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 unfalsifiability if the hypothesis, as stated by the OP, is the obstacle
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 the data is there.
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.
i think you would have a hard time putting odds on either hypotheses being true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is what the thread is meant to decide; what I[s the likelihood of ETH being correct? I suspect it is correct.hh
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.
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.
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.
Ohh, did I hurt your feelings?????
Meaningless??
The data that supports the ET hypothesis has to do with U.F.O.'s.
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 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.
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.