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.
yes the thread should have died on the first page. There is no way to prove " No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials"
There is nothing different, they are both not known to exist. We can add time travelers, Natzis, x-men, atlantians, god, angels, demons and anything else you can think of. or we can look at current knowledge of human perceptions and memory which is very misunderstood and flat ignored.
That is not true. Aliens are in my belief system but it is impossible to Identify something as "alien" when we don't know what constitutes an alien.
Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by EnPassant
Lets' take one example of a common "sighting": People who say they see something that they thought was a star, but it begins to noticeably "wobble".
It is a known phenomenon that after staring at an object (like a star) for a period of time, an illusion can occur that makes object appear to wobble when it really is not. Considering this is a known illusion , we cannot use the quantity of these reports as evidence that it is anything other than an illusion...
...i.e., it is a fallacy to use the argument "Well, maybe some of these is an illusion, but the high number of these reports leads me to believe it can't be just an illusion".
Granted -- we can get into "wildly zigzagging maneuvers", but that's another issue with other potential explanations (based on the details of the case) beside "aliens".
Unless one is really willing to neglect the witnesses, evidence and the thoughtful field research of highly credible sane people.We can soundly ignore them for being E.Ts but we stick to human perceptions doing tricks on ourselves. Now thats quite scientific to me
draknoir2
neoholographic
What you said is just a huge contradiction. You do understand that the ET hypothesis identifies U.F.O.'s.
Cite s SINGLE instance where a U.F.O. was positively identified as an intelligently-controlled craft of extraterrestrial origin.
Unfortunately not too much of it draws from the study of perceptions and memory.
No. Not really.
Instances where a group has a shared experience would rule that out I believe.
Loftus and Palmer argue that two kinds of information go into a person's memory of a complex event. The first is the information obtained from perceiving the event, and the second is the other information supplied to us after the event. Over time, information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable to tell from which source some specific detail is recalled. All we have is one 'memory'. This argument is called the reconstructive hypothesis.
Individual eyewitness recall reports were gathered from witnesses (29 undergraduates) who were later put into 4 groups to discuss and reach a consensus on a description of a simulated crime they had witnessed. Groups gave more complete reports but at the price of a significant increase in errors of commission (the fabrication of details under group pressure). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
It was found that individuals tend to agree in their testimony following group discussion, and are liable to change their original replies to bring themselves into agreement with group leaders' recall.
What are magical U.F.O.'s?
When debunkers start using words like magical, elves, ogres and unicorns creating rainbows you know they're losing the debate badly.
No.
To falsify ETH requires a refutation of these techniques; it requires that an alternative explanation be put forward and this alternative would have to be based on analysis.
Although the null hypothesis cannot be proven true, it can be proven false. This is because science and hypothesis testing are based on the logic of falsification. If someone claims that all swans are white, confirmatory evidence (in the form of lots of white swans) cannot prove the assertion to be true. However, contradictory evidence (in the form of a single black swan) makes it clear that the claim is invalid.
The first of the following statements comes from an online document entitled “Converting Research Questions into Statistical Hypotheses.” The second statement comes from an article authored by a medical statistician at the University of Cambridge. The third statement comes from a university’s online study-skills document. (Note the phrases can disprove and to be disproved that appear in the second and third passages.)
"Remember we can never prove the null hypothesis. All we can prove is that there is a relationship or effect (H1) between two or more variables."
"The point is that we can disprove statements, but we can not prove them. This is the principle of disconfirmation, and it forms the basis for scientific inquiry . . . . Now, knowing that we can’t prove a hypothesis but can disprove it, we take the tact of attempting to disprove the null hypothesis. If we are successful then we have, in an admittedly backwards and somewhat convoluted manner, supported our real hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis. While you can’t prove that a statement or hypothesis is true, you can disprove that its opposite is true, thereby obtaining the desired result, provided that there are no possibilities other than your hypothesis and its opposite. It is really a rather ingenious system."
"A null hypothesis is a working hypothesis that is to be disproved by a statistical test in favour of the alternative hypothesis."
neoholographic
We don't need to know what constitutes an alien in order to build the ET hypothesis it's based on the data surrounding U.F.O.'s. It's what lead what lead Hawking to the conclusion that he's ALMOST CERTAIN they exist.
neoholographic
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
No it's not a strawman argument. It's laid out for you beautifully in the ET hypothesis.
So to assert that skeptics think there is no other intelligent life in the universe is not a valid assessment of most skeptics that I have encountered. That's why saying otherwise is a strawman.
neoholographic
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
What?
Talk about strawmen. Where did I ever say this:
So to assert that skeptics think there is no other intelligent life in the universe is not a valid assessment of most skeptics that I have encountered. That's why saying otherwise is a strawman.
When did I ever say:
"SKEPTICS THINK THERE'S NO OTHER INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE"
This is the perfect example of a strawman argument. You make up things that I never said and then debate against those things.
neoholographic
It's what lead what lead Hawking to the conclusion that he's ALMOST CERTAIN they exist.