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: 22
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Wrong.

There's some people on this thread that just don't know how science works. From Phage down to Zeta.

I have heard some of the most unscientific things on this thread. The all or nothing mentality makes no sense and when you try to mix it with science it's even worse.




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


The correlation between two measurements. You're testing the alternative hypothesis in order to falsify the null.

In this case you would be testing if there's a correlation between the drug and the prevention of heart attacks. The null hypothesis is assumed to be true. You don't test the null, you falsify it by testing the alternative hypothesis and showing a correlation between two measurements.


With regards to "some UFOs are ET"

What are your 2 measurements?
what correlation are you showing?
How are you measuring the data?
What are you testing?
What are you using as your control group?
Where is your sample data?
How are you preventing bias in your sample?

Simple questions.

No, I will not accept your links as an answer. Your data contains dubious information by its own admittance.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 



Neo, you're making Zeta look good by repeatedly demanding proof of a negative.

I look good all on my own. Especially after a couple of beers..and a few shots of tequila.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


I answered your question over and over again and you need to refer to my previous post.

I'm done answering your questions because no matter what someone tells you, you turn around and ask the same questions over and over again.

I just spent 3 or 4 post going over the null.

I answered all your questions,

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


You are still breaking things down into their constituent parts. Radar sightings are often backed up by visual evidence, sometimes of a dramatic kind. You need to encompass all aspects and see how they back each other up.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

BayesLikeNo -- Zeta is right. All that is occurring here is an enumeration of selected special cases. You can't come up with a frequency of any of these observations within all normal observations, all normal misidentifieds, and all normal unidentifieds. You can't even do that in simple sub-categories, such as radar observations. Without that knowledge, you have no hope of determining if these UFO cases are abnormal (not typical under the null hypothesis) because these cases are extremely rare when you consider all observations.


You are ignoring the fact that there are special cases because of witness testimony. You just throw witness testimony out the window as if it did not count.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

EnPassant

BayesLikeNo -- Zeta is right. All that is occurring here is an enumeration of selected special cases. You can't come up with a frequency of any of these observations within all normal observations, all normal misidentifieds, and all normal unidentifieds. You can't even do that in simple sub-categories, such as radar observations. Without that knowledge, you have no hope of determining if these UFO cases are abnormal (not typical under the null hypothesis) because these cases are extremely rare when you consider all observations.


You are ignoring the fact that there are special cases because of witness testimony. You just throw witness testimony out the window as if it did not count.


Exactly!

Eyewitness testimony is very important when you're dealing with observed phenomena. This just goes back to the all or nothing mentality. All eyewitnesses must be equally unreliable and they say this because you have some very strong and reliable eyewitness accounts that they can't refute.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I have heard some of the most unscientific things on this thread. The all or nothing mentality makes no sense and when you try to mix it with science it's even worse.

You are missing the point. We are not talking about if the ETH has been falsified. We are talking about if it is falsifiable.

Go back to that wikipedia quote:

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

en.wikipedia.org...

It cannot be proven that the "some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" is false. It is not falsifiable.

edit on 4/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Radar sightings are often backed up by visual evidence, sometimes of a dramatic kind.
Often? Please define often. Are there more visual contacts with radar contacts than without radar? Are there radar contacts without visual contact? What percentage of each occur? Would these numbers enable us to determine if the visual evidence was merely coincidental with the radar evidence rather than being directly related?

Radar contacts also occur when there is nothing there (anomalous propagation). Similar conditions can cause visual mirages.

There are possibilities other than ET, but the point is, it cannot be shown that it was a not false radar contact. It cannot be falsified.

edit on 4/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


I answered your question over and over again and you need to refer to my previous post.

I'm done answering your questions because no matter what someone tells you, you turn around and ask the same questions over and over again.

I just spent 3 or 4 post going over the null.

I answered all your questions,

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So you did answer them. You are right. Here, I will summarize for everyone:

With regards to "some UFOs are ET"

What are your 2 measurements?
measurement A: alien evidence
measurement B: alien evidence

what correlation are you showing?
I am showing that evidence of aliens is evidence of aliens by showing evidence of aliens

How are you measuring the data?
For each piece of alien evidence, I score it alien.

What are you testing?
Evidence for aliens? Duh.

