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: 16
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

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.


ok, I get your point but one doesn't roll out of bed and believe; there are levels of belief and levels of justification. I think that the belief in ET is justified by the evidence, but that's what the discussion is about; can this belief be justified.

Scientific proof is not the only type of proof. I can prove, at least to myself, that I drank wine one Christmas day. I remember it. I can't prove it scientifically but it is true. In fact, we go about our day to day business working on this level. We don't understand the world scientifically on our day to day business; we understand it intuitively, by experience and by intelligence. We grasp the world by our understanding of what is real. Experience tells how to discern reality.

This is the level on which ETH exists. We use our mental faculties in a non scientific way to draw conclusions. I see no reason why this kind of thinking should be inferior to scientific thinking; they both have their limitations but are both valid.




posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 



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

The "debate" here has nothing to do with the best common sense explanation. The only thing going on here is about someone's over inflated ego and how many times they can call someone a blind debunker. Do you think the "debate" has been productive so far? If I want to discuss some aspect of perception as it could actually relate to a specific group of cases, it is impossible. Heck I can't speculate or even bring up hypotheticals if it has nothing to do with agreeing with the OP. No, I am not interested in debates with "master debaters".

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy reading the confused thought and horrible logic. It is very entertaining.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

ZetaRediculianThe "debate" here has nothing to do with the best common sense explanation.

Given the title, this thread was never supposed to be about a common sense explanation (it was about specific hypotheses) yet the OP is pulling the discussion towards emotional pleas and Youtube vids.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 




This is the level on which ETH exists. We use our mental faculties in a non scientific way to draw conclusions. I see no reason why this kind of thinking should be inferior to scientific thinking; they both have their limitations but are both valid.

So you agree that in spite of the claims of the OP, the ETH is a not falsifiable scientific hypothesis. That's the point that some of us have been trying to get across.

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



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   

draknoir2
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.


edit on 14-4-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


And boy have we seen everyone of these in this thread...

BTW can one person explain to me why these need to be aliens in the first place?

One would think that after 6000 years of writing and modern communication we would have more than pictures and eye witness reports, but we don't, and the eye witness is the worst form of evidence going. Maybe we need to give it another 6000 years to actually build a case.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
The ET hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis in every way.

For some reason people act like science = biology. In biology or chemistry you study things like cells and the composition of elements. Even then, these fields of study have to build theories to explain the observed data.

The ET Hypothesis is scientific because it explains an observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s.

The ET hypothesis is based on data associated with U.F.O.'s.

The ET hypothesis isn't based on extraterrestrials. I don't need to sit across from a Alien at a bar-b-cue in order to build the ET hypothesis. It's strictly based on data associated with the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s.

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...

This is data associated with the U.F.O. Phenomena.





Someone said earlier that you need to show a multiverse doesn't exist. You don't need to show a multiverse exists or an extraterrestrial exist in order to build a hypothesis. It's the observed data that predicts a multiverse. Scientist aren't pulling these things out of a hat. The same with the ET hypothesis. The debate isn't about the existence of extraterrestrials, it's about the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s. This is why I keep presenting DATA that surrounds U.F.O.'s. and the data predicts the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. I don't need to falsify the existence of extraterrestrials in order to falsify the ET hypothesis. The hypothesis is built upon data surrounding the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s

If the ET hypothesis was just about extraterrestrials then I would need to falsify extraterrestrials. The hypothesis is built on observed data from U.F.O.'s.

The way you falsify the ET hypothesis is give a better explanation for the observed data surrounding U.F.O.'s. You don't need to falsify the existence of extraterrestrials.

Again, the ET hypothesis is not a debate about the existence of Aliens. Like Hawking, I agree it's ALMOST CERTAIN that intelligent aliens exist. The ET hypothesis is about the data from the evidence surrounding an observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s.

So you don't need to show that aliens exist in order for the ET hypothesis to show some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials. Aliens have to just be a plausible.

The problem here is debunkers want to debate the existence of extraterrestrials and avoid the data surrounding U.F.O.'s.
edit on 14-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




The problem here is debunkers want to debate the existence of extraterrestrials and avoid the data surrounding U.F.O.'s.

No. The problem here is that you claim the ETH is a falsifiable hypothesis.

It isn't. It cannot be shown that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials."

It cannot be shown that Bigfoot does not exist.
It cannot be shown that unicorns do not create rainbows.

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



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Sure it can just read the post up above. It spells it out for you because I think you're the one that talked about showing a multiverse doesn't exist and oh, unicorns creating rainbows.

