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: 29
8
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2



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

I think you're wrong about this as was Phage.
The ETH is in fact falsifiable because you can make the opposite statement (the null hypothesis), which is good practice when setting up a hypothesis to find a correlation in a dataset. An example of a statement that is NOT falsifiable and hence not a sound hypothesis would be 'ET exist'. It is not falsifiable because that statement tells nothing of a correlation in any dataset.

Because we have a dataset of ufocases it is possible and scientificially sound to make a hypothesis like ETH. But that is not the same as saying that it would be easy to apply numbers to either hypothesis being true.
edit on 18-4-2014 by Nixnada because: (no reason given)

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




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BayesLike

By insisting on including every unidentified you are trying to reduce the argument to percentages; if the percentage that supports ETH is small, your argument goes, we can ignore it.

But this is not the way to treat this kind of hypothesis; by percentages. It is in the nature of the evidence that it is automatically included; the evidence is DRAMATIC. This quality in the evidence automatically excludes the mundane. With this kind of evidence you cannot throw it in with the mundane and ascribe equal chances to two kinds of evidence that are clearly in different categories. It cannot be reduced to percentages.
edit on 18-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Nixnada

Thank you. Your post is a breath of fresh air and clear thinking. It is practically very difficult to falsify ETH but that is not the point. What matters is that in principle it can be falsified.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Nixnada

Exactly!

There's a data set that shows correlations that we can use to support or falsify the hypothesis. UFO cases and eyewitness accounts are also very important because you're dealing with an aerial observed phenomena. Scientist used ASTUTE OBSERVERS to help them better understand how meteors behave. This is because common sense tells you that all observers are not the same. You will have some strong and reliable eyewitnesses and some weak eyewitnesses. Here's more about 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.


So in this case we're talking about ASTUTE OBSERVERS who tell you how the U.F.O. they saw behaved. We're not talking about people who say they saw Reptilians from the Planet Zanzibar.

So the data is there.











The only reason there's these illogical statements from debunkers is because they have to talk in absolutes and reduce all eyewitnesses as equally unreliable. This is because they can't debate or refute the evidence.
edit on 18-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
I think it is really hurtful when you bold things that people say. And when you list things over and over, I just don't know what to say because you will bold it. I think you think it makes some kind of point? But it really is just silly.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


So the data is there.

Maybe but you haven't shown any data. What you are showing is meaningless.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Nixnada

Thank you. Your post is a breath of fresh air and clear thinking. It is practically very difficult to falsify ETH but that is not the point. What matters is that in principle it can be falsified.


Do you also agree with this?


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



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: BayesLike

By insisting on including every unidentified you are trying to reduce the argument to percentages; if the percentage that supports ETH is small, your argument goes, we can ignore it.

But this is not the way to treat this kind of hypothesis; by percentages. It is in the nature of the evidence that it is automatically included; the evidence is DRAMATIC. This quality in the evidence automatically excludes the mundane. With this kind of evidence you cannot throw it in with the mundane and ascribe equal chances to two kinds of evidence that are clearly in different categories. It cannot be reduced to percentages.


If you want to do anything resembling science, you have to look at everything objectively. Yes, the really cool stories are reduced to numbers. I really really suggest you look elsewhere for verification on what you are thinking.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: neoholographic


So the data is there.

Maybe but you haven't shown any data. What you are showing is meaningless.



Meaningless??

The data that supports the ET hypothesis has to do with U.F.O.'s.

If the evidence was meaningless there wouldn't be any discussions of U.F.O.'s.

There wouldn't be a forum on ATS about U.F.O.'s.

There wouldn't be scientific papers that talk about U.F.O.'s.

There wouldn't be Government documents that talk about U.F.O.'s.

There wouldn't be investigations into nuke malfunctions and U.F.O.'s evading capture with U.F.O.'s.

Why are you even on this forum if U.F.O.'s are meaningless?

If U.F.O.'s are meaningless you debunkers wouldn't spend so much time on these forums making these all or nothing nonsensical post.



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

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: neoholographic
I think it is really hurtful when you bold things that people say. And when you list things over and over, I just don't know what to say because you will bold it. I think you think it makes some kind of point? But it really is just silly.





Ohh, did I hurt your feelings?????

Are you serious? This is a place for debate not crocodile tears because you say things that don't have anything to do with the thread.

The bold is there to highlight things in a debate that you feel are important. All I'm doing is highlighting the things people say that make no sense and have nothing to do with this thread or science.

I'm sorry your feelings are hurt because I put in bold letters what other people say.

I didn't make it up, you said it.
edit on 18-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Nixnada

Thank you. Your post is a breath of fresh air and clear thinking. It is practically very difficult to falsify ETH but that is not the point. What matters is that in principle it can be falsified.

Do you also agree with this?


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


That is what the thread is meant to decide; what is the likelihood of ETH being correct? I suspect it is correct.
edit on 18-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Nixnada

Thank you. Your post is a breath of fresh air and clear thinking. It is practically very difficult to falsify ETH but that is not the point. What matters is that in principle it can be falsified.

Do you also agree with this?


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


That is what the thread is meant to decide; what is the likelihood of ETH being correct? I suspect it is correct.


