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: 28
8
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 



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.

I don't disagree. When someone experiences something, that's a personal and subjective thing. I have experienced "synchronicity" to a high degree at various times of my life. People may and have, suggested that this may be due to outside "entities". I am free to explore that as I wish. Quantifying experiences like that is a little more than tricky if it can even be done. Convincing others my experiences are "real" is pointless. Requiring others to validate my beliefs only means I need others to validate my beliefs.



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

That's called Advanced Speculation.




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You said:


When someone experiences something, that's a personal and subjective thing.


That's not the case.

It's not just about what someone experienced. It's what they saw and experienced when you're dealing with an aerial observed phenomena like U.F.O.'s, meteors, comets and more.

ASTUTE OBSERVERS can tell you how what they saw and experienced behaved.

This is very useful to Science when dealing with aerial observed phenomena.









The same thing happened when scientist were trying to learn how meteors behave.


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.


In fact, the ASTUTE OBSERVERS noticed how the meteors moved with the stars and today this is still called the radiant thanks to those ASTUTE OBSERVERS.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 



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.


It really doesn't work that way. if I only post my 'A's on the refrigerator, its really hard to dispute that I am an A student if my Cs and Ds are not considered. Hypothesis: I am an A student. Here are the As that prove it. Don't ask questions or I shall tell you that you make no sense and repeat myself repeatedly and bold things we agree on for some reason.

Do you know of any real world situations where this methodology would be employed?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant
 



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.


It really doesn't work that way. if I only post my 'A's on the refrigerator, its really hard to dispute that I am an A student if my Cs and Ds are not considered. Hypothesis: I am an A student. Here are the As that prove it. Don't ask questions or I shall tell you that you make no sense and repeat myself repeatedly and bold things we agree on for some reason.

Do you know of any real world situations where this methodology would be employed?



Yes. At a crime scene there may be shots. But there may also be all kinds of extraneous noise that is, by use of common sense, deemed irrelevant.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant


Yes. At a crime scene there may be shots. But there may also be all kinds of extraneous noise that is, by use of common sense, deemed irrelevant.
I am not trying to give you a hard time but how does that relate?

At a crime scene, the equivalent is, hypothesis: the butler did it. Then find evidence that only matches the hypothesis that makes it look like the butler did it. Consider everything else noise.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

That's not the case.

What's not the case?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The ETH 'some ufo cases are the source of ET' can be expressed like this
Let U be the set of all ufo cases in the world (possibly an infinite set)
Then we can rephrase ETH as the following statement
X: 'there exists an ufocase in U that is ET source'
If We would like to prove that statement X is true. We could try to falsify it which just means trying to prove the opposite statement false which would accomplish the exact same thing. What is the opposite statement to X? It is of course
Y: 'all ufocases in U are NOT of ET source'
But this gives us nothing more to work with because we would need to check all ufocases for ET source. In other words we can not prove ETH by falsification.

But if we cannot prove X with certainty then what about statistically? This is where the null hypothesis comes in. What is the null hypothesis regarding ETH? It must be a proposition that indicates ET has no relation at all to the ufocases U hence it could be expressed
Z: 'all ufocases in U are not ET source'
The more evidence we see of Z not being true, the more we can assume ETH the 'alternate hypothesis' being true. Just my little attempt to clarify. But anyways i think you would have a hard time putting odds on either hypotheses being true.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Nixnada


i think you would have a hard time putting odds on either hypotheses being true.


Yeah, I think you're right. Trying to determine that an unknown has a value that is not known is pretty near impossible



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Consider everything else noise.



Exactly. You got it now.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.


OK, here is your statement from page 1, post #1:


originally posted by: neoholographic
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.


How exactly is it that aliens are not part either statement? They way this is stated, it is the source of the control that is changing: the null says it is not aliens, the alternate says at least one UFO is controlled by an alien. Regardless of how you read it, the UFOs did not change, just whatever is controlling them changed.

So, the hypothesis is about whether or not there is at least one UFO which can be shown to be controlled by an alien. You are quite correct that you have not stated that you wanted to show aliens existed.

That is fine for the null hypothesis since if aliens exist or don't exist, under the null hypothesis no UFOs would be controlled by aliens. Lack of existence of aliens is not a problem at all for the null. Unfortunately, in the alternate the aliens must exist and must affect UFOs on Earth. Since the UFOs are the same in both the null and alternate, your alternate requires you to show: at least one alien exists and controls at least one UFO. For the UFOs, since they are just observed unknowns, we don't have to bother with what they are beyond whether or not an alien can control them.

