The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

neoholographic
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I spelled it out several times. When you say Alien life is almost certain to exist that strengthens the ET hypothesis because you can't then limit what technology they may have based on our current understanding of physics.

So you are saying that intelligent aliens are so intelligent that (between them as a group) it is a necessarily true fact that they know every nook and cranny of the universe, and that they definitely have the ability to get to every nook and cranny of the universe, and that they definitely know we humans are here on earth?

I disagree. I think the universe is so massive, and conveniently easy interstellar space travel may not be as ubiquitous among aliens as you think, and that it is entirely possible that other alien civilizations either don't know we are here or (even if they do) can't come here to visit or quickly contact us.

I don't get why it is necessarily so that EVERY planet in the entire universe is one that is able to be visited by an intelligent alien.

reply to post by neoholographic

you can't then limit what technology they may have based on our current understanding of physics

This is quite true. They may even be responsible for the unicorns that create rainbows. I am also wondering if they are responsible for why perfectly logical sentences don't make sense to you? Like I said their advanced technology is aimed directly at peoples brains.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


This is a good question.

So you are saying that intelligent aliens are so intelligent that (between them as a group) it is a necessarily true fact that they know every nook and cranny of the universe, and that they definitely have the ability to get to every nook and cranny of the universe, and that they definitely know we humans are here on earth?

This goes back to me pointing out that debunkers have an all or nothing mentality. So all observers are equally unreliable. There's no distinctions so there's no common sense.

So intelligent aliens wouldn't have to get to every nook and cranny of the universe to find us. If they did, they wouldn't be very intelligent.

Right now, we will not have to go to every nook and cranny of the universe to find life. We will look for things like bio-signatures and as technology gets better we could even seed the universe with probes to look for signs of life. Some of these things are being worked on right now.

So intelligent aliens wouldn't have to get to every nook and cranny of the universe to find life. As we get better and better bio signatures life on other planets will become even easier to pin point.

Phage
To falsify the ETH it must be shown that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials." That is something the OP got right. What he got wrong is that it is possible to do so.

This is wrong. To falsify it only requires a significant falsification of the EVIDENCE or an alternative explanation for that evidence. ETH is based on evidence and its refutation only requires a refutation of that evidence and the reasoning that arises from it. You are talking about absolute falsification which is equivalent to a disproof. Any reasonable person will understand when enough is enough and say ETH has been falsified if that point is reached. ETH is a reasonable hypothesis and as such it only needs to be falsified within reason.

reply to post by neoholographic


I strongly suspect that an in depth study has been done on the ET question - perhaps decades ago. The Russians, French and Chinese probably done their analysis too and they have now drawn their conclusions with regard to ETH; they know; they are not stupid.

But they are not going to go on Oprah Winfrey or Larry King and tell us.

The bogus excuses like 'swamp gas' and such things give the impression that this is a comedy for the world of science but behind the scenes they have done their work and the results are in. This is what needs to be done in civilian society. Qualified people need to get together to answer the question - but who is going to pay them?

reply to post by EnPassant

This is wrong. To falsify it only requires a significant falsification of the EVIDENCE or an alternative explanation for that evidence.

This is the guts of it. The null hypothesis is a statistics problem, not a scientific method problem. The statistical evidence weighs in favor of the ETH which falsifies the null hypothesis. I suppose it comes down to a matter of individual taste.

usertwelve
reply to post by EnPassant

 

This is wrong. To falsify it only requires a significant falsification of the EVIDENCE or an alternative explanation for that evidence.

This is the guts of it. The null hypothesis is a statistics problem, not a scientific method problem. The statistical evidence weighs in favor of the ETH which falsifies the null hypothesis. I suppose it comes down to a matter of individual taste.

Welcome to the party!!!!

It comes down to the data and the data favors the ET hypothesis.

When people say silly things like unicorns creating rainbows, it can't refute the null hypothesis because there's zero evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.

The ET hypothesis fits the data and therefore refutes the null.

neoholographic
So intelligent aliens wouldn't have to get to every nook and cranny of the universe to find us. If they did, they wouldn't be very intelligent.

Right now, we will not have to go to every nook and cranny of the universe to find life. We will look for things like bio-signatures and as technology gets better we could even seed the universe with probes to look for signs of life. Some of these things are being worked on right now.

So intelligent aliens wouldn't have to get to every nook and cranny of the universe to find life. As we get better and better bio signatures life on other planets will become even easier to pin point.

It sounds as if you are saying that, just like our searches of life thus far have not looked everywhere, aliens with the technology to find us may not have not yet looked directly our way.

So, yeah -- they may rely on the biosignatures and other indirect signs of life on earth to find us. I agree. However, considering our signatures of life and civilization only travel light speed, and thus they have only gone as many light years in distance equal to the number of years that light had to travel.

Considering that, the question would be "at what point in our civilization would our signatures be interesting enough for an alien to come visit us?".

