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: 26
8
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You said:


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


I thought you were letting the thread die after it was shown that you were posting nonsense that had nothing to do with the ET hypothesis? First you don't know what the null hypothesis is and then you debate about things that have nothing to do with the ET hypothesis.

If you want to continue to make debunkers look even worse, keep posting and saying stuff like this:

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

I just don't have time to go back and forth with your nonsensical post that end up with you saying:

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

Let me remind you what the title of this thread is.

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

EnPassant

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.


Exactly!

They can't use any common sense when debating the evidence because they have to make it unreasonable so they make these all or nothing sweeping statements that make no sense in order to avoid debating the evidence.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Murgatroid
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



I doubt everything and everyone... especially those who claim to know "the real truth".



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

neoholographic


They can't use any common sense when debating the evidence because they have to make it unreasonable so they make these all or nothing sweeping statements that make no sense in order to avoid debating the evidence.


They who? The Blind Debunkers? The ones who throw logic out the window? The ones without simple common sense?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

ZetaRediculianIt 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.


A very strong point about the ETH is how cases back each other up; witnesses who knew nothing about ufology confirm details of sightings half way across the world (earlier I mentioned the humming sound that has been reported many times). Also, evidence from different domains is corroborative; radar is synchronous with visual sightings; witness testimony is backed up by landing marks etc. etc.

It is this consistency throughout the ETH that makes it convincing. It is not random because it is often very specific.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

EnPassant

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.


With all respects, discussing the evidence is not the point of this thread. There are plenty of threads that do discuss evidence, and those threads are welcome. Interesting discussions can be had about the evidence in support of the ETH hypothesis for UFOs.

The discussion here is based on the argument spelled out in the OP, and the OP's methodology for proving that the ETH hypothesis. His methodology was not concerned about the evidence per se (although the evidence is part of it), but instead was more concerned with building a logical argument based specifically on the working structure of the scientific method.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

EnPassant

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.


The OP is about the ETH "null argument" as [mis]understood by nonalcoholic, not the details of individual cases. Since the ETH is based upon a range of false premises this would affect the validity of both the hypothesis and what the OP thinks is its "null argument".



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Box of Rain

EnPassant

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.


With all respects, discussing the evidence is not the point of this thread. There are plenty of threads that do discuss evidence, and those threads are welcome. Interesting discussions can be had about the evidence in support of the ETH hypothesis for UFOs.

The discussion here is based on the argument spelled out in the OP, and the OP's methodology for proving that the ETH hypothesis. His methodology was not concerned about the evidence per se (although the evidence is part of it), but instead was more concerned with building a logical argument based specifically on the working structure of the scientific method.

And he is correct. He is presenting a hypothesis based on a limited body of evidence and as such it is a falsifiable hypothesis. The thread has been derailed because people are being propelled into scientistic rhetoric by emotionally reactive bias instead of clear minded argument.


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



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

EnPassant
The thread has been derailed because people are being propelled into scientistic rhetoric by emotionally reactive bias instead of clear minded argument.



I'll agree with that.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

EnPassant

And he is correct. He is presenting a hypothesis based on a limited body of evidence and as such it is a falsifiable hypothesis.


And I'll disagree with that.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

EnPassant

And he is correct. He is presenting a hypothesis based on a limited body of evidence and as such it is a falsifiable hypothesis.



Dracknoir2: And I'll disagree with that.


If you do you should present a universal obstacle to falsification
edit on 17-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 




It is this consistency throughout the ETH that makes it convincing. It is not random because it is often very specific.

That may be the case. I think the point is that it needs to be shown statistically using actual statistics. As far as I know, this has not been done. If it has been done, it would be very easy to show. Personally, I would love to see some actual data that shows a real correlation. I think it would be fascinating.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

EnPassant

EnPassant

And he is correct. He is presenting a hypothesis based on a limited body of evidence and as such it is a falsifiable hypothesis.



Dracknoir2: And I'll disagree with that.


If you do you should present a universal obstacle to falsification


Here you go.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant
 




It is this consistency throughout the ETH that makes it convincing. It is not random because it is often very specific.

That may be the case. I think the point is that it needs to be shown statistically using actual statistics. As far as I know, this has not been done. If it has been done, it would be very easy to show. Personally, I would love to see some actual data that shows a real correlation. I think it would be fascinating.


