The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

reply to post by Box of Rain


I think Bayes hit it earlier. It has to do with "knowns". Both your examples deal with declaring something unknown as something else that is unknown which really can't be done.

Say someone sees a multicolored awesome UFO. My going in might be that the person had some kind endogenous bio-chemical experience. If I look at the effects of artificially administrating the biochemical in a laboratory and find that the subjective experiences are identical to what the UFO witness saw in every way shape and form, that's all I can say about it. Even though we know the biochemical exists in people and produces the same experiences, we may not know of any times that a spontaneous release has occurred in anyone ever that would produce the same effect. I could only say that they are similar experiences. However, there may be enough correlation to warrant further investigation.

BayesLike
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.

Rare in comparison to what? It is the people who are presenting the ETH that have picked the samples. They are presenting a case backed up by evidence. It has nothing to do with the myriad ufos in the sky. Most of them have been left out so they don't form any part of the hypothesis. It is pointless even mentioning them because they don't count. You keep going back to every light that drifts through they sky. ETH has nothing to do with this. It has to do with evidence of a certain kind. The vast majority of lights in the sky are not considered because ETH does not need them to be formulated. They have nothing to do with the question at all.

neoholographic
...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.

I believe intelligent aliens almost surely do exist. I also think that (because I believe that intelligent aliens probably do exist) that "aliens" is a possible explanation for UFO sightings.

However, I still don't see a strong enough quality (quality -- not quantity) of evidence to make me believe that the possibility of alien visitation is actually happening.

I know tigers exist, but if I hear a loud rustling through my woods (in the Northeastern U.S.) at night, I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that "Tigers exist, so it's plausible that sound was a tiger".

reply to post by Box of Rain


Again, that's where you're wrong.

The ET hypothesis is the only explanation that fits the data. So nobody is jumping to any conclusions. Nobody is just waking up one morning and saying, I think I will believe the ET hypothesis today.

It's the only explanation that fits the data.

If the ET hypothesis were accepted as true tomorrow, the observed phenomena of U.F.O.'s would be explained because the ET hypothesis fits the data.

As long as the ET hypothesis is blindly rejected, U.F.O.'s will remain unidentified ad infinitum.

reply to post by neoholographic

in reference to your meaningless links, you said:

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

EnPassant
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.

Yeah -- but each case has its own separate set of evidence that can't necessarily be cross-associated with another case. You are (again) assuming that alien visitation is real, then using that assumption to link the evidence from a variety of cases together, then turning around and saying the fact the evidence can be linked together is proof of alien visitation.

It's a backwards argument and a circular argument. You need something MORE than just "what if two separate cases are both aliens" to link the evidence from those cases together and call that link meaningful.

EnPassant

BayesLike
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.

Rare in comparison to what? It is the people who are presenting the ETH that have picked the samples. They are presenting a case backed up by evidence. It has nothing to do with they myriad ufos in the sky. Most of them have been left out so they don't form any part of the hypothesis. It is pointless even mentioning them because they don't count. You keep going back to every light that drifts through they sky. ETH has nothing to do with this. It has to do with evidence of a certain kind. The vast majority of lights in the sky are not considered because ETH does not need them to be formulated. They have nothing to do with the question at all.

BINGO!

This is just nonsense especially when dealing with an observed phenomena.

He said:

If it's rare we may reject the null hypothesis. What??????

If you're testing for Panspermia and you're looking at meteors and out of 100 meteors they find 2 that's transporting microbial life, would they reject the null because it's rare????????

Of course not.

I have heard so many things that have nothing to do with Science on this thread.

neoholographic
...The ET hypothesis is the only explanation that fits the data. So nobody is jumping to any conclusions. Nobody is just waking up one morning and saying, I think I will believe the ET hypothesis today...

If you look at each case as totally separate incidents, which for the most part they are, there are a variety of non-alien explanations (different for each type of incident) that carry as much validity as the alien explanation.

If you ask me how can I give one single explanation for the following:

(1) anomalous radar reports
(2) reports of electromagnetic weirdness, and
(3) reports of odd-shaped marks on the ground

I would admit that I cannot give one single explanation...

...but why would I be required to give one single explanation? What if each of these (and the specific cases associated with each of these) had its own separate explanation? What would be wrong with that?

What makes it necessarily the case that I need to give one blanket explanation for all incidents that relate to the above three categories?

reply to post by Box of Rain


You have touched on important point and I go back to the data. You asked:

What makes it necessarily the case that I need to give one blanket explanation for all incidents that relate to the above three categories?

It's because U.F.O.'s were associated to each of these three categories.

Radar reports. U.F.O.'s accompany these reports and some move in ways that defy our current understanding and some are chased and can't be caught.

U.F.O.'s accompany nukes malfunctioning and following and hovering over cars that stop working.

Odd shaped stuff on the ground. When a U.F.O. is seen then there damage to the ground or discharge on the ground, again it's associated with a U.F.O.

Again, there is a single explanation that explains the correlations. You're going on "what ifs"

Where's the evidence for these what ifs?

You're asking me to compare evidence with what ifs.

Hawking is correct, the evidence is undeniable.

Research from Jacques Vallee, Joe Jordan, Dr. L.A. Marzulli etc. confirms it.

All of this evidence IS being used in the MSM to promote an agenda.

"Michio Shillku" is a huge part of that agenda.

He is nothing more than another "NWO facilitator" as a quote below says.

He would NEVER be promoted by the MSM if he wasn't actually part of their agenda.

The truth will NEVER be found in the MSM.

It NEVER ceases to amaze me when ever someone cites a MSM link on ATS.

He's a "science" shill for the NWO, always ready to spin the story whatever way the CIA, or the Pentagon, or the NSA, or the NWO spin meisters at MIT or Harvard, or Columbia, or John Hopkins, or Tavistock want him to spin it. At the time, I guesstimated that Kaku's interview was part of a propaganda package to lay the groundwork for what the government would claim was a runaway 'pandemic' scenario which would emulate the 1918 kill off. Source

He says that global government is progress. One-world government means "Type 1 civilization". And all who oppose it are "terrorists".

Michio Kaku = Illuminati propaganda agent

Thought Provoker
Notice how almost all of his tweets start with the word "I?" Now, if you wanna pay him $50,000, I'm sure he'd be happy to do a speech on walk-ins for you... or polar bears in panties, or the medicinal uses of dung beetles, or how pretty rainbows are, or anything else you paid him for. I call him "Michio Shillku." But that's just me. I know a BS artist when I see one.

'Michio goes cuckoo and says you are a terrorist if you are against the NWO. He claims that the NWO is Type 1 attainment on the Kardashev scale. He also spews the false "alien gospel" to set the public up for the coming fake disclosure of the grigori as " Type 2 greys". Type 3 is obviously God and His angels, but what will the illuminati say they are?

Michio Kaku: People Who Oppose NWO Are 'Terrorists'

Michio Kaku – New World Order Facilitator

The science establishment is like the medical model – sterilized white suits with unchallengeable answers sent down to us from sacred Mount Know-It-All.

Until they’re disproven. Time and again.

The indoctrination is complete, the wars are underway, gobs of drugs were sold and people sickened, and whatever else they’re pushing is being consumed en masse…

You know this guy has to be the voice of the PTBs with all the press he gets. He’s set up as such an unchallengeable authority.

He may imply or claim “innocence” of any complicity, but I’ll bet he knows quite well which side his bread is buttered on. As many of them do.

Kaku’s job, like that of so many others, is to soften us up and prepare us to accept this technological takeover of mankind. Already they’re busy “mastering” nature with genetic tampering, geoengineering, and messing with electromagnetic weaponry. These programs are already in full swing, however cloaked.

Kaku is being used as the scientific white coat to help people swallow these pills and even happily enslave themselves to this Orwellian takeover.

As smart as this guy is, he definitely knows who’s pulling his strings, and he doesn’t mind the benefits. Unfortunately, much of the scientific community is blackmailed into towing the party line or they’ll lose their research grants or places in the scientific hierarchy or University system.

Still, I have no respect for anyone who cows to that, for whatever reason. It’s because people won’t stand up that humanity is becoming a full-on slave race.

These NWO pushers are everywhere. And they love the cloak of their bastardized “science” to supposedly validate their programs. After all, isn’t eugenics a science? Didn’t supposed scientists and dentists and University PhDs in white lab coats recommend we fluoridate the water supply, and host of other insanities?

www.zengardner.com...

reply to post by neoholographic

If you're testing for Panspermia and you're looking at meteors and out of 100 meteors they find 2 that's transporting microbial life, would they reject the null because it's rare????????

No. The microbial life found becomes known. All your common sense examples deal with known things. That's the difference. It doesn't matter how cool all your stories are. As you pointed out, they may have nothing to do with UFOs anyway. There is nothing distinguishing an alien encounter with anything else. You made that clear.

Again how do you test for aliens?

neoholographic
reply to post by Box of Rain

 

You have touched on important point and I go back to the data. You asked:

What makes it necessarily the case that I need to give one blanket explanation for all incidents that relate to the above three categories?

It's because U.F.O.'s were associated to each of these three categories.

Radar reports. U.F.O.'s accompany these reports and some move in ways that defy our current understanding and some are chased and can't be caught.

U.F.O.'s accompany nukes malfunctioning and following and hovering over cars that stop working.

Odd shaped stuff on the ground. When a U.F.O. is seen then there damage to the ground or discharge on the ground, again it's associated with a U.F.O.

Again, there is a single explanation that explains the correlations. You're going on "what ifs"

Where's the evidence for these what ifs?

You're asking me to compare evidence with what ifs.

Where did you link all the UFO's to each other and how did you go from the UFO association to the Extraterrestrial association?

Your inverted pyramid of assumptions is inherently unstable.

draknoir2

neoholographic
reply to post by Box of Rain

 

You have touched on important point and I go back to the data. You asked:

What makes it necessarily the case that I need to give one blanket explanation for all incidents that relate to the above three categories?

It's because U.F.O.'s were associated to each of these three categories.

Radar reports. U.F.O.'s accompany these reports and some move in ways that defy our current understanding and some are chased and can't be caught.

U.F.O.'s accompany nukes malfunctioning and following and hovering over cars that stop working.

Odd shaped stuff on the ground. When a U.F.O. is seen then there damage to the ground or discharge on the ground, again it's associated with a U.F.O.

Again, there is a single explanation that explains the correlations. You're going on "what ifs"

Where's the evidence for these what ifs?

You're asking me to compare evidence with what ifs.

Where did you link all the UFO's to each other and how did you go from the UFO association to the Extraterrestrial association?

Your inverted pyramid of assumptions is inherently unstable.

The answer is:

I DIDN'T.

This is why I said, Some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

Go back to the original post.

Of course all U.F.O's are not explained by the ET hypothesis and I never made that claim.

This again reverts back to the debunkers desire for all or nothing. You have to let common sense into the picture. Some U.F.O.'s are misidentifications and become identified, some U.F.O.'s could be associated with a weather anomaly.

This is the difference between me and blind debunkers.

They can't accept these distinctions. They can't use a little common sense.

So all U.F.O.'s are either misidentified, a weather anomaly but never the ET hypothesis when theres evidence that supports all three.

If you accept these three things there's no more U.F.O.'s, if you blindly reject the ET hypothesis then U.F.O.'s will remain unidentified ad infinitum.

reply to post by neoholographic

Where's the evidence for these what ifs?

The difference is known things. Aliens are not known to exist. known things are known to exist. The only thing that is primarily a "what if" is aliens. Known explanations have actually occurred.

Murgatroid


The truth will NEVER be found in the MSM.

It NEVER ceases to amaze me when ever someone cites a MSM link on ATS.

Paranoid lunatic fringey conspiracy websites are the source of all "truth"... especially if the word "truth" is used in the headline.

neoholographic


So all U.F.O.'s are either misidentified, a weather anomaly but never the ET hypothesis when theres evidence that supports all three.

There is evidence to support the existence of the first two. Still waiting for that confirmation of anything ET. Anything at all. Any single thing. Ever.

BayesLike
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.

No you don't. You are being asked if it is evidence of ET.

reply to post by draknoir2


MSM - the most monumental hoax in history

If you ever decide to find the truth, you must believe the OPPOSITE of what propaganda is telling you.



Doubt everything in the mainstream apparatus and assume if they are airing something publicly, it is agenda driven.

Mass media is the most powerful tool used by the ruling class to manipulate the masses. It shapes and molds opinions and attitudes and defines what is normal and acceptable.

Mind Control Theories and Techniques used by Mass Media

reply to post by neoholographic

If you accept these three things there's no more U.F.O.'s, if you blindly reject the ET hypothesis then U.F.O.'s will remain unidentified ad infinitum.

UFOs aren't going anywhere. If you blindly accept ET and knowingly pile on information that has nothing to do with aliens, what does that do? It would be much better to examine the cases individually. What you and others try to do is make assumptions and associations where none exist by looking at a pile of cases. As you pointed out, this pile could be made up of anything so any association could be just random.

your lists are not helpful.

the only thing you seem to be doing is keeping the topic looking silly.

your fear is that UFOs disappear. I am telling you as your nemesis debunker friend that there are enough good cases to examine. The things you are referencing are keeping the good cases hidden.

The "debunkers" that you think you are arguing with are not real.

draknoir2

neoholographic
So all U.F.O.'s are either misidentified, a weather anomaly but never the ET hypothesis when theres evidence that supports all three.

There is evidence to support the existence of the first two. Still waiting for that confirmation of anything ET. Anything at all. Any single thing. Ever.

By confirmation you are talking about proof. But we have not even got to a discussion of the evidence because most of the thread has been spent arguing about whether we can discuss it on reasonable terms at all.