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: 24
8
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You said:


The issue is "data". If you want to allow "data" that has nothing to do with UFOs , that's an issue.


LOL, I thank you for showing how strong the data is that supports the ET hypothesis.

What data did I allow that has nothing to do with U.F.O.'s. When did I say that data that has nothing to do with U.F.O.'s should be used as evidence to support the ET hypothesis?

If I post a link and it has data about the the benefits of drinking milk, does that mean the data about milk is used as evidence for the ET hypothesis?

Wow, just wow.

You really make the data for the ET hypothesis very strong. It's so strong, you want to say data that has nothing to do with U.F.O.'s and has nothing to do with the ET hypothesis, is an issue. What's the issue if the data has nothing to do with the ET hypothesis. Who said that it had nothing to do with the ET hypothesis? YOU.

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis

Why should I care whether data is there or not there that has nothing to do with this:

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

Like I said, you truly make the evidence for the ET hypothesis very strong. You can't refute the evidence so you want to try and find a way to ignore the evidence by making silly arguments. This is why you said this:

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

Man, it's really sad when people are looking for ways to try and avoid the evidence because they can't refute.

If I post a link and it has a recipe on how to cook Cheesecake on it, does that mean the recipe has something to do with the ET hypothesis? Oh yeah, you answered that question.

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



If I post a link and it has data about the the benefits of drinking milk, does that mean the data about milk is used as evidence for the ET hypothesis?

There is a really obvious issue here. YOU posted links over and over and over that YOU said supported the ETH. Some of the links were articles that had nothing to do with your claim. YOU misrepresented information. I brought it to your attention and suggested you might want to clean up what you think you are representing. My bad. Some links might be about Bigfoot, unicorns, drinking milk. who knows? Not my problem.

If you cant get this obvious point, I am really at a loss and don't know why there would be anything else to "discuss". I looked over some of the other links and found a lot of the same issues. Again, not my problem.


Your data, your link

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.


Second Trace article:

This catalogue brings together many of the cases where traces have been placed in a UFO context -- even if a UFO was not reported in association with the event.


Not sure why I wasted my time here. I will let the thread die now.
edit on 16-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


I agree, time to move on from arguments that have nothing to do with the ET hypothesis.

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Here's an article about a new book coming out:


Two Italian journalists have scoured newly declassified files of the Italian Air Force in order to find the juiciest UFO files for their new book, UFO, I dossier italiani (UFOs – The Italian Dossier).

Italian journalists Lao Petrilli and Vincenzo Sinapi say they looked through thousands of documents to find UFO reports from all over Italy. They say reports came in from all types of people, including airline pilots, jet fighter pilots, the police, military, and even priests.

The files were previously stamped as Secret or Confidential, and have been saved for reference in regards to flight safety. They say many of the files were previously unpublished.


Link

They listed this case as one of the cases in the book.


Il Mattino summarized some of the sightings from the Campania region of Southern Italy, whose capital is the city of Naples. One of these was in the town of Grazzanise, the home of one of Italy’s most important military airports. On February 8, 2005, a flight controller registered a UFO on radar. A C130 transport aircraft flying in the area confirmed the presence of the UFO.


Does anyone know anything about this case?
edit on 16-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   

EnPassant
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.


Not at all a problem. Under a reasonable null hypothesis, these would be independent and we can easily work with the joint distribution of the null. It's only in the alternate hypothesis that you may want these linked. That doesn't change anything in the basic procedure. In fact, complex alternatives are reasonably common.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   

neoholographic
If I say:

"No Toyota's come in blue"

I don't need to look at all Toyota's in order to falsify the null. When I spot a blue Toyota the null which is assumed to be true is now (FALSE) ified. This is why it's called falsification.


Well, that depends on what you mean by "come in blue." If you mean new Toyotas are sold at dealerships in blue, you have to somehow show it was a new blue Toyota sold at a dealership. Merely seeing a blue Toyota would not be enough, and seeing a blue car would certainly not even come close. And somewhere, you would need to deal with green and other combo colors , because many green pigments are a combination of blue and yellow. But, once everything is defined, finding just one case would be sufficient since that form of a hypothesis assumes 0 population in the new blue toyota alternate.

And that's the problem with the silly null hypothesis you are promoting and what is also wrong with your method. You see, to say a UFO is driven by an alien, you have to show there is an alien. You can't just assume there is an alien and hand-waiving doesn't cut it either. We are all still waiting for an alien to show up. If we ever do have an alien, it won't matter at all if there is a UFO or not. He could be driving a blue Toyota.