So, the entire "ET Hypothesis" of yours is about whether or not aliens interact with UFOs (on Earth). And yes, you do have to show aliens exist on Earth or at least influence UFOs on Earth.

I've pointed out from the start this is going to be fruitless to approach, as did Phage and many others.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: BayesLike

You are missing the point. There is a general idea that aliens exist; there are billions of stars and, people argue, some of them must have planets with life.

This is the 'aliens must exist' argument and it is quite general.

The ETH says something more specific than this.

We are not talking about the 'aliens must exist' argument so that is not what is to be proved on its own terms.

We are talking about ETH which is concerned with evidence.

It is incidental that proof of the ETH would also prove the 'aliens must exist' argument.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
Rare in comparison to what? .


There might not be a way to communicate the concept of how a hypothesis test works to you and Neo. You both have a very primitive understanding of data and analysis which is badly misguided. It is always wrong to "pick out things to look at" and it is totally wrong that the only thing which needs to be looked at are a few interesting cases you select. Plus Neo's meteor example is misleading -- he only told a tiny part of the true story, and a distorted one at that. Meteor showers were already known by that time to originate from space. That knowledge was due to work by Jean-Baptiste Biot and others earlier. Biot worked with actual recovered meteorites which were documented falling from the sky during a meteor storm in Normande, France. Biot did a lot of very careful analysis (physical and chemical) on recovered fragments and proved beyond doubt they had come from space. It wasn't just looking at streaks in the sky..... What was not known immediately after Biot's work was that there was a radiant for meteor showers.

I'll try again to do some teaching with a simple example and then go to UFO like data.

Back to coin tosses. If we do 100 coin tosses and have a string of 20 heads in a row but in the end have 48 heads and 52 tails. We don't focus on the string of 20 heads. We look at the entire set of coin tosses. 48 heads and 52 tails is a common outcome for 100 tosses for a fair coin. That there were 20 heads in a row means nothing because that can happen and it was compensated for by many tails elsewhere in the sample. We fail to reject the null hypothesis that the coin is fair. That means we believe the coin probably is very close to a fair coin and has about a 50:50 odds of heads and tails. The 20 heads in a row looks weird, but it means nothing.

On the other hand, if we had 100 tosses with a random pattern that was roughly 1 head followed by about 2 tails and there was no string longer than 2 heads or 3 tails at anywhere in the sample there is nothing odd looking. Say we ended up with 40 heads and 60 tails in the 100 tosses. That would be a rare sample under the null hypothesis of a fair coin. In fact it is powerful evidence that the coin is biased towards tails. Yet nothing in any short stretch of the sample looks strange.

In the coin toss examples just given, if we focused on just the interesting cases, the long strings of heads or of tails like the 20 heads in a row, we would come to the wrong conclusions in both samples. We have to look at the entire sample and compare it with expectations under the null hypothesis. The alternate is not part of the analysis per se. The alternate helps make clear how big the sample needs to be and provides information that affects the choice of the test statistics. I won't go into that now, you guys are struggling too much with step #1.

Translating this to UFO reports, what we are missing is all the reports of observations where everything ended up being identified (or was believed identified). Let's work on a case like: light (not a streetlight) seen overhead and the car stalls.

Well, reality is lights do appear overhead and cars do stall on occasion. Most of the time these happen at different times. But, if they are truly independent of each other, they will happen at the same time once in a great while. To get the data we need, we ask 1000 drivers to fill out a report every time they drive their car for the next year. The report consists of yes/no answers to two questions: 1) did a light appear over the car that was not a streetlight? and 2) did the car stall? We can address simultaneous events by having a report that asks for data once a minute for every minute they are driving (we could automate that reporting with censors attached to the car, it's not impossible). The vast majority of the data will be = (No, No). Occasionally, we will get a (Yes, No) or a (No, Yes) report. Once in a great while we will get a (Yes, Yes) report.