Yes, as I said earlier, a civilian study should be done by 'experts'*

But much of the statistical drift is so simple it is self evident; the humming sound is reported often and sometimes by people who never read a ufo article. Even two examples provide enough statistical force to argue that it is an objective reality.



* I don't like the word by I'll use it this time!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant

EnPassant

And he is correct. He is presenting a hypothesis based on a limited body of evidence and as such it is a falsifiable hypothesis.



Dracknoir2: And I'll disagree with that.


If you do you should present a universal obstacle to falsification


Here you go.


No cigar. You are assuming the falsehood of ETH before even discussing it. I am asking for an obstacle to the falsification of ETH based on a finite body of evidence. The question is very simple; Does this body of evidence convincingly argue for the reality of ET? Simple. What is the obstacle to falsification?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

EnPassant

And he is correct. He is presenting a hypothesis based on a limited body of evidence and as such it is a falsifiable hypothesis.



Dracknoir2: And I'll disagree with that.


If you do you should present a universal obstacle to falsification


Here you go.


No cigar. You are assuming the falsehood of ETH before even discussing it. I am asking for an obstacle to the falsification of ETH based on a finite body of evidence. The question is very simple; Does this body of evidence convincingly argue for the reality of ET? Simple. What is the obstacle to falsification?


Let's go right back to the OP:




The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials. The Null Hypothesis says, No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials. What's the next step? The next step is to assume the alternative hypothesis is wrong and refute the null hypothesis. Now the null hypothesis is easy to refute.


The "null hypothesis", as stated by the OP, is logically impossible to prove and at the moment impossible to refute while the "alternative hypothesis", as stated by the OP, is impossible to refute and at the moment impossible to prove.
edit on 17-4-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You said:


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


I thought you were letting the thread die after it was shown that you were posting nonsense that had nothing to do with the ET hypothesis? First you don't know what the null hypothesis is and then you debate about things that have nothing to do with the ET hypothesis.

If you want to continue to make debunkers look even worse, keep posting and saying stuff like this:

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

I just don't have time to go back and forth with your nonsensical post that end up with you saying:

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

Let me remind you what the title of this thread is.

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis


Do you really think this repetitive type of posting is helpful? I pointed out some serious issues with what you are presenting. You seem to think that agreeing with something is wrong. We both agree your list contains lots of links have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis and that there is no way to distinguish one case from the next. You take this personally and that's too bad. I thought the thread died but reasonable people returned. And that makes me happy.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

EnPassant

And he is correct. He is presenting a hypothesis based on a limited body of evidence and as such it is a falsifiable hypothesis.



Dracknoir2: And I'll disagree with that.


If you do you should present a universal obstacle to falsification


Here you go.


No cigar. You are assuming the falsehood of ETH before even discussing it. I am asking for an obstacle to the falsification of ETH based on a finite body of evidence. The question is very simple; Does this body of evidence convincingly argue for the reality of ET? Simple. What is the obstacle to falsification?


Let's go right back to the OP:




The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials. The Null Hypothesis says, No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials. What's the next step? The next step is to assume the alternative hypothesis is wrong and refute the null hypothesis. Now the null hypothesis is easy to refute.


The Null Hypothesis, as stated by the OP, is logically impossible to prove and at the moment impossible to refute.
edit on 17-4-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


Nobody is talking about proof. We are talking about falsifiability. It is not impossible to verify. All you have to do is refute the evidence that is presented to you. As I have said repeatedly, the hypothesis is based on a finite body of evidence. The hypothesis is CONFINED to the evidence and can be considered refuted if the evidence is refuted. That would not mean ET has been refuted. It would mean that the hypothesis AS IT STANDS has been refuted.
edit on 17-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

EnPassant
...But much of the statistical drift is so simple it is self evident; the humming sound is reported often and sometimes by people who never read a ufo article. Even two examples provide enough statistical force to argue that it is an objective reality!...

What factors are you using to connect these people "hearing a humming sound" to UFO sightings?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
To all those who think the E.T hypothesis is not one of the viable options, please explain or blow away the phenomenon.




top topics



 
8
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join