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: 27
8
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Great points and like I said the data is there and can be falsified.

What you have constantly heard from debunkers is they're trying to debate the existence of extraterrestrials. This is because they can't debate or refute the evidence when it comes to U.F.O.'s that supports the ET hypothesis.

So you will hear silly things like where's the test of aliens or showing the multiverse doesn't exist. These things have nothing to do with the debate. But debunkers have to try and debate the existence of extraterrestrials because they can't debate or refute the evidence.

There's clear correlations that have been measured.

The correlation between the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s and radar reports.

The correlation between the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s and trace evidence.

The correlation between the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s and physical evidence.

The correlation between the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s and malfunctioning of nukes.

The correlation between the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s and eyewitness accounts.

The correlation between the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s and close encounters.

The correlation between the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s with pictures and video.

There's more observed data here then there is for many theories in science.

You can either show these correlations don't exist or you can give a better explanation for these correlations.

The only reason why we have U.F.O.'s is because people blindly reject the explanation that fits the data.

They will accept misidentifications, they will accept a weather anomaly but they blindly reject the ET hypothesis and it's based on their own bias and belief and it has nothing to do with science.

If the ET hypothesis were accepted tomorrow there would be no more U.F.O., because the data would be explained. ATS could just close down this forum.

As long as the ET hypothesis is blindly rejected in favor of unicorns creating rainbows then the silliness will continue.




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

radkrish
To all those who think the E.T hypothesis is not one of the viable options, please explain or blow away the phenomenon.


Sure -- it's an option. I don't think anyone is refuting that the ETH for the UFO phenomenon is a possibility.

The bigger question about the ETH and alien visitation is "how viable" is that option. many ideas are possible, but is the evidence strong enough to consider it "fact".


...Furthermore, the fact that the ETH for UFOs is considered to be (even by skeptics) within the realm of possibility is directly related to the notion the it is impossible to refute the Null hypothesis stated by the OP.


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



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Box of Rain

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?


The fact that they were simultaneous with the sighting and the sound emanated from the craft.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Box of Rain

radkrish
To all those who think the E.T hypothesis is not one of the viable options, please explain or blow away the phenomenon.


Sure -- it's an option. I don't think anyone is refuting that the ETH for the UFO phenomenon is a possibility.

The bigger question about the ETH and alien visitation is "how viable" is that option. many ideas are possible, but is the evidence strong enough to consider it "fact".


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


That is exactly the question that is being asked. Is the hypothesis justified? One only has to convincingly argue against it to falsify it.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Box of Rain
 


You said:


The question is "how viable" is that option.


Give me an option that's more viable? Give me an option that explains the data better than the ET hypothesis? I would like to read about this option. Hopefully you can point me to this option.

Also, explain to me why the ET hypothesis isn't a viable option based on the data? What other explanation explains the data? Things like:

U.F.O.'s showing up on radar stopping and then accelerating over a 1,000 mph then stopping again.

U.F.O.'s being chased by planes and avoiding capture by moving in ways that don't fit any current technology.

U.F.O.'s hovering over nuclear sites, shutting down the site and then eluding capture.

Let's hear your viable explanations and then we can call up CNN and tell them that U.F.O.'s have been explained.

Like I said, if the ET hypothesis is accepted tomorrow, then U.F.O.'s are explained. As long as the ET hypothesis is blindly rejected, U.F.O.'s will remain unidentified ad infinitum.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 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.


some things are counterintuitive. bias is also an issue. I have sleep paralysis on occasion, I hear buzzing sounds so loud that its deafening. My whole body feels like its being enveloped by an electrical field. Auditory hallucinations are common. It doesn't mean that's what they are and we ignore what you say. That's the "debunker" thing that gets everyone upset. Becoming knowledgeable about other topics like perception is a good thing.

statistics is mathematical. Being a math, you need to show your work so others can see it. Otherwise, its just a claim.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

neoholographicWhat you have constantly heard from debunkers is they're trying to debate the existence of extraterrestrials. This is because they can't debate or refute the evidence when it comes to U.F.O.'s that supports the ET hypothesis.


The hypothesis they imagine is to be falsified is "There's a light in the sky. Could be ET". Stated like this the hypothesis is not falsifiable.

But the hypothesis that is being presented is based on evidence. There is a difference between a hypothesis that is pulled out of a hat and one that is founded completely on evidence. This is what they can't grasp.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Exactly.

The reason there's so many arguments that don't make sense is because they can't debate or refute the data that supports the ET hypothesis.

So they're trying to say it's not a viable option or all eyewitnesses are equally unreliable.

They do this because if they didn't they would actually have to examine the data with and use a little common sense.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by 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.


some things are counterintuitive. bias is also an issue. I have sleep paralysis on occasion, I hear buzzing sounds so loud that its deafening. My whole body feels like its being enveloped by an electrical field. Auditory hallucinations are common. It doesn't mean that's what they are and we ignore what you say. That's the "debunker" thing that gets everyone upset. Becoming knowledgeable about other topics like perception is a good thing.

statistics is mathematical. Being a math, you need to show your work so others can see it. Otherwise, its just a claim.


Yes, I agree but it is fatal to break the argument down into its constituent parts and ignore correlations. Along with the humming sounds there are electromagnetic effects that have been documented and are similar across cases. When all the similarities are taken into consideration the argument that it is an objective reality takes on great force. (I appreciate those physical effects you are talking about. I hope they are not too much of an annoyance)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

EnPassant

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 hypothesis AS IT STANDS has been refuted.
edit on 17-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


ETH is just as logically and scientifically sound as IDT.