We can put all that data in a table with 4 cells that contain the possible report outcomes: (No,No) and ( No, Yes) and (Yes, No) and (Yes,Yes). A Fisher's Exact test will tell us whether lights overhead is independent of car stalling.
You CANNOT look at a specific case where there is a light overhead and the car stalls and put great importance on that. It depends on how often the two occur together -- does it happen more often than it should, about as often as it should, or less often than it should? If it happens about as often as it should, it is common for the null hypothesis. If it happens a lot more or a lot less than it should, that would be rare for the null hypothesis. Like in the coin tossing, it's not the cases which seem weird, it's the entire picture that is important. Like Biot, we need more than just a weird story.

Knowing that (Yes,Yes) happens less often than it should is just as important as knowing that (Yes,Yes) happens more often than it should. If there was an ET and they were aware of the phenomena, they may be doing something to make sure the car doesn't stall. If there was an ET and they didn't care about getting noticed in that way, they may not do anything to prevent it from happening. Or the presumed ET may even want to scare the driver to see what they will do and may cause it to happen on purpose. We can detect the consequences of all of this from the same data, assuming that there is a ET involved somewhere.

So, yes, you are missing almost all of the data because you are focusing on the wrong thing. It is not that something weird happened, the question is whether or not something is happening more or less often than it should be happening due to chance alone. But to know that, we have to collect all the cases of (No,No) = nothing happened, all the cases of (No, Yes) = no light but car stalled in addition to collecting the other 2 cases you find more interesting which are (Yes,No) = light overhead, no stall and (Yes, Yes) = light overhead and car stalled.

Once we know whether car stalling and light overhead is or isn't independent we may then spin our interpretation of why. The only thing supported by the data though is evidence for close enough to independence or evidence for lack of independence. Weird cases simply don't matter.

The above is why no one who knows anything about data analysis or Science is going to put excess meaning on the weird cases you find so interesting. What you think is the right thing to do is 100% backwards and is known to be totally wrong to focus on. No-one with a decent science background would listen to such nonsense. The scientists may find the weird cases personally interesting too, but they will steadfastly refuse to buy into your ideas on hypotheses. Quite frankly, they know better than to do that.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Exactly. You got it now


So we should frame the butler?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BayesLike

When it comes to ETH you have to eliminate noise. This noise is eliminated not because it does not fit the hypothesis but because it is UNEXPLAINABLE. It neither helps nor hinders the hypothesis. It is null. ETH is not about addressing every light in the sky. It is about events such as contact with beings, trace effects and many other things. A light in the sky is not in the same CATEGORY as contact with a being. ETH does not eliminate lights that don't fit the hypothesis, it eliminates lights that don't fit ANY hypothesis. The coin tossing example is not appropriate because it always involves the SAME coin. The evidence under examination for ETH is disparate.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BayesLike

Everything you said makes no sense and has nothing to do with the ET hypothesis. Again, you're trying to debate the existence of aliens because you can't debate the evidence. Like I said, debunkers want to reduce everything down to just weird stories because if they have to use common sense they would have to refute the evidence from ASTUTE OBSERVERS and they can't do it. So it's just weird stories and unreliable witnesses. Debunkers don't understand how science works especially when dealing with an observed phenomena. So when you act like these are just weird stories you're essentially putting your head in the sand and saying, I can't debate or refute the evidence so I don't want to use any common sense. If I say there just weird stories I can ignore strong evidence and astute observers. How can anyone take this seriously?

Let me do you like I did Zeta. Here's what you said:

You are quite correct that you have not stated that you wanted to show aliens existed.

Again, the ET hypothesis is not about the existence of extraterrestrials. You and others keep trying to debate this because you can't refute the evidence. Again, common sense needs to come into the picture at some time.

You're trying to do 2 things because the evidence is so strong in favor of the ET hypothesis. You want to reduce everything to just weird stories which is just a joke and you want to debate the existence of aliens because you can't refute the data surrounding U.F.O.'s that supports the ET hypothesis.

Let's look at the alternative hypothesis because you already know this isn't about the existence of aliens but that's all you can try to debate. This is why you said this.

You are quite correct that you have not stated that you wanted to show aliens existed.

If I stated this why do you keep debating existence? I will tell you why in a minute.

The alternative hypothesis says some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials. Do you need an alien sitting across from you at a bar-b-cue in order to show that extraterrestrials control U.F.O.'s? Of course not. Because extraterrestrial control over U.F.O.'s isn't dependent on falsifying the existence of extraterrestrials. You pointed this out here:

You are quite correct that you have not stated that you wanted to show aliens existed.

