranormal phenomenons.

So how does ET hypothesis explain anything? Looks more like a convenient gap filler than anything else. If we don't have enough data to identify something, it must be aliens!

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant

 

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

I have read reports about abductees being returned to their beds with their clothes on wrong. It is quite possible that if I was abducted that they forgot to put my socks back on or just picked them up of the floor. Others have reported missing socks. There was a UFO report in my area. What exactly is the requirement?

I thought you were being facetious when you mentioned socks. The requirement is that there is consistency in the reports, or at least that there are items in the reports that can be cross-referenced. In this way reports back each other up. For example, many people have heard a humming sound coming from these craft. People who have no background knowledge of ufology have reported this. It is the emergence of themes such as this that give reports credibility and convince us that they are reports of real experiences. All this backs up the ETH

EnPassant
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.

Of course I can. Given the level of evidence you have established is sufficient, Elvis is proven to be alive. There is nothing in your level of evidence which requires an alien, it is quite sufficient to say it's just Elvis. The accounts, like you note, are claimed to back each other up (without real evidence other than stories from various people often collected weeks later) . In fact, we can do better with Elvis than with murky aliens.... People often see Elvis, get his signature, hear him sing and talk, and some even travel with him. Best of all: everyone knows what Elvis looks and sounds like so there is no chance of easy misidentification.

Heck, the radar evidence is just ground clutter from Elvis' limos. He has a small fleet of them so sometimes they seem to be moving rapidly as they reflect in a series. Other times, they move erratically because Elvis is driving and he's had a little much to drink. Show me where I'm wrong on this! The burden of proof according to your gang is not on me -- it's on you to show I'm wrong in each specific claim I make.

Elvis is known to like to camp out and he occasionally leaves burned marks on the ground from his campfires. Lights are seen in the woods are reflections of camp fires from his sequined jacket -- that's why they can change colors. He's really worried about CO2 and allergic to smoke though so he brings detectors with him on the camp outs. Sometimes, he tosses one in the fire if they don't work right. So there's a radioactive trace occasionally. Show me where I'm wrong on this! The burden of proof according to your gang is not on me. It's exactly your level of evidence. It's all tied together and explained by Elvis.

Lights in the sky? Yep -- Elvis. He loves to fly in all types of planes, choppers and balloons. And you just gotta know that sequined jacket is highly reflective! The colors do change, but you know that with sequins and crystals that happens a lot. Have you ever seen him on stage with a stage spot on it? The way he moves -- well, it's just unnatural. No one can explain how he does his gyrations even though we have it on tape. Show me where I'm wrong on this! The burden of proof according to your gang is not on me!

Abductions? Well this is just Elvis impersonators. One is known to have been a stage hypnotist prior to becoming an Elvis impersonator. I can't find his name offhand.... Anyway, he picks up hitchhikers and people with car problems and gives them a lift. Some hitchhikers get so overwhelmed at the whole experience that they lose control. So, this impersonator hypnotizes and provides other stories. He's got a weird sense off humor though and sometimes he suggest an alien abduction. Show me where I'm wrong on this! The burden of proof according to your gang is not on me -- it's on you to show I'm wrong. It's exactly your level of evidence. It's all tied together and explained by Elvis.

As I've pointed out right from the start -- you don't have any requirement for anything to be shown to be alien in your methodology or in the extremely poor excuse for a "hypothesis." Worse, you guys don't even bother to define what alien means in terms of an observation. So I'm free to substitute anything and make up any story to connect the dots. A long time ago, collections of stories is how the Greek and Roman pantheons (gods, if you don't know the word) were proven to exist. You can claim what you are doing is science, but your little group's procedure is just a childish imitation of the scientific method. It's badly flawed.

TrueMessiah
reply to post by Defragmentor

 

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.

Yes. It's a frightening and thought-provoking exercise.

What would our motives be? Would we try to overtake their civilisation, and if so, how would we achieve that goal? Would we have evolved beyond war and bloodshed and come in quiet peace? Would we make contact? Would we try and prevent their destruction, if that was occurring? Would we make mistakes ('to err is human')? Would we be sighted/could our craft suffer failure in their atmosphere and crash? Their leaders/council might need to prevent widespread panic: their equivalent of a G20 might have to be in the loop. Spin, layers of disinformation . . .

The parallels may seem a little ironic, if even the theory quickly debunked as highly improbable (life elsewhere out there has not been proven/will we ever achieve the means to travel deep space/would another civilisation even remotely resemble our own—and doubtless a million-and-one other points at which to take umbrage).

BTW, I don't think you even need to reach out as far for a "humans created by ET intelligence" theory. If you consider the Big Bang theory, widely accepted within the scientific community, of one giant explosion occurring (around 13-14 billion years ago) containing all the elements necessary for life and matter, and that that explosion is still expanding outward, distributing those elements: who indeed can preclude other planets contain—from the get-go—the necessary ingredients for life as we know it?

EnPassant
'Totally falsify' means to disprove. A hypothesis is not a proof, it is just that, a hypothesis. It is based on the idea that ET is a good explanation for the evidence being considered. Falsifying this hypothesis means showing that it is not a good explanation.

I disagree. The only way to falsify the ET hypothesis for any single particular UFO report would be to find hard proof of what it really was if it wasn't aliens. For example, if an eyewitness sees a light in the sky, and that witness describes it as "hovering and slowly moving side-to-side" UFO, I can attempt to provide an explanation that the eyewitness misidentified a plane with its landing light on, flying in the general direction toward the eyewitness (hence the apparent hovering and side-to-side motion), but without hard evidence that it was a plane, I could be wrong, and it could have been an alien craft.