What are you using as your control group?
More evidence of aliens.

Where is your sample data?
The sample data is comprised of evidence of aliens.

How are you preventing bias in your sample?
By including more evidence of aliens which crowds out the bias.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
(stolen from interupt42)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Phage Go back to that wikipedia quote:
Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
en.wikipedia.org...
It cannot be proven that the ETH is false. It is not falsifiable.


You have to be clear about what the hypothesis is saying and why it is saying it. It is NOT saying 'There's a light in the sky, so it could be ET'

It is saying 'The characteristics of KNOWN lights or objects in the sky suggest ET'. The hypothesis is based on SPECIFIC examples.

This means that the null hypothesis must be set against these specific examples: NOT AGAINST EVERY LIGHT IN THE SKY.

Given this, it is, to my mind - at least in principle - possible to nullify the hypothesis. All one has to do is address those selected examples, one by one, and refute them.

In this way the hypothesis is falsifiable
edit on 16-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 

According to the OP, the hypothesis is:

SOME U.F.O.'S ARE FROM AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SOURCE.

With the alternate:

some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.


It is not falsifiable.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by EnPassant
 

According to the OP, the hypothesis is:

SOME U.F.O.'S ARE FROM AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SOURCE.

With the alternate:

some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.


It is not falsifiable.



Yes it is if you go through those SPECIFIC ufos that are meant by 'some ufos'. Just go and examine them and see if they can be falsified.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Like I said, I'm through answering your questions.

You obviously don't read what others post. You asked:


The sample data is comprised of evidence of aliens.


What does this nonsense mean?

Why do I need to show evidence of aliens?

You probably haven't read or understood most of the things I said.

I'm not going to spend 4 or 5 more post trying to explain to you what has been asked and answered. It's obvious no matter what is said, you will ask the same questions. So I will just refer you to my previous posts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by EnPassant
 

According to the OP, the hypothesis is:

SOME U.F.O.'S ARE FROM AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SOURCE.

With the alternate:

some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.


It is not falsifiable.



You can reduce it down to one conceptual example. Someone says "That ufo is ET". In principle you can, if you examine the sighting, falsify or confirm the statement. Practical difficulties are not the issue. The issue is that, in principle, there is no obstacle to falsification.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, did you read what you quoted?

You said:


A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.


I will put it in caps.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE AN OBSERVATION OR AN ARGUMENT WHICH PROVES THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION FALSE?

What's the statement in question?

"No U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials"

IS THERE AN ARGUMENT OR OBSERVATION THAT PROVES THIS STATEMENT FALSE?

Of course there is.

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...

What are the correlations that support this observation?

The correlation between UFO's and radar reports, the correlation between UFO's and trace evidence, the correlation between UFO's and physical evidence, the correlation between eyewitness accounts and close encounters.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Like I said, I'm through answering your questions.


OK. No big deal.

You obviously don't read what others post. You asked:

"The sample data is comprised of evidence of aliens."

No, I didn't ask that. That's the answer I thought you gave me. You provided data that was only comprised of evidence of aliens. As far as I can tell, that's what you are providing as your sample.

What does this nonsense mean?

I think what you mean is that your data is comprised only of evidence of aliens and that what we are comparing is that sample to other samples of alien evidence.



Why do I need to show evidence of aliens?

Because you are trying to show "some UFOs are ET"
Are you saying now that you don't have evidence of aliens?


You probably haven't read or understood most of the things I said.

probably.



I'm not going to spend 4 or 5 more post trying to explain to you what has been asked and answered.

OK good. Those posts are confusing and hard to follow for us slow folk. You probably could just write a few sentences

It's obvious no matter what is said, you will ask the same questions.
Well obviously if you repeat the same thing.

Just take a breath and clarify a few things. No big deal.
edit on 16-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Exactly!

The problem here is people try to turn science into something rigid and illogical when it comes to things like UFO's or the Paranormal.

So there's no distinctions. There's no common sense.

It's all or nothing. They have to deal in absolutes because they can't refute the evidence.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I am not sure why you keep posting this but can you address this issue?

from the trace evidence link, first article

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.

I apologize in advance since you probably avoided this question earlier but since you made it easy for me to find, why are you including dubious crop circle cases again?




top topics



 
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join