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: 31
8
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Nixnada

I have to get back to you...I have to go now. you seem reasonable so I will definitely respond




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: neoholographic

Tell me what data didn't I use? We're dealing with an aerial observed phenomena, so tell me what data didn't I use? Here's the questions again.

ALL aerial observed phenomenon should be included. That especially includes cases that have been identified and particularly if it was initially thought to be a UFO and described as alien. This would also include known aircraft positively Identified as known aircraft. Another interesting comparison would be unknown aircraft positively identified as an unknown terrestrial aircraft.

You are not looking at data yet. You are looking at select stories of unidentified things that sound like they could be aliens to you. That's all that can be said about it.


In theory you may have a point but in practice no. Light overhead, stalling engine, encounter with beings, subsequent psychic phenomena, subsequent encounters etc.

This is not an aeroplane.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Again, this is DATA especially when dealing with an aerial observed phenomena.

It's important to know how the aerial phenomena behaves and how it moves in the sky.

Of course it's data. You said:


These things are links and youtube videos they are not "data".


Of course it is. The links to you tube videos are telling you about data, that you can watch and read. You don't bother to read the data because you can't refute it. Here's an example. Here's a You Tube video talking about investigations into U.F.O.'s and Nukes malfunctioning.



Here's documents that supports the investigations and a book that goes into the investigations.

www.ufohastings.com...

www.ufohastings.com...



An 1:27 minute video going over some of the data.

But to a blind debunker, they put their heads in the sand and say, well there's no data lol. This is silly.

Again, if there isn't any data why are you on spending so much time on this forum trying to debunk the data?

You don't see debunkers trying to debunk the easter bunny or the tooth fairy because there isn't any evidence that supports their existence.

The reason why you and others spend so much time trying to debunk these things in a forum called U.F.O. AND ALIENS because there's data to support their existence.

You asked:


How are you quantifying these stories so that they can be analyzed with inferential statistics?


Again, you just throw around stuff and you don't understand what you're talking about.

Explain specifically how this relates to U.F.O.'s and the ET hypothesis. How does this relate to an aerial observed phenomena? Again, you just throw out things you don't understand like the null hypothesis.

Here's more:


With inferential statistics, you are trying to reach conclusions that extend beyond the immediate data alone. For instance, we use inferential statistics to try to infer from the sample data what the population might think. Or, we use inferential statistics to make judgments of the probability that an observed difference between groups is a dependable one or one that might have happened by chance in this study. Thus, we use inferential statistics to make inferences from our data to more general conditions; we use descriptive statistics simply to describe what's going on in our data.


www.socialresearchmethods.net...

There's inferential statistics and descriptive statistics. How will you know how the population behaves without descriptive statistics?

This is very important because they're talking about the data in terms of behavior. When dealing with an aerial observed phenomena it's very important to know how these things behave and this takes the help of ASTUTE OBSERVERS like with 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.


Why is this important when dealing with aerial observed phenomena?

It's important to know the behavior of the phenomena because without it how can you understand what you're studying? Scientist are not going to be everywhere at once, so they're not going to see everything. So that have to use common sense and listen to ASTUTE OBSERVERS when understanding how an aerial phenomena behaves.

This is extremely for a researcher whose serious about the data. You want to use inferential statistics when you look at the population(U.F.O.'s) in order to separate U.F.O.'s that are in line with the ET hypothesis and those that may be misidentifications or a weather anomaly.

In statistics, you're dealing with a population and there's also a subset of the population. For instance:

The population could be all college students.

The subset of the population is college students taking sociology courses or students that in an interracial relationship. So when looking at U.F.O.'s there's the population of U.F.O.'s, then there's subsets of U.F.O.'s. like the ET hypothesis, weather anomaly or a misidentification. All U.F.O.'s (the population) will not fit into these each one of these subsets just like all college students will not fit into the subset of students in an interracial relationship.

One of the main problems in this area is science seems reluctant and scared to study an aerial observed phenomena that's in our skies. This seems because pseudoskeptics and debunkers scream the loudest when there arguments make no sense. Look at this thread. Debunkers make the arguments that have nothing to do with science and nothing to do with common sense. There's just an all or nothing absolutist mentality instead of evaluating the data.

Like I said if there wasn't any data, then there wouldn't be this discussion. There wouldn't be U.F.O.'s on news stories and written about in articles. Debunkers are so blind they say there isn't any data then turn around and debate the same DATA.