Maybe it was just a plane, because what the eyewitness described did seem to be plane-like, but I can't prove that it was a plane. Therefore, the ET hypothesis for that sighting is still not falsified.

The thing is, you cannot fit this into ordinary science, no more than you can fit psychology into science or psychoanalysis. It is not the kind of science that can be measured with a micrometre or put in a test tube. It is more fluid than that and requires a great deal of intelligent argument to deal with. It is not necessary to totally falsify it. It is only necessary to show that the ETH is not reasonable.

You seem to be saying "if you can't explain it, then 'Aliens' is the best explanation". However, to me "unexplained" mean just that -- unexplained. If we are to arbitrarily assign the ET explanation to a sighting that is not expalainable, then we may as well arbitrarily assign other explanations -- such as secret military craft.

What makes "Aliens" so much more likely of an explanation for an event that is not readily explainable than "Secret Military Craft" (or other non-ET explanation) for that same event?

Is the ET hypothesis possible? Sure. Is there proof of it? No.

BayesLike Elvis

There is no reason to believe Elvis has an agenda. There is evidence that ET does. That is why ETH is more convincing than Elvis.

EnPassant

BayesLike Elvis

There is no reason to believe Elvis has an agenda. There is evidence that ET does. That is why ETH is more convincing than Elvis.

Elvis existed. There is no evidence that ET does. That is why the Elvis Hypothesis is more convincing than ETH.

reply to post by EnPassant

It is only necessary to show that the ETH is not reasonable.

in my opinion, Its reasonable to believe in ETH but unreasonable to declare it as a scientific fact. It is also reasonable to believe that the phenomenon is a psychological phenomenon for lack of a better word. It is also unreasonable to declare it as such as well. There is no reason to be deterred from exploring the subject in any number of ways. I spent last night watching the Angels and Demons explanation and must say they have every right to think of it that way. It is no less valid then any other way to believe.

It is not a truly scientific hypothesis, it is a common sense hypothesis but a hypothesis nonetheless and it needs to be considered in these terms.

You would be much better off dumping science from the equation. No one can prevent you from believing the way you want. There is no way to determine subjective beliefs in a scientific way. Your common sense may be different from others common sense. Trying to force your common sense into others belief system will get you nowhere. This is what's happening here. Nobody is telling anyone else what to believe except for neo. We all have to agree with him or else we make no sense.

Trying to fit it into scientific criteria only complicates the debate. Some of it, but not all of it, can be fitted into science but we need very smart people, like Vallee, to both state the facts and interpret them.

Vallee rejects the ETH in favor of the interdimensional hypothesis.

Double post. See above (four posts up)

Soylent Green Is PeopleI disagree. The only way to falsify the ET hypothesis for any single particular UFO report would be to find hard proof of what it really was if it wasn't aliens.

You are trying to apply rigid scientific criteria to a hypothesis that is not strictly scientific. It is a reasonable hypothesis and only a reasonable falsification is required. The thinking behind the ETH is more subtle and requires a lot of common sense, savvy, and intelligence. A common sense argument can have the force of scientific proof but it is not scientific. Science is not the only way to knowledge.

You seem to be saying "if you can't explain it, then 'Aliens' is the best explanation". However, to me "unexplained" mean just that -- unexplained.What makes "Aliens" so much more likely of an explanation for an event that is not readily explainable than "Secret Military Craft" (or other non-ET explanation) for that same event?

No. I am saying that ET is a convincing argument, for many reasons. It is not 'It must be aliens'. Military craft might be an explanation for some sightings but not all. These craft were being seen as dirigibles long before technology even got planes off the ground.

Is the ET hypothesis possible? Sure. Is there proof of it? No.

It is not about proof - at least not scientific proof. Common sense and an astute argument based on reason can prove things. Science is not the only way to knowledge.

reply to post by BayesLike


Elvis is the coolest.

ZetaRediculianYou would be much better off dumping science from the equation. No one can prevent you from believing the way you want. There is no way to determine subjective beliefs in a scientific way. Your common sense may be different from others common sense. Trying to force your common sense into others belief system will get you nowhere.

Yes, but it is still possible to debate which is the best common sense explanation.

Vallee rejects the ETH in favor of the interdimensional hypothesis.

Yes, when the interdimensional hypothesis came into vogue a false dichotomy was set up: ET or interdimensional. But they can be both ET and interdimensional. They seem to be sprits (like us) with bodies (like us).

EnPassant
It is not about proof - at least not scientific proof. Common sense and an astute argument based on reason can prove things. Science is not the only way to knowledge.

Hmm. I'm not sure about that one.

Let's forget alien visitation of Earth for a minute. Let's instead consider the question of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

I personally believe that there is almost surely life elsewhere. I'm 99.9999...% sure of it, considering the circumstantial information we have ( [1] the size of the universe, and [2] Our knowledge on extremophile life, and how life seems to thrive anywhere once it takes hold).

However, I don't yet know there is life elsewhere. "Belief" and "Knowledge" are two different things. My belief is strong, but my belief could be wrong. To actually know that life exists elsewhere (i.e., for it to become a "Truth", with a capital "T"), I think we would need to somehow come in contact with that life, either directly or indirectly.


Back to the ET hypothesis for UFOs:
You are welcome to feel the evidence for the ET hypothesis is enough for you to "believe" in that hypothesis, but I can't see how that evidence would be enough to make you "know". Like I said, "Belief" and "Knowledge" are two different things, and they require different levels of evidence.