So, you have a silly null hypothesis on many levels. As soon as there is an alien it's irrelevant. Until there is an alien, you can't do anything with it other than to say no UFOs are driven by aliens. Which is all any "debunker" is already saying.
edit on 314am14America/Chicago37032kAmerica/Chicago by BayesLike because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   

EnPassant
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.


What you are missing here and in the former posting is you are completely forgetting the null hypothesis. What we have to determine is if the reported observations of (in this case) witnesses of unknows with some set of characteristics is abnormal given the continuum of all possible observations under the null hypothesis. Remember that, when we test a hypothesis, what we are doing is saying how rare the sample of observations would be if the null was actually correct. We only reject the null hypothesis if the entire sample of observations is sufficiently rare. So we cannot ignore all of the observations which occur daily, some of which will definitely contain unusual observations if we take a big enough sample to contain enough UFO sightings to actually do the testing.

In a very real sense, what you are doing is forgetting about the 100's of billions (trillions?) of observations daily (hourly?) of which the witness is just one case. In fact, UFO sightings probably would not be the weirdest sightings!!!! But we are only going to look to see if there are more unknowns sighted with predefined characteristics than would be reasonably expected to occur by chance alone in a sample of the same sort under the null hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 




In a very real sense, what you are doing is forgetting about the 100's of billions (trillions?) of observations daily (hourly?) of which the witness is just one case.

No. Not forgetting. It's something else.
www.sciencedaily.com...
edit on 4/17/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



I agree, time to move on from arguments that have nothing to do with the ET hypothesis.

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis.

Good. make sure you post this along with your links now.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Box of Rain
 


No, I am saying ETH is falsifiable.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   

BayesLike

EnPassant
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.


What you are missing here and in the former posting is you are completely forgetting the null hypothesis. What we have to determine is if the reported observations of (in this case) witnesses of unknows with some set of characteristics is abnormal given the continuum of all possible observations under the null hypothesis. Remember that, when we test a hypothesis, what we are doing is saying how rare the sample of observations would be if the null was actually correct. We only reject the null hypothesis if the entire sample of observations is sufficiently rare. So we cannot ignore all of the observations which occur daily, some of which will definitely contain unusual observations if we take a big enough sample to contain enough UFO sightings to actually do the testing.

In a very real sense, what you are doing is forgetting about the 100's of billions (trillions?) of observations daily (hourly?) of which the witness is just one case. In fact, UFO sightings probably would not be the weirdest sightings!!!! But we are only going to look to see if there are more unknowns sighted with predefined characteristics than would be reasonably expected to occur by chance alone in a sample of the same sort under the null hypothesis.


No. You are not being asked to refute every sighting. You are being presented with a report on which the hypothesis is built and your only concern is this report. The hypothesis ignores many things and does not need them for support.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Phage

www.sciencedaily.com...


Once someone understands that Confirmation Bias is operative he begins to see it everywhere.

edit on 17-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:31 AM
link   

EnPassant
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.


Alas, it is only "falsifiable" in your mind and in Neo's mind. Technically, the concept of "falsifiable" is not correct. The right attributes are testablility and admissibility. But those are very technical issues and you two are getting stuck on the REALLY EASY stuff.

This whole thing is a mess because not a single thing is defined and as soon as possible the aliens are dropped in favor of "behaviors" of UFOs. Nothing regarding behaviors of UFOs is admissible and nothing about aliens can be tested with them. You guys can't define what an alien controlling a UFO would actually do because you don't have any known aliens or UFOs to watch to separate their behaviors from any other possible behavior. For all you know, any given UFO case could be the rich kid down the street projecting holograms on something.

When testing a hypothesis, we either reject the null or fail to reject the null. We do not accept the alternate nor do we ever accept the null. The focus is always on how rare the sample is relative to a sample taken under the null hypothesis. You cannot focus on the alternate
nor on just a few observations that you find interesting. The test involves the ENTIRE sample and only the NULL hypothesis.

What all of this means is that you guys are looking at everything backwards. It's a very common beginner's error.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   

EnPassant
No. You are not being asked to refute every sighting. You are being presented with a report on which the hypothesis is built and your only concern is this report. The hypothesis ignores many things and does not need them for support.


I didn't say that. And that is never done when testing a hypothesis. What is done in any valid hypothesis test is to state how rare the sample was (the entire sample) under the null hypothesis. If it is rare, we may reject the null. If it is not rare, we fail to reject the null. We do not accept either the null or the alternate. The focus is always on the null and whether the null is adequate for explaining the observations we get in the sample.