And here:

That is fine for the null hypothesis since if aliens exist or don't exist, under the null hypothesis no UFOs would be controlled by aliens. Lack of existence of aliens is not a problem at all for the null.

You realized this but you also realize you can't debate or refute the evidence so you have no choice but to try and debate the existence of aliens. That's all debunkers on this thread have been trying to do. They have nothing if they can't reduce all eyewitness to unreliable idiots telling weird stories. This ignorance shields them from having to use a little common sense.

How is extraterrestrial control over U.F.O.'s shown? Through these correlations.

Correlations between U.F.O.'s and radar reports, correlations between U.F.O.'s and nuke malfunctions, correlations between U.F.O.'s and trace evidence, correlations between U.F.O.'s and physical evidence, correlation between U.F.O.'s and close encounters, correlation between U.F.O.'s and eyewitness accounts, videos and pictures.

You can either show these correlations don't exist or give a better explanation for these correlations. Where does these correlations come from?









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...

Why do I need to show you that an alien exist when the evidence shows these correlations? You can falsify the ET hypothesis by showing these correlations don't exist or giving a better explanation for these correlations.

But you know this and that's why you said:

You are quite correct that you have not stated that you wanted to show aliens existed.

Of course I didn't because I don't need to.
edit on 18-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nixnada
But if we cannot prove X with certainty then what about statistically? This is where the null hypothesis comes in. What is the null hypothesis regarding ETH? It must be a proposition that indicates ET has no relation at all to the ufocases U hence it could be expressed
Z: 'all ufocases in U are not ET source'
The more evidence we see of Z not being true, the more we can assume ETH the 'alternate hypothesis' being true. Just my little attempt to clarify. But anyways i think you would have a hard time putting odds on either hypotheses being true.



A first approximation of the probability of finding ET here on the Earth isn't quite as difficult as One might think... it should be on the order of 7.14 E -10 or about 5 chances in 7 billion.





edit on 18-4-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



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

originally posted by: neoholographic



What obstacle?

Explain the obstacle that you're talking about.


The unfalsifiability if the hypothesis, as stated by the OP, is the obstacle.



The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant


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.


Falsification of the "null" hypothesis [no UFOs are ET controlled] would require absolute, verifiable proof of a single instance of a flying object being controlled by extraterrestrials... and by extension it would also require proof of the existence of said extraterrestrials. Refutation of hand-selected cases is NOT the same as falsification of what the OP calls the "alternative" hypothesis [some UFOs are ET controlled], which is logically impossible.
edit on 18-4-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

Again, debunkers just prove my point with each post. You can't debate or refute the evidence because you want to debate the existence of extraterrestrials.

The ET hypothesis isn't about falsifying the existence of extraterrestrials. It's about the correlations surrounding the observed aerial phenomena called U.F.O.'s.

You can't debate or refute the evidence so you want to debate anything but the actual evidence. You guys just show how strong the evidence is that supports the ET hypothesis.

You said this:


Falsification of the "null" hypothesis [no UFOs are ET controlled] would require absolute, verifiable proof of a single instance of a flying object being controlled by extraterrestrials


Listen to what you're saying. It requires ABSOLUTE PROOF.

What's ABSOLUTE PROOF?

Explain to me why in order to falsify the null hypothesis I need absolute proof of an alien. I wish you debunkers would get together because you're all trying to do the same thing. Avoid the evidence at all cost. One of the debunkers on the board said this:

You are quite correct that you have not stated that you wanted to show aliens existed.

That is fine for the null hypothesis since if aliens exist or don't exist, under the null hypothesis no UFOs would be controlled by aliens. Lack of existence of aliens is not a problem at all for the null.

Now you're talking about ABSOLUTE PROOF.

You guys just make me look like a psychic. The problem debunkers have is they they speak in illogical ABSOLUTES. They have to because if they didn't then they would have to use a little common sense when evaluating the evidence.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   


Falsification of the "null" hypothesis [no UFOs are ET controlled] would require absolute, verifiable proof of a single instance of a flying object being controlled by extraterrestrials... and by extension it would also require proof of the existence of said extraterrestrials. Refutation of hand-selected cases is NOT the same as falsification of what the OP calls the "alternative" hypothesis [some UFOs are ET controlled], which is logically impossible.


We are not talking about proof. We are talking about establishing the integrity of the hypothesis; the assertion is that it is the best hypothesis.
edit on 18-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join