The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. www.intelligentdesign.org...


Refutation of any amount of evidence will never refute the possibility of ET and is fallacious logic used to render a belief "unassailable" by conventional science.

The goal is to prove something exists, and unfortunately for the belief-oriented, failure to refute is not evidence.

And as for the "finite body of evidence", it is an uncorrelated, unquantified, unqualified, statistically useless mess. It includes, misidentifications, fabrications, mischaracterizations, beliefs, misperceptions, equipment failures, hoaxes, and any number of things other than possible actual unconventional encounters. All are considered "data" by the OP [except for crop circles and Bigfoot for some reason].




edit on 17-4-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The problem here is people also don't understand that we're dealing with an aerial observed phenomena. Will studying an aerial observed phenomena, we have to take things like eyewitness accounts into account. For instance, comets, meteor, the northern lights and more.

Here's more on 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.


Again, you don't need ASTUTE OBSERVERS looking at how aerial phenomena moves with the stars when you're testing to see if aspirin helps prevent heart attacks.

The correlations are strong and support the ET hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 



The fact that they were simultaneous with the sighting and the sound emanated from the craft.

I don't want to get into it too deep but questions need to be asked about how the facts were established. So then we reasonably conclude they saw something. If its not known what they saw, its unknown. Any conclusion beyond that in any direction is opinion and speculation and belief.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

draknoir2Refutation of any amount of evidence will never refute the possibility of ET and is fallacious logic used to render a belief "unassailable" by conventional science.


Ok. This is the last time I will answer you on this point and the last time I will ask you to provide me with an obstacle to falsification.

You have been told repeatedly that the objective is not to refute ET. You are being asked to refute a hypothesis that argues for the existence of ET. You are being asked to refute the HYPOTHESIS.


And as for the "finite body of evidence", it is an uncorrelated, unquantified, unqualified, statistically useless mess. It includes, misidentifications, fabrications, mischaracterizations, beliefs, misperceptions, equipment failures, hoaxes, and any number of things other than possible actual unconventional encounters.


You are just plain wrong. The best evidence is compelling.
edit on 17-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant
 



The fact that they were simultaneous with the sighting and the sound emanated from the craft.

I don't want to get into it too deep but questions need to be asked about how the facts were established. So then we reasonably conclude they saw something. If its not known what they saw, its unknown. Any conclusion beyond that in any direction is opinion and speculation and belief.


I agree that ultimately it is unknown to those who did not see it but its nature can, in principle, sometimes be revealed by astute analysis.

It is more than speculation, it is carefully considered argument and very compelling reasoning.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   

EnPassant

draknoir2Refutation of any amount of evidence will never refute the possibility of ET and is fallacious logic used to render a belief "unassailable" by conventional science.


Ok. This is the last time I will answer you on this point and the last time I will ask you to provide me with an obstacle to falsification.


The OP's hypothesis is an obstacle to falsification:



The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Now you show me how this obstacle can be overcome.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
What eyewitness see and experience isn't unknown. They can clearly tell you about the behavior of U.F.O.'s. Just like ASTUTE OBSERVERS helped scientist understand the behavior of meteors better.

Eyewitness can't tell you that U.F.O.'s are from planet zanzibar but they can tell you how U.F.O.'s behave.

Also, this just isn't 5 guys fresh out of the mental hospital telling you how these things behave. It's this:









At the end of the day, Scientist aren't idiots that don't use common sense. Scientist knows the difference between an ASTUTE OBSERVER and one that isn't when you're dealing with aerial observed phenomena.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2Refutation of any amount of evidence will never refute the possibility of ET and is fallacious logic used to render a belief "unassailable" by conventional science.


Ok. This is the last time I will answer you on this point and the last time I will ask you to provide me with an obstacle to falsification.


The OP's hypothesis is an obstacle to falsification:



The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Now you show me how this obstacle can be overcome.


The 'some ufos' are those cases that are presented with the hypothesis AND ONLY THOSE CASES. You refute them by showing they don't convincingly support ETH.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2Refutation of any amount of evidence will never refute the possibility of ET and is fallacious logic used to render a belief "unassailable" by conventional science.


Ok. This is the last time I will answer you on this point and the last time I will ask you to provide me with an obstacle to falsification.


The OP's hypothesis is an obstacle to falsification:



The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Now you show me how this obstacle can be overcome.


What obstacle?

Explain the obstacle that you're talking about.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2Refutation of any amount of evidence will never refute the possibility of ET and is fallacious logic used to render a belief "unassailable" by conventional science.


Ok. This is the last time I will answer you on this point and the last time I will ask you to provide me with an obstacle to falsification.


The OP's hypothesis is an obstacle to falsification:



The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Now you show me how this obstacle can be overcome.


The 'some ufos' are those cases that are presented with the hypothesis AND ONLY THOSE CASES. You refute them by showing they don't convincingly support ETH.


Exactly!

This is because common sense is used.

I don't claim that ALL U.F.O.'s will support the ET hypothesis. Some could be aerial phenomena or misidentifications. I'm not a nonsensical all or nothing guy like many debunkers.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Box of Rain...Furthermore, the fact that the ETH for UFOs is considered to be (even by skeptics) within the realm of possibility is directly related to the notion the it is impossible to refute the Null hypothesis stated by the OP.


But in this instance 'refute' simply means to argue convincingly against it. Refute does not mean disprove. It means providing a reasonable argument.




top topics



 
8
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join