A real simple case to illustrate: coin tossing. The null hypothesis is the coin is fair (50:50 odds of heads and tails) and the alternate is that it is not fair (not 50:50 odds in either direction). We toss the coin 100 times and count the number of heads (and tails by subtraction). If we get 40 heads and 60 tails or a wider split, that is rare under the null hypothesis and we reject the null that the coin is fair. If we get 48 heads and 52 tails, that is very likely under the null hypothesis so we fail to reject the null hypothesis. It doesn't matter if there was a long string of tails in the 100 tosses or not for either of these examples.

We DON'T pick a subgroup of the coin tosses and refute anything. We DO look at all the tosses as a whole. Any order of heads and tails is allowed because any order is possible under the null hypothesis -- even 48 heads followed by 52 tails is permitted. In fact, that has to happen with a known frequency if the coin is fair. If it wasn't possible, the coin would not be a fair coin. No where in this was the alternate mentioned. It's not part of the testing per se. The alternate does help define the sample and the test statistic. But beyond that, the alternate does not participate in the testing.
edit on 416am14America/Chicago25000kAmerica/Chicago by BayesLike because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

BayesLike
This whole thing is a mess because not a single thing is defined and as soon as possible the aliens are dropped in favor of "behaviors" of UFOs. Nothing regarding behaviors of UFOs is admissible and nothing about aliens can be tested with them. You guys can't define what an alien controlling a UFO would actually do because you don't have any known aliens or UFOs to watch to separate their behaviors from any other possible behavior. For all you know, any given UFO case could be the rich kid down the street projecting holograms on something...

...What all of this means is that you guys are looking at everything backwards. It's a very common beginner's error.


I agree. Maybe I am missing the point on EnPassant's and Neo's argument, but from what I understand about their positions, it seems to me I can show the problem with that argument using this example.

Example:

Person #1 is a person who has an interest in the idea of alien visitation. He investigates a certain sighting of a light in the sky making 90 degree turns and crazy maneuvers. He states his hypothesis as "That light in the sky may be an alien craft" and he tests the hypothesis by looking for other known non-alien explanations. He finds no known non-alien explanation , so thus he declares that, due to the lack of finding any other known explanation, his hypothesis is correct.

Now, let's say person #2 is an aviation enthusiast who has an interest in secret advanced military aircraft. He investigates that same report of that light in the sky doing crazy stuff. He states the hypothesis "That light in the sky may be a secret advanced militarily aircraft"and he tests the hypothesis by looking for other known non-secret aircraft explanations. He finds no known non-secret aircraft explanation, so thus he declares that, due to the lack of finding any other known explanation, his hypothesis is correct.

So now we have two hypotheses for that same sighting that both seem to be valid, using the standards set by the OP. The problem here (the reason we can have two seemingly valid hypotheses) is that there is no definition of what makes the maneuvers of the craft in the above example "alien", just like there is no known definition of what makes the maneuvers "a secret advanced aircraft". So depending on what your stated hypothesis is going in, you can come out proving two different hypotheses for the same event.


Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to say that every report of a strange light in the sky is a secret aircraft; I'm just using this one example to illustrate my point. The example above can be slightly reworded and used for many diverse UFO reports. UFO reports are much more diverse, and there is not one single explanation that is a catch-all -- which I think may be another problem with some alien visitation believers; they take too many diverse UFO reports and try to explain them all under s vaguely defined umbrella explanation of "Aliens" (but that's another issue).


edit on 4/17/2014 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Box of Rain
 

The alien or extraterrestrial definition is the fundamental issue imho. ET proponents are using UFO cases to define ET, and then use ET as an explanation for UFO cases. Which is circular reasoning as pointed pout by BayesLike.

Or in more general terms, they are using something unknown(the ET) to explain something unknown(the UFO).



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Quite rightly, how does one know with 100% certainty that a craft doing right-angle turns isn't ours? If there are scientists and physicists working for the government behind-the-scenes, who knows what technology they have?

The key may lie with the early sightings in the 1940-50's: were the Russians or the Germans responsible for the wave of sightings in America during this time period? However, Germany didn't appear to use these craft in the war to, for example, immobilise individuals (e.g. Valensole case).

Furthermore, what to make of the close encounters of the third kind cases (Varginha, Betty/Barney Hill, Travis Walton, Valensole, Ilkley Moor, et. al.)? Are all the witnesses honestly making these things up? What's their motive for doing so?

These are honest questions enquiring minds must ask.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Box of Rain
 


Yes but ETH is more comprehensive than that. It is saying that ETH is the best explanation when other hypothesis, such as military aircraft, are considered. The arguments behind ETH are hugely involved and include many things. It has looked at the alternative explanations and still asserts its premise.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


Again, here's the key. You said:


You see, to say a UFO is driven by an alien, you have to show there is an alien.


I have debated this over and over again on this thread and each time the debunkers make me look like Nostradamus. You guys want to debate the existence of Aliens. The ET hypothesis is not about the existence of extraterrestrials. The ET hypthesis is about the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

If I were debating the existence of extraterrestrials then I would have to falsify the existence of extraterrestrials. This is why earlier in the debate debunkers kept talking about showing a multiverse doesn't exist. You guys are stuck on the existence of aliens because you can't refute or debate the mountains of evidence when it comes to U.F.O.'s in support of the ET hypothesis.

U.F.O.'s are an observed phenomena. So because you're dealing with an observed phenomena, things like eyewitness accounts are very important when building an understanding of these observed phenomena. Scientist had to do this with comets, meteors, the northern lights and more. Let's look at meteors:


Silliman believed the meteor had a cosmic origin, but meteors did not attract much attention from astronomers until the spectacular meteor storm of November 1833.[51] People all across the eastern United States saw thousands of meteors, radiating from a single point in the sky. Astute observers noticed that the radiant, as the point is now called, moved with the stars, staying in the constellation Leo.[52]

The astronomer Denison Olmsted made an extensive study of this storm, and concluded it had a cosmic origin. After reviewing historical records, Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers predicted the storm's return in 1867, which drew the attention of other astronomers to the phenomenon.


ASTUTE OBSERVERS.

Scientist used ASTUTE OBSERVERS to get a better understanding of an OBSERVED PHENOMENA.

Let's get back to U.F.O.'s.

Again, the ET hypothesis is supported by the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s There's no need to prove the existence of aliens. The evidence shows that with U.F.O., you're dealing with an observed phenomena that involves intelligently controlled craft. U.F.O.'s evade capture, move in ways that defies current understanding, trace evidence, radar evidence, physical evidence, malfunctioning nukes, eyewitness accounts, close encounters and more.

All I have to do is show that extraterrestrials are a plausible explanation over the fairy godmother, elves, unicorns creating rainbows and ogres to be controlling these intelligently controlled crafts. That's easily shown when you look at people like Hawking saying it's ALMOST CERTAIN INTELLIGENT ALIENS EXIST.

You have this:







www.ufohastings.com...

And this:

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...

So what's the null hypothesis?

"No U.F.O. are CONTROLLED by extraterrestrials"

How do you falsify the null?

You show correlations between two measurements.

U.F.O.'s and radar reports, U.F.O.'s and trace evidence, U.F.O.'s and the malfunctions of nukes, U.F.O.'s and physical evidence, U.F.O.'s and eyewitness accounts, U.F.O.'s and close encounters.

The way you falsify the null is to show this correlation doesn't exist or that there's a better explanation that explains this correlation.

The fact is, you can't do this because if there were a better explanation for this correlation then we wouldn't have to invoke extraterrestrials. If there were ATS could close this forum.

There's no explanation that fits the data from these observed correlations than the ET hypothesis.

I go back to crop circles. Science can say this:

No crop circles are created by aliens.

Why can they say this? Because there's a better explanation that explains the observed phenomena of crop circles. We have correlations between crop circles and human beings that are able to make these intricate patterns. So the proponents of aliens create crop circles have a high bar because they have to show a crop circle that couldn't be made by human beings.

So the null is no aliens create crop circles and this has to be assumed true until proponents provide evidence that shows that human beings couldn't make a particular crop circle.

IT'S NOT THE JOB OF SCIENCE TO PROVE THE ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS.

This is why the null is assumed true until falsehood is demonstrated. This is why it's called FALSIFICATION.

So again, debunkers want to debate the existence of aliens because they can't debate or refute the mountains of evidence surrounding the observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

moebius
reply to post by Box of Rain
 

The alien or extraterrestrial definition is the fundamental issue imho. ET proponents are using UFO cases to define ET, and then use ET as an explanation for UFO cases. Which is circular reasoning as pointed pout by BayesLike.

Or in more general terms, they are using something unknown(the ET) to explain something unknown(the UFO).


It is not circular reasoning. It is simply observation. Biologists don't know what rare species are like until they discover them. How could we know what aliens look like until we see them? Are you saying that they should fit into our preconceived notions before we admit them? There are triangular ufos. Are we to say they can't be alien simply because they are triangular and don't fit what we might have expected? We can only look and see.




top topics



 
8
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join