Until you actually attempt to quantify it; you're not really dong much. Talk and debate notwithstanding, you need hard numbers...such as I have presented. And, you will notice that the prior existence of some extraterrestrials capable of visiting is a requirement.

Fortunately, there is also a way to obtain starting point numbers for that too.

Well I wasn't intending to do this video, but, it became somewhat relevant...In the beginning there is a "Drake like" equation that represents a first approximation of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations that might be visiting. That number is 10.5



I'm not sure about the half...perhaps it represents Terrestrial Humans since y'all are so close...
In any case, my probability estimate is based on half of those 10 civilizations...which gives us our 5 chances in7 billion or 7.14 E-10...



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

That is what the thread is meant to decide; what I[s the likelihood of ETH being correct? I suspect it is correct.hh

I don't think you can calculate any type of meaningful likelihood. Likelihood is calculated from known outcomes. The only way to do this is by making assumptions in the absence of known outcomes. For instance aliens are not know to exist so no likelihood can be calculated that they pilot UFOs. It doesn't matter how dramatic the stories are. There is just no way to quantify this type of information to show aliens. You can assume some variables and plug them in and get a number but that only gives you a number based on numbers you make up. Its perfectly fine to do but it doesn't represent reality. This also doesn't disprove anything. Its just means its unknown. It has nothing to do with being skeptical or a debunker. Math is math.

That being said the stories and accounts are very interesting and could very well be aliens. what does it matter that someone else doesn't believe they are aliens?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
I don't think you can calculate any type of meaningful likelihood. Likelihood is calculated from known outcomes. The only way to do this is by making assumptions in the absence of known outcomes. For instance aliens are not know to exist so no likelihood can be calculated that they pilot UFOs. It doesn't matter how dramatic the stories are. There is just no way to quantify this type of information to show aliens. You can assume some variables and plug them in and get a number but that only gives you a number based on numbers you make up. Its perfectly fine to do but it doesn't represent reality. This also doesn't disprove anything. Its just means its unknown. It has nothing to do with being skeptical or a debunker. Math is math.






Please, those are estimates based on what is currently known of the Universe...which ain't bloody much. But, they do provide a starting point for a search, and they could also help direct searches in the best directions.

But in the end you are correct they be only guesses...no matter how educated. But, ya gotta trust the math, and try to dodge "Murphy"...



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Until you actually attempt to quantify it; you're not really dong much. Talk and debate notwithstanding, you need hard numbers...such as I have presented. And, you will notice that the prior existence of some extraterrestrials capable of visiting is a requirement.

I am glad you weighed in. Obviously you and I have differing opinions over some of the subject matter....well, maybe all of it. As heated as our discussions have been, you do understand what data is. That allows us to have an "actual" discussion, debate, or whatever. Hopefully you can impart some knowledge.

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



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Please, those are estimates based on what is currently known of the Universe...which ain't bloody much. But, they do provide a starting point for a search, and they could also help direct searches in the best directions.

Well, I wasn't commenting on your work. I was just trying to provide a basic concept but yeah...



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Ohh, did I hurt your feelings?????

Yes, what you said was very hurtful. You are a mean person.... and your data still sucks.

Are you 12?


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



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Meaningless??

Yes, very.


The data that supports the ET hypothesis has to do with U.F.O.'s.

you haven't shown any data.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Nixnada

The ETH is in fact falsifiable because you can make the opposite statement (the null hypothesis), which is good practice when setting up a hypothesis to find a correlation in a dataset.
Creating a null hypothesis does not make a hypothesis falsifiable. In order to be falsifiable it must be possible to prove the null. "No UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" cannot be proven.

The hypothesis: "God made the Universe."
The null: "God did not make the Universe."
The hypothesis is not falsifiable because it cannot be proven that God did not make the Universe.


edit on 4/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
By insisting on including every unidentified you are trying to reduce the argument to percentages; if the percentage that supports ETH is small, your argument goes, we can ignore it.


It doesn't matter how much data is collected or if the number of cases in your targeted space of interest is tiny or not. You compare to the expectation under the null hypothesis which means ALL the data has to be used. If the expectation is that an observation of that type is impossible, then a single case is highly significant even if there are billions of observations in the (No,No) case.

Here is an example of the exact analysis. I set 1 billion observations in the (NN) case, and only 2 in the (YN) and (NY) cases. There is one and only one in the (YY) case. It is the billion observations in the (NN) case which makes this result so highly significant. All those observations that you think are useless are what suppresses the noise. What is extremely important is exactly that portion you think is least important. If there were only a few (NN) cases, we would fail to reject the null hypothesis.

This is the way this type of data really is analyzed and I'm using real software. Both the one-tailed and two-tailed probability that a (YY) case could have happened if the null hypothesis is true is less than 1 in 10,000. It's actually much lower than that. This is highly significant and if the data were real it would show beyond even unreasonable doubt that stalling and lights overhead are linked.


Not only have you and Neo failed to recognize that you have tossed out 99.9999999.... % of your data to ill effect, you have completely failed to recognize, despite being shown in many different ways, that the "ET Hypothesis" is totally unworkable --it is a garbage "hypothesis" from start to finish. It is not testable and no estimators are admissible.

There is no worse place to proudly and incessantly proclaim arrogant ignorance to the world than a forum like ATS.
edit on 143pm14America/Chicago42026kAmerica/Chicago by BayesLike because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join