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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   


there have been reported observation of UFOs on the Moon, Mars and even some crazy stuff around the sun
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


A rock is not just simply a rock and definitely not a spacecraft controlled by extraterrestrials.




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mrtoidclover
 





Unidentified flying objects do not exist in the sense of what people believe to be spacecraft controlled by extraterrestrials which do not exist either in the sense of how the word extraterrestrial is defined as a being not of planet Earth.


So identified flying objects exists you just close the door to that specific hypothesis ? Why can't they be spacecraft, we have them visiting other planets ?

I don't defend the view that they are, just I don't see any logic in dismissing one specific option without validating any other with a higher degree of certainty. I have no problem with the concept of not knowing... in fact I' more satisfied by realizing that something in unknown than to dismiss the phenomena as simple imagination, legend or craziness...



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


It's worse. One cannot prove a hypothesis, null or alternate. One can only say there is or is not evidence to support the alternate hypothesis with a certain (specified) level of confidence. It is then up to interpretation to say what the support of the alternate or lack of support for the alternate means. Nothing is proven by data. Ever.

Contrary to belief expressed others, the null hypothesis can be anything and the alternate can be anything else, even if there is one and only one difference and hundreds of similarities. The alternate specifically does not have to be an "opposite" in any sense of the word opposite. For example -- a particular car is red can be a null hypothesis and the alternate can be that the car is blue. It doesn't have to be "not red." In this case, evidence would be required of blueness, not "not redness." In fact, to begin to be testable, what "red" and "blue" means has to be defined in some manner -- such as a particular range of wavelengths of light reflected from a surface which is greater than some % of all the reflected photons (otherwise white can be called both red and blue). It takes quite a bit of work to create a good, testable hypothesis and experiment.

Some null hypotheses, and alternate hypotheses, are useful and others are not. For example, comparing "not alien" vs 'alien" for any portion of a hypothesis is not useful because we cannot unambiguously specify what "alien" means. The word itself is open to interpretation. And we specifically cannot say something found on earth is not from earth because we cannot prove that it was totally impossible to originate on earth under any possible scenario (including time travel from a future earth, which would perhaps not be an alien).

All need to do a much tighter job of specifying both the null and alternate hypotheses and use things we know how to measure not an imaginary statement of alienness. Physically measurable characteristics are useful -- observation is probably not. In addition, one has to agree on a level of confidence (5%, 1%, 0.001% etc that the accumulated evidence was possible under the null hypothesis) before the alternate is considered acceptably supported. Not that everyone has to agree with that level, but that it should be a reasonable level of confidence for both the gravity of the claim and most "expert" observers.

So, is there a way to unambiguously measure physical properties that are beyond the generally accepted as known capability of man and nature? Existence of an unknown metal alloy would not be, for example. Today we can make nearly anything at sub-nanometer scales with a little effort. If there are things we can measure which we would assume are not natural to the physical world and outside of man's present capability, how do we actually make sure it is not something experimental that is simply just not generally known? This is exactly why we have to have levels of confidence and precise statements of what we intend to measure.

And, even in the case that the alternate has support from the data, it is only in the interpretation that a claim of outcome is made. Nothing has been proven by data, ever. It's always interpretation that a proof has been provided. That's why things in Physics etc are called Theories, not Facts. All the theories are wrong, but many are useful.
edit on 036pm14America/Chicago11052kAmerica/Chicago by BayesLike because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Panic2k11
reply to post by mrtoidclover
 





Unidentified flying objects do not exist in the sense of what people believe to be spacecraft controlled by extraterrestrials which do not exist either in the sense of how the word extraterrestrial is defined as a being not of planet Earth.


So identified flying objects exists you just close the door to that specific hypothesis ? Why can't they be spacecraft, we have them visiting other planets ?

I don't defend the view that they are, just I don't see any logic in dismissing one specific option without validating any other with a higher degree of certainty. I have no problem with the concept of not knowing... in fact I' more satisfied by realizing that something in unknown than to dismiss the phenomena as simple imagination, legend or craziness...


I, for one, am not closing the door to the possibility. However, the OP is trying to use scientific method double-talk in order to say the ET hypothesis "can be proven".

He claims that if the null hypothesis of "No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials" can't be proven false, then that means the alternate hypothesis of "Therefore, some UFOs are in fact controlled by ETs" is necessarily true. However, as I said, that is scientific method double-talk, and is not valid.


Do I believe it is possible that we are being visited by ETs? Sure.

Do I believe there is "proof" that it is in fact happening? No. Even if there is good evidence to support a hypothesis (and that's arguable in the case of the ET hypothesis at the moment), empirical evidence supporting a hypothesis or even a theory does NOT amount to "proof". Theories are not fact.

Do I think the OP's argument is valid? No. His argument amounts to nothing more than "if you can't prove that it isn't happening, then that is proof that it is happening."


edit on 4/7/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

I, for one, am not closing the door to the possibility. However, the OP is trying to use scientific method double-talk in order to say the ET hypothesis "can be proven".
... snip ...
Do I think the OP's argument is valid? No. His argument amounts to nothing more than "if you can't prove that it isn't happening, then that is proof that it is happening."

edit on 4/7/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


I'd perhaps be a little kinder and write this off as a good learning attempt but with an obvious lack of solid experience with the scientific method and with statements in logic applied to real problems. The statements are just not well thought out. After all, how can you claim to be able to identify an ET if you don't know if they exist yet? Eyewitness accounts? We know eyewitness accounts are among the least reliable of the different types of evidence. Abductions generally involve sleep or unconsciousness and are even more suspect as general evidence. Physical data would be the best, but how do we know the true state of the art of any technology? As members of the general public, and even if we work in state of the art labs, we can't know for sure where the real boundaries are across the entire planet for all technologies.

On the other hand, people are definitely seeing and experiencing something. In many cases, it's obvious misidentification, in others it's less obvious but likely to be misidentification. Perhaps one should also note that, at one point in time, it was somewhat popular to claim to experience a fugue and "wake up" in a foreign country. Maybe abductions are just a modern twist on fugues? Frankly, if ET's are really advanced, I don't see why they would not look and sound exactly like the rest of us. If they want to study us up close and personal, something like a drone android or true android would suffice. Surely we are not that far away from being able to create plausible androids ourselves.... 50, maybe 100 years? Maybe less?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Wow, it's sad to see some of these responses.

They're laughable and typical.

These responses have nothing to do with how science works. The only time blind debunkers try to lock science into a box is when it comes to things like U.F.O.'s and the Paranormal.

NEWSFLASH SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK THIS WAY!!

I don't need to visit a parallel universe to build a theory on parallel universes.

I don't need to visit a black to build a hypothesis based on Hawking Radiation.

I don't need to visit the String Theory landscape to build a theory called String Theory.

I don't need to visit extra dimensions to build theories that incorporate extra dimensions.

I don't need to go into the cockpit of a U.F.O. or have an extraterrestrial right in front of me to build a scientific hypothesis called the ET Hypothesis.

Again, this has nothing to do with science and the only time this ridiculous notion is put out there is when it comes to U.F.O.'s and the Paranormal.

Again, there's more than enough evidence to build a hypothesis and reach a conclusion that some U.F.O.'s are extraterrestrial.

Scientist reach conclusions as to what's most likely and what's less likely all the time.

Stephen Hawking came to the conclusion that ALIENS ALMOST CERTAINLY EXIST. Did you just wake up one morning and come to this conclusion? No, he looked at the available evidence and he weighed the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Dr. Michio Kaku came to the same conclusion. Did he see an Alien in order to reach this conclusion? No, he weighed the available evidence as to what's most likely.



Sadly, people don't know how science works. They want you to have an alien standing in front of you before you can weigh the available evidence. There's mountains of evidence to build a hypothesis that some U.F.O.'s are extraterrestrial.

There's abduction cases:

www.ufocasebook.com...

Trace evidence:

www.ufoevidence.org...

Close encounters of the third kind:

www.ufoevidence.org...

You even had Phage try to compare a Unicorn creating a rainbow to the ET hypothesis. This is just silly. Where is the evidence that unicorns create rainbows.

So you're saying unicorns creating rainbows is the same as the Holographic principle, Hawking Radiation, multiverse theories, theories that involve extra dimensions and more?????

All of these involve build theories and hypothesis's based on the available evidence. These things can't be compared to unicorns creating rainbows and neither can the E.T. Hypothesis.

Here's another video of Kaku and this is science, not the blind debunker trying to make it seem like they know what they're talking about.



Again, nobody is saying without a shadow of a doubt some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials, it's just building a hypothesis that some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials. Like I said, there's plenty of evidence to support the ET hypothesis. Here's more:





Like I said, what blind debunkers are saying has nothing to do with science. Science doesn't say I have to visit a parallel universe or an extra dimension to build a hypothesis that includes parallel universes or extra dimensions. So of course the ET hypothesis is valid science that's based on evidence and the observed phenomena of U.F.O.'s.
edit on 7-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I don't need to visit a parallel universe to build a theory on parallel universes.

I don't need to visit a black to build a hypothesis based on Hawking Radiation.

I don't need to visit the String Theory landscape to build a theory called String Theory.