I would argue that simple biosignatures are surely not enough. I think biosignatures are so common around the universe (and even around the Galaxy) that just a simple biosignature saying "there is some kind of life here" would be such a common thing that finding a planet might not be that meaningful. Finding a biosignature may not be a big deal to them because it may be so common.

The important signatures would be the one that tells ET that were have a civilization here on earth, such as the signatures we have been putting out for 5000 to 10000 years. That may be enough to get their attention and make us worth visiting. But then again, maybe even intelligent life is so common that finding it on Earth would not be that big a deal for them. maybe that puts Earth on the list of places to visit, but doesn't put us at the top of that list -- and that list may be very long.

I think the signature that might get their attention would be the one that shows were are a technological/industrial civilization, but that signature has not traveled very far, because our technological civilization is very young. That signature of light may not have reached the aliens detectors yet.


You may argue that they have some super-duper way of "sucking" the light carrying our biosignature and other signs of civilization towards them faster than the speed of light, but that would be some wild speculation that would simply make this a fun "what if" scenario and not really a discussion about proof that aliens are visiting us.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


This is just speculation about how another civilization may view us. You said:

Considering that, the question would be "at what point in our civilization would our signatures be interesting enough for an alien to come visit us?".

The only thing that matters is the ET hypothesis provides data that says they are visiting us.

If I were to speculate why they would come visit us it can be anything from resources, curiosity to recreation.

reply to post by neoholographic

This goes back to me pointing out that debunkers have an all or nothing mentality. So all observers are equally unreliable. There's no distinctions so there's no common sense.

I'm not so sure anyone is saying this. I am glad you understand what a straw man is so you can clarify if you like. I am not speaking for everyone but the general idea is that all humans have human perceptions. I am not seeing the all or nothing in the argument. Yes, some observers are better than others. In the cases of multiple witnesses, some see alien spaceships and others see a swarm of lights. In the cases where the sightings were shown to be a reentry event, the people that saw a swarm of lights were better observers than those that saw aliens.

There just doesn't seem to be any way to distinguish an alien spaceship from something else.

reply to post by EnPassant


Good points and I suspect the same thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there has been studies that advise Governments against disclosure because it could be destabilizing. It probably would and began to reduce the power of corrupt Governments.

neoholographic
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

This is just speculation about how another civilization may view us. You said:

Considering that, the question would be "at what point in our civilization would our signatures be interesting enough for an alien to come visit us?".

The only thing that matters is the ET hypothesis provides data that says they are visiting us.

If I were to speculate why they would come visit us it can be anything from resources, curiosity to recreation.

Well, whether or not the data "proves" the ETH is a matter of opinion, but that's another debate.

I thought one of your previous arguments was that since we can't set limits on the technology of aliens, that means it is necessarily the case that:

(1) they have the ability to find the signs to know we are here.
(2) they actually found those signs that we are here.
(3) they have the ability to come visit us.
(4) Earth is uncommon enough to make it one of the places they decide to visit.

Ergo, it is a necessarily true fact that they are visiting.

The last one seems to me that it might indicate that (if we were to subscribe to that last point) the galaxy may not have a lot of technological civilizations in it. If the galaxy was teeming with technological civilizations, then what puts us on the list of places to visit among those other civilizations? Have these aliens visited them all?

This all sounds to me like, if true, we should already have very clear no-doubt-about-it indications that they are here. It seems to me that if the above were true, these aliens would be walking openly among us. Why aren't they?

reply to post by usertwelve

This is the guts of it. The null hypothesis is a statistics problem, not a scientific method problem. The statistical evidence weighs in favor of the ETH which falsifies the null hypothesis. I suppose it comes down to a matter of individual taste.

Its only a statistical problem if there is actual statistics to show. I haven't seen any and nothing has been defined. "Statistical evidence" needs to be in a statistical format. Bluebook was an attempt at that. Showing YouTube videos and links to ufo websites is not statistical information.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

Its only a statistical problem if there is actual statistics to show. I haven't seen any and nothing has been defined. "Statistical evidence" needs to be in a statistical format. Bluebook was an attempt at that. Showing YouTube videos and links to ufo websites is not statistical information.

The statistics are the data introduced by unexplained phenomena. There are events reported in various forms and given our understanding of earth originated technology we must look to the hypothesis that such phenomena is created by some form of intelligence based on the reported behavior. One could also create a hypothesis based on a secret organization that controls this advanced technology. But that gets into the ETH and we're talking about the null.

Because it is a statistical problem in that the amount of evidence is the statistic there will be those that will require more evidence to rule out the null. So there's really no way to be right or wrong here as I see it.

reply to post by EnPassant

To falsify it only requires a significant falsification of the EVIDENCE or an alternative explanation for that evidence.

No. What you are talking about would be invalidation of evidence in favor of the hypothesis. A hypothesis is not falsified by invalidation of evidence. A hypothesis can be weakened by invalidation of evidence but it is not falsified by it.

Falsification of a hypothesis is carried out by verification of the null hypothesis. Falsification is carried out by obtaining evidence which validates the null. The OP states that the null is: "No UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials." This is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

reply to post by Phage


Wrong yet again. You said:

Falsification of a hypothesis is carried out by verification of the null hypothesis. Falsification is carried out by obtaining evidence which validates the null.

This is just so wrong it isn't even funny. You don't validate or verify the null, you need to refute the null hypothesis. This means showing evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis.

You have to assume the null hypothesis is true so there's no need to verify or validate it. Here's more:

In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential medical treatment has no effect.[2] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

In statistical significance, the null hypothesis is often denoted H0 (read “H-nought” in Britain or "H-zero" in America ), and is generally assumed true until evidence indicates otherwise

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, there's no need to validate or verify the null you have to assume that it's true until EVIDENCE INDICATES OTHERWISE!

This is why I have been presenting EVIDENCE that refutes the null.

You have really said some unscientific things on this thread. From unicorns creating rainbows to this.

reply to post by usertwelve

Because it is a statistical problem in that the amount of evidence is the statistic there will be those that will require more evidence to rule out the null.

I am still not clear on what the actual statistical problem is. If you are saying that a percentage of cases need to be ruled out to show "no UFOs are due to ET", that still doesn't rule it out. As stated, its not a statistical problem. Lets say we agree that 99% of cases need to be explained as being due to something else to meet the requirement of "no UFOs are due to ET" and lets say we are looking at 1000 cases. That leaves us 10 cases as unexplained or due to aliens? Then, new cases come in.

Then there is the problem of what is defined as "evidence".

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

www.project1947.com...

This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.

In addition to these problems we have a major definitional problem concerning cases which feature circular ground traces because of the current confusion which exists over the authenticity of the archetypal crop circle. Doug and Dave claimed to have actually created the phenomenon of a sharply-defined swirled circle, but they apparently based their hoax on the Tully reeds circles, which themselves were sharply-defined swirled circles. Given this regrettable fact, what do we include in our definition of a crop circle? Do we include roughly circular shapes of depressed but not swirled circles or do we stick to sharp-edged circles? How about burned circles or circles where the crop has been denuded or completely removed? Given these problems its probably wise to merely highlight all cases involving circular traces but not assume that they are necessarily caused by the same causal mechanism. It is quite possible that there may be several natural circle-forming mechanisms which all create different types of circular ground trace. One of these mechanisms could still be Meaden's postulated plasma-vortex but it is wise not to assume that any particular category of circular ground trace must be caused by the postulated plasma vortex. In any event we will be trying to track down case material referred to by Phillips and will report back in a future issue.

So as "evidence" that has been submitted there is no clear distinction between "Trace Evidence" and "Crop Circles". The OP has clearly stated that crop circles are definitely not alien but yet they are included in his "mountain of evidence".

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Again, this isn't how science works. You said:

I am still not clear on what the actual statistical problem is. If you are saying that a percentage of cases need to be ruled out to show "no UFOs are due to ET", that still doesn't rule it out. As stated, its not a statistical problem. Lets say we agree that 99% of cases need to be explained as being due to something else to meet the requirement of "no UFOs are due to ET" and lets say we are looking at 1000 cases. That leaves us 10 cases as unexplained or due to aliens? Then, new cases come in.

Here's more on the null hypothesis.

In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential medical treatment has no effect.[2] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

In statistical significance, the null hypothesis is often denoted H0 (read “H-nought” in Britain or "H-zero" in America ), and is generally assumed true until evidence indicates otherwise

So it's not about 100 cases and 10 unexplained.

There needs to be a relationship between two observed phenomena.

This is U.F.O.'s and trace evidence, physical evidence, eyewitness accounts, close encounters, radar reports, U.F.O.'s causing malfunctions at nuke plants and more.

So again, it's not about one case. It's about the accumulation of evidence and data that's used to build the hypothesis.

Most debunkers never want to evaluate the evidence in a scientific way, they want to try and debunk a case here or there then they think they have done something. That's not science.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

I am still not clear on what the actual statistical problem is. If you are saying that a percentage of cases need to be ruled out to show "no UFOs are due to ET", that still doesn't rule it out.

To falsify the null we only have to have a single instance where an ET has been involved. So this thread boils down to whether or not you have chosen to believe in some instance or if you are still unconvinced. In other words, it's a matter of opinion.

In the end those that are convinced by the evidence will falsify the null, and those that are not convinced will not. To add a null hypothesis to ETH is basically the same as debating one's belief in the alternate hypothesis.

The statistics just helps with forming the opinion.

reply to post by neoholographic

Again, there's no need to validate or verify the null you have to assume that it's true until EVIDENCE INDICATES OTHERWISE!

This is why I have been presenting EVIDENCE that refutes the null.

OHHHHHH! I get it now. You make sure that you have all your "evidence" first that convinces you of your hypothesis and then you set up the null and refute it!


By saying " No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials." is refuted by showing "evidence" of something you think is aliens refutes something that cant be shown to begin with and therefore shows aliens.