If I'm wrong about how science works in the previous post explain to me where I'm wrong.

You're like a parrot and you keep saying the same things with no substance.

If I'm wrong about how science works tell me where I'm wrong.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





If I'm wrong about how science works in the previous post explain to me where I'm wrong.


I have. Many times.

You are confusing verification of data with falsification of a hypothesis.

It is not possible to show that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials." It is not falsifiable. I said it in my first post and I continue to say it because it is a fact. No matter how many times you post your links, it does not change that fact. The ETH is not falsifiable.

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



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You're making me feel like a psychic. I just said debunkers want to debate existence and you said this:


It cannot be shown that Bigfoot does not exist.
It cannot be shown that unicorns do not create rainbows.


Why does science need to show that bigfoot doesn't exist or the silly unicorns doesn't exist? The most science can do is demonstrate the falsehood of a theory or hypothesis, it doesn't have to show something nonsensical like unicorns creating rainbows doesn't exist.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




Why does science need to show that bigfoot doesn't exist or the silly unicorns doesn't exist?


It doesn't need to.
That does not change the fact that the existence of Bigfoot is not falsifiable or that the ETH is not falsifiable.

A hypothesis need not be falsifiable to be valid. I've been saying that all along as well.

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



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Sure it is:

You said:


You are confusing verification of data with falsification of a hypothesis.


Again, you like other debunkers are obsessed with debating the existence of extraterrestrials and unicorns because you can't refute the evidence.

What am I verifying exactly?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




What am I verifying exactly?


You keep posting the same links over and over and over and over.

None of those links indicate that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" is a verifiable hypothesis. None of those links indicate that the ETH is falsifiable. That is the topic of this thread.



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



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You still haven't answered the question because it's an important one and it's the reason why I keep posting the links.

What exactly am I verifying? I know you want to repeat the same thing over and over again because debunkers always try to debate existence. After you repeat the same nonsense over again, could you answer the question?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

EnPassant
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.


Common sense, held only to the same standard, proves: Elvis is alive, Santa Claus delivers presents, and the Greek and Roman gods exist too. The "subtle thinking, savvy, and intelligence" is more along the lines of outright self-delusion that meaningful evidence has been provided. As noted, if this was all that was needed to believe something existed then we might as well start building temples to the Greek and Roman gods again. And we should be buying tickets to Elvis concerts! Thankfully, in the past few thousand years, we have learned not to delude ourselves in this fashion. It is in fact the scientific method which has rescued us from this type of self delusion. Real things can and do have examinable cause and effect. And yes, real things can be subjected to repeatable (at will) experiments to elicit their properties. Man has become very good at this.

Do I think that the existence of visits by ETs should be considered? Absolutely. There are valid questions which have been raised to which valid answers are deserved. But having a number of strange things noted outside of a lab setting is not evidence of ETs -- that can only raise suspicions at best. If there really are ETs visiting, get the artifacts and bring them into the lab where they can be studied under controlled conditions -- so we know what we are examining. If there are no artifacts to study despite dozens to hundreds of crashes and abductions, that tells us a lot all by itself. We would need an explanation of how this lack occurs if ETs are actively visiting -- lacking some explanation of how entire crashed craft totally disappear all the time, without exception, it is far more reasonable to assume the observers saw something else.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




What exactly am I verifying?

You are posting "evidence" in favor of the ET hypothesis. That "evidence" could indicate that some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials but even if it doesn't it is not possible to show that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So are you saying that I'm using the evidence to verify the ET hypothesis? I know you want to keep repeating the same thing in a vacuum but is this what you're saying?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Ding! Ding! Ding!
Give the man a kewpie doll.

It doesn't matter how many times you post those links. It does not show that the ETH is falsifiable. It cannot be shown that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials."




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



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


None of that evidence requires an alien. What you have is merely a collection of stories about things which have happened that has not been explained to someone's satisfaction. So what? It is possible to come up with a general cause for each and every one of them without invoking aliens. Whether or not you like the explanation is a totally personal problem. So these do not rise to the level of admissible evidence.

Get some actual artifacts which are truly impossible in our experience (not just merely difficult or unlikely) and you would have a completely different conversation. But those artifacts simply don't exist -- at least in the public domain.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well, this makes absolutely no sense.

How can I be using the ET hypothesis to verify the data when the ET hypothesis is predicted by the data? So I ask again, what exactly am I verifying?

The ET hypothesis only exists because of the data surrounding U.F.O.'s. How can I use the data to verify a hypothesis that exist because of the data? What exactly am I verifying?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join