Like I said, I don't think you know what you're talking about so explain exactly how your question about iinferential statistics relate to U.F.O.'s and an observed aerial phenomena.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculianThere are exactly ZERO examples of doing what you are thinking in the real world. There is no exception for UFO cases because they are way cool.


Biology is a science that relies very much on observation. Likewise with astronomy. You can approach ETH with statistics if you like but it will not resolve the issue. It is not the kind of hypothesis that can be solved this way. Statistics would have only a small part in it.

ETH relies very much on extraordinary events like an object changing direction at a right angle at high speed. What is the point in including aircraft in your sample when you know beforehand it will have to be chucked out?
edit on 19-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Of course it is. The links to you tube videos are telling you about data, that you can watch and read.

Yes, and the only thing you can do is watch and read. You can say that it is really interesting and they may even "talk" about data but I cant say anything more or determine anything. Actual data is raw objective information that can be analyzed objectively. If it were data, the way you are talking about data, I would have something to analyze.
This is what I am talking about:

give bluebook a read. www.bluebookarchive.org...



You don't bother to read the data because you can't refute it.

No, I look at the links and watch the youtube videos and go...."that's interesting" and then I wonder if anyone collated the information into a meaningful dataset.



Here's an example. Here's a You Tube video talking about investigations into U.F.O.'s and Nukes malfunctioning.

That's interesting.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Good points.

We're dealing with an aerial observed phenomena and scientist have looked at data and quantified it. This was done in 1954 and replicated in 1979 and 2004.

The Government has actually shown the way through Project Blue Book Special report number 14. Here's more:


In late December 1951, Ruppelt met with members of the Battelle Memorial Institute, a think tank based in Columbus, Ohio. Ruppelt wanted their experts to assist them in making the Air Force UFO study more scientific. It was the Battelle Institute that devised the standardized reporting form. Starting in late March 1952, the Institute started analyzing existing sighting reports and encoding about 30 report characteristics onto IBM punched cards for computer analysis.

Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 was their massive statistical analysis of Blue Book cases to date, some 3200 by the time the report was completed in 1954, after Ruppelt had left Blue Book. Even today, it represents the largest such study ever undertaken. Battelle employed four scientific analysts, who sought to divide cases into "knowns", "unknowns", and a third category of "insufficient information." They also broke down knowns and unknowns into four categories of quality, from excellent to poor. E.g., cases deemed excellent might typically involve experienced witnesses such as airline pilots or trained military personnel, multiple witnesses, corroborating evidence such as radar contact or photographs, etc. In order for a case to be deemed a "known", only two analysts had to independently agree on a solution. However, for a case to be called an "unknown", all four analysts had to agree. Thus the criterion for an "unknown" was quite stringent.

In addition, sightings were broken down into six different characteristics — color, number, duration of observation, brightness, shape, and speed — and then these characteristics were compared between knowns and unknowns to see if there was a statistically significant difference.

The main results of the statistical analysis were:

About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified (38% were considered conclusively identified while 31% were still "doubtfully" explained); about 9% fell into insufficient information. About 22% were deemed "unknown", down from the earlier 28% value of the Air Force studies.

In the known category, 86% of the knowns were aircraft, balloons, or had astronomical explanations. Only 1.5% of all cases were judged to be psychological or "crackpot" cases. A "miscellaneous" category comprised 8% of all cases and included possible hoaxes.

The higher the quality of the case, the more likely it was to be classified unknown. 35% of the excellent cases were deemed unknowns, as opposed to only 18% of the poorest cases.

In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically significant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion.

(More detailed statistics can be found at Identified flying objects.)

Despite this, the summary section of the Battelle Institute's final report declared it was "highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge." A number of researchers, including Dr. Bruce Maccabee, who extensively reviewed the data, have noted that the conclusions of the analysts were usually at odds with their own statistical results, displayed in 240 charts, tables, graphs and maps. Some conjecture that the analysts may simply have had trouble accepting their own results or may have written the conclusions to satisfy the new political climate within Blue Book following the Robertson Panel.

When the Air Force finally made Special Report #14 public in October 1955, it was claimed that the report scientifically proved that UFOs did not exist. Critics of this claim note that the report actually proved that the "unknowns" were distinctly different from the "knowns" at a very high statistical significance level. The Air Force also incorrectly claimed that only 3% of the cases studied were unknowns, instead of the actual 22%. They further claimed that the residual 3% would probably disappear if more complete data were available. Critics counter that this ignored the fact that the analysts had already thrown such cases into the category of "insufficient information", whereas both "knowns" and "unknowns" were deemed to have sufficient information to make a determination. Also the "unknowns" tended to represent the higher quality cases, q.e. reports that already had better information and witnesses.