I don't need to visit extra dimensions to build theories that incorporate extra dimensions.
True. But the premise of your thread is that the ETH is falsifiable. Like the things you just listed, it isn't.
 



Dr. Michio Kaku came to the same conclusion. Did he see an Alien in order to reach this conclusion? No, he weighed the available evidence as to what's most likely.

I agree with him that it is very likely that intelligent life exists elsewhere. I agree that it could be technologically far ahead of us.
 



There's mountains of evidence to build a hypothesis that some U.F.O.'s are extraterrestrial.
Since you are talking about science, how much of that evidence is scientifically verifiable? What scientific predictions can be made based on the ETH? How might scientific data which supports the hypothesis be gathered?
edit on 4/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Look at 1:13 in the second video.

He was asked about this and said we have exhausted all other explanations and these U.F.O.''s defy the laws of physics.

Again, this isn't something new and of course there's evidence to build a hypothesis. Nobody is saying without a shadow of a doubt this will turn out to be the case but to act like science is something that never builds hypothesis's and reach conclusions based on the available evidence isn't science at all.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


He was asked about this and said we have exhausted all other explanations and these U.F.O.''s defy the laws of physics.

And what he says after that; "I wouldn't go that far."



Again, this isn't something new and of course there's evidence to build a hypothesis.
Evidence that meets scientific standards? This thread is about science, right?

edit on 4/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I don't disagree with anything he said either. It's one thing to say there is a fraction of UFOs which are unexplained and that Aliens likely exist elsewhere and quite another to say that we know some UFOs are being driven around by aliens here on Earth. The evidence associated with UFOs to date (that we know of publicly) raises our suspicions, nothing more. I personally don't buy the "trained observer" thing as no one is trained to look for or classify UFOs as a profession. But I also don't buy every semi-credible UFO story or sighting as evidence for an unknown either. Many eyewitnesses are terrible at identifying things under unusual circumstances -- even pilots and generals. It is true pilots are more experienced at seeing different aircraft, but that doesn't mean they have seen all aircraft under all conditions. It's evidence and raises suspicions, but does not rise to the level of solid evidence like something physical which can be measured in some manner (like computer chips and DNA).

I'm not sure that I would buy simple DNA evidence or a computer chip as evidence today unless we could show it was unlike anything known. It's more likely what an alien would use as a computer chip would not even begin to look like a computer chip to us anyway. In 50 years, chips as we know them today may well be as obsolete as vacuum tubes. I don't think we could identify an alien chip as a chip. But unknown DNA that shares no genes with anything on the planet and a body (dead or alive) which looks alien that accompanies the sample -- that's quite another story.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


He was asked does this confirm the existence of Aliens on other Planets and I never made this claim. I simply said there's enough evidence to build a hypothesis and reach a conclusion about extraterrestrial visitation as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

We still need to look for confirmation as technology increases.

Let me give you the definition of a hypothesis then you tell me what doesn't fit scientific standards based on all the evidence that was listed.


hy·poth·e·sis
[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4.
a mere assumption or guess.


Again, the ET hypothesis is scientifically valid based on the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Again, the ET hypothesis is scientifically valid based on the observed phenomena U.F.O.'s.

Yes. I've said it's a perfectly fine hypothesis. I also said that it is not falsifiable, which is the claim of your OP.

It will also never go beyond being a hypothesis unless scientifically valid evidence is provided.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BayesLike
 


Nothing you said refutes my original post. There's more than enough evidence to build a hypothesis that some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

The problem here is people don't understand what a hypothesis is or how it works. Or they understand a hypothesis and want to act like we first need to have dinner with an alien before we can build a hypothesis.

That's not how science works.

There's no prohibition against building a hypothesis about the observed phenomena of U.F.O.'s.

I don't see blind debunkers complaining when a hypothesis is put forth that U.F.O.'s are ball lightning. Debunkers seem to understand how a hypothesis works when U.F.O.'s are said to be ball lightning.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Nope, here's a direct quote from my OP.


I believe use of the null hypothesis shows that the ET hypothesis is a valid explanation for some U.F.O.'s. First off, the problem in this area is that blind debunkers want an all or nothing approach. They don't use any distinctions when dealing with U.F.O.'s and this is illogical.

So, let's be clear. I'm not saying ALL U.F.O.'S ARE EXTRATERRESTRIAL. The hypothesis is SOME U.F.O.'S ARE FROM AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SOURCE. This source can be intelligently controlled spacecraft or an intelligent lifeform.


The point of my OP was to show that the ET hypothesis is scientifically valid. It doesn't have to be falsifiable in order to be valid scientific inquiry and you just admitted to what I said in my OP, so what have you been debating?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


It doesn't have to be falsifiable in order to be valid scientific inquiry and you just admitted to what I said in my OP, so what have you been debating?
Your title and OP make a big deal about the null hypothesis. In science a null hypothesis is used in an attempt falsify the original hypothesis. If the null is properly constructed and is demonstrated to not be valid, it supports the original hypothesis. If the null is demonstrated to be true, it falsifies the original hypothesis.

A strong hypothesis should be demonstrably possible by evidence for as well as being falsifiable but not being falsified.

Your title and OP are all about falsification. The ETH is not falsifiable. It cannot be shown to be false unless every UFO ever seen is shown to not be controlled by extraterrestrials.
edit on 4/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Neo, there is a definition of a hypothesis and and a testable, scientific hypothesis is a subset of that definition. Not all hypotheses are testable. Not all tests are worth examining in detail -- especially if the hypothesis is mal-formed or the test itself is mal-formed. Tests in science have to meet conditions of admissibility. Admissibility implies the test is unambiguous, is possible to form, and that the data estimates what must be estimated for the test to occur and not something else. It also means more, but that's enough to start....

In your hypotheses, it is already assumed ETs exist and your null + alternate may even imply ETs are present on Earth at this time. That is the only way I can off-hand see that you can leap from UFOs having no explanation to having aliens in them. An unexplained UFO is by definition unexplained -- otherwise it is not a UFO, it has been identified. It does not imply alien-ness.

For evidence to support either the null or the alternate that there are aliens in the UFOs, you have to go elsewhere. Beyond just setting up a hypothesis. Something which is well beyond a statement like: if that was an airplane, it would defy the laws of physics. So, maybe it's a hologram? Or maybe a group hallucination? You need two things at a minimum. A craft that is physically examinable (otherwise it may not be a physical craft) and an alien which can be shown to be an alien. Whatever that means. Because these things are undefined, it would do well to have a definition of what amounts to evidence of alien-ness or evidence of a craft which is not of this Earth. These things can be agreed upon ahead of time or debated ahead of time completely independent of the evidence to date. These are part of your assumptions )(all hypotheses have assumptions)

Then go get new data and test the hypothesis. It does not meet scientific standards to test a hypothesis with the data used to construct it. New evidence is required. And you can't use simulation data to substitute for physical data, like the global warming alarmists do. They fail every time they try to predict the future -- because their working model is next to worthless. A little off topic in a sense, but not really off topic. Evidence is not what you declare as evidence by claiming expertise or lack of knowledge, but what you can test in a repeatable and reliable fashion. You need a testable hypothesis that everyone who agrees with the assumptions can independently examine the evidence and come to the same or a similar conclusion.

After that, you may go on with the interpretation that aliens come from another planet if you wish. But only after meeting the physical requirements of the evidence supporting the alternate.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Wrong.

The null hypothesis is also used to strengthen a hypothesis in science. This is because technology isn't always available in order to falsify a hypothesis. This doesn't means the hypothesis is lacking a null hypothesis.

For instance, there's a null hypothesis for Hawking Radiation. The null can't be proven not to be true but it can strengthen a hypothesis as evidence accumulates and eventually technology will catch up with your hypothesis.

This is just basic common sense and you can look throughout science and find theories that can't be falsified but there not lacking a null hypothesis.

Look at the recent discovery of gravitational waves as it pertains to Inflation. Now before this discovery, Inflation wasn't lacking a null hypothesis and that's why many scientist accepted inflation even when it wasn't falsifiable.

So to suggest a theory that's not falsifiable isn't science or is lacking a null hypothesis isn't in line Science at all. The null hypothesis makes a hypothesis stronger as evidence grows. The hypothesis can't always be falsified because the technology isn't place to test it.
edit on 8-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Neo -- Setting up a hypothesis which is testable and structuring the test correctly is a non-trivial task. The amount of research that is wasted in the US, and elsewhere, each year chasing poorly formed hypotheses and using improper tests or collecting improper evidence is staggering. I'd venture that 80% of the research that gets published is garbage from the outset. It either doesn't support what it claims to support or has biases built into the methodology in an effort to prevent bias. Most scientists either need to follow a known pattern in their research -- or they need to get help. In all cases, the results are not generally going to e believed until they can be repeated, more than once. Recall cold-fusion? It's not really a repeatable outcome and there are questions about the measurements, that's the problem.

And these are people trained to do experimentation and examine evidence. That you need to work on the hypothesis and the argument a little more is a normal thing. Even for good researchers it's a normal thing. Take the feedback and think about it. It's not meant in an attacking or dismissive manner. You are being given some guidance and hopefully will come back with an improved idea. Tis one needs some more work. It's simply not finished / polished enough yet for prime time.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join