The result of the monumental BMI study were echoed by a 1979 French GEPAN report which stated that about a quarter of over 1,600 closely studied UFO cases defied explanation, stating, in part, "These cases … pose a real question."[25] When GEPAN's successor SEPRA closed in 2004, 5800 cases had been analyzed, and the percentage of inexplicable unknowns had dropped to about 14%. The head of SEPRA, Dr. Jean-Jacques Velasco, found the evidence of extraterrestrial origins so convincing in these remaining unknowns, that he wrote a book about it in 2005.[26]


en.wikipedia.org...

These studies were replicated in 1979 and 2004 and showed the same or similar results. More of these tests need to be done but again, people can't deal with things like this honestly. They lose all common sense when you mention the words U.F.O. or extraterrestrial.

Sadly, blind debunkers make the claim that there's no DATA. This makes no sense.

Debunkers make the claim you have to look at the entire population or all cases, which again is silly. When you're dealing with statistics, there's a subset of the population and science has shown how you can get to the cases that you use to build the ET hypothesis. They did this in 1953, 1979 and 2004.
edit on 19-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Biology is a science that relies very much on observation. Likewise with astronomy.

All science rely on observations. You take the observations and write them down so you can convert the observations to data. Same with astronomy. Are you saying that they don't use statistical analysis?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


These studies were replicated in 1979 and 2004 and showed the same or similar results. More of these tests need to be done but again, people can't deal with things like this honestly. They lose all common sense when you mention the words U.F.O. or extraterrestrial.

Do you have links to the studies along with the data? I gave you a link to the Bluebook study. That has data that I can look at and analyze. Its an interesting report. The people that re-examined the results were able to do so because there was data there.


Sadly, blind debunkers make the claim that there's no DATA. This makes no sense. .

I gave you a link to UFO data. There is UFO data but the links and youtube videos you provided do not constitute "data".



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Biology is a science that relies very much on observation. Likewise with astronomy.

All science rely on observations. You take the observations and write them down so you can convert the observations to data. Same with astronomy. Are you saying that they don't use statistical analysis?



No. I am saying that when the statistical analysis is done the main questions will not be resolved, especially when it comes to CE3s. Stats can only provide a starting point. What is required is a reasoned debate such as you would have in court.

Stats are good when it comes to sightings - this is what converted Hynek - but they will not resolve the ETH. ETH is built on more detailed arguments than sightings, although they are part of it.
edit on 20-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant
So you need a court case to decide if ET is real? If you lose the case then what? You lost me on what you are trying to accomplish.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
So you need a court case to decide if ET is real? If you lose the case then what? You lost me on what you are trying to accomplish.


If he wins the case, then what?
Does the idea of alien visitation then become real? What will change?

I suppose this goes back to the OP's attempt at convincing us that the scientific method already proves that alien visitation is occurring. Let's say that all scientists declare that -- even though we have no real contact yet -- the evidence suggests that alien visitation could be considered "proven". Then what?



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
So you need a court case to decide if ET is real? If you lose the case then what? You lost me on what you are trying to accomplish.


Not an actual court case but a debate dealing with evidence that goes one way or the other 'beyond reasonable doubt'



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant
So you need a court case to decide if ET is real? If you lose the case then what? You lost me on what you are trying to accomplish.

If he wins the case, then what?
Does the idea of alien visitation then become real? What will change?
I suppose this goes back to the OP's attempt at convincing us that the scientific method already proves that alien visitation is occurring. Let's say that all scientists declare that -- even though we have no real contact yet -- the evidence suggests that alien visitation could be considered "proven". Then what?


If it was decided that they are here the next question might concern what we do about it.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

I think there are enough people who do feel it is real, and are already considering what to do about it.

I also feel that even people who do not feel it is "proven" have already considered contingency plans about what to do about it. Science has been having this "what if aliens come" conversation for years. I'm not sure how calling it "proven" (remember, it will be called proven without any real confirmation of official contact being made) will change the results of those conversations all too much.


edit on 4/20/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: EnPassant

I think there are enough people who do feel it is real, and are already considering what to do about it.

I also feel that even people who do not feel it is "proven" have already considered contingency plans about what to do about it. Science has been having this "what if aliens come" conversation for years. I'm not sure how calling it "proven" (remember, it will be called proven without any real confirmation of official contact being made) will change the results of those conversations all too much.


I think you are right. "proven" or even known for a fact doesn't change anything. especially true if they are as elusive as people believe them to be. So we exist with beings that are so elusive that we cant know much more about them other then that they exist. Once the initial 'gee wiz' is over, we can blame them for everything we don't understand. Things that aren't alien, will still be considered alien because we still don't know anything about them. Because we don't know any more about them, imaginations and paranoia will be even more rampant. People will still think the government is keeping stuff from them and ATS will be even more popular. There will still be blind people trying to be rational and talk sense to "know-it-alls" on web sites.

I think really what is going on here is that people want their beliefs validated.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
No. I am saying that when the statistical analysis is done the main questions will not be resolved, especially when it comes to CE3s. Stats can only provide a starting point. What is required is a reasoned debate such as you would have in court.

Stats are good when it comes to sightings - this is what converted Hynek - but they will not resolve the ETH. ETH is built on more detailed arguments than sightings, although they are part of it.


And



Not an actual court case but a debate dealing with evidence that goes one way or the other 'beyond reasonable doubt'


The statistical / probabilistic analysis will give you much better results that your "debate", and the accomplish the very same thing (actually they are the same thing).

Your debate gives you a "warm / comfortable" feeling about your decision, but doesn't really answer something that is fundamental to the issue..."Why did you decide this way?"

The statistical analysis gives you very precise numbers upon which to base your decision. All of it...every bit...can be calculated with very great precision. It will give you very good reason for a "given" decision; but will NEVER be "warm and comfortable".

In statistical analysis variables like "confidence" is used. your debate increases this. However, the debate can not show you what other variables are needed, nor can it "crate" them; statistical methods can.

While it is true that the starting point is no better than a "guess", albeit, "educated" (hopefully). This guess work is tempered and augmented with other data, and this variable "confidence" (usually referred to as "confidence level") that makes all the difference.

In the end you are left with a probability...a number that represents the overall confidence that this hypothesis is true. And, that really IS the result of your debate...quantified.

So its up to y'all, either a Subjective thing that leads to truth (hopefully), or an Objective one. As this should be an individual decision; I would submit it doesn't matter, both should be held in the dame regard, and be equally as valid.





posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant


Ergo: unidentified things cannot be identified. Nonsense


Just saw this. That's not what I said but that is what you read. This is why we need to question what people report.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2


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.


My apologies. I pasted this together on a cell phone a few days ago, got interrupted, and just now re-read it. I meant to say the following:

Refutation of hand-selected cases is NOT the same as falsification of the "null" hypothesis [no UFOs are ET controlled], which is logically impossible. Falsification of what the OP calls the "alternative" hypothesis [some 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.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2
Yes i have also come to the conclusion that the OP ETH hypothesis might actually be too 'weak' formulated in order to be falsified. Because you would never be able to show that NO Ufo's never has been nor ever will be of ET origin.

We would have to formulate it slightly different in order to make it a 'scientific' hypothesis with regards to Poppers definition of the demarcation between Scientific versus non-Scientific.

But then why not make the bold claim that [every non-resolved ufocase is in fact ET]?

That would definitely be a falsifiable hypothesis because if a debunker eventually proves that one of the non-resolved cases is in fact of a mundane earthly character he would in fact have shown the null hypothesis is true and disqualified our alternate hypothesis. But we could then immediately and with reason make the next bold claim, that the rest of the non-resolved ufocases is in fact ET.


... and by extension it would also require proof of the existence of said extraterrestrials.

we are not trying to prove existence of ET, as already stated numerous times by the OP, that is 'a priori'.




edit on 21-4-2014 by Nixnada because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2014 by Nixnada because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to: Nixnada



Yes but then lets elaborate on this. Wouldnt you say that is exactly the 'debunkers' hypothesis namely 'No ufocases are of ET source' and the believers are trying to refute this by showing the null hypothesis is true ie 'there exist at least one ufocase of ET source'?

I have no idea what 'debunkers' say. I think the statement itself is illogical although we understand what it means which is fine for discussions but it is poorly written as a 'hypothesis'. Saying 'No ufo cases are of ET source' already implies ET exists as neo and empass clearly insist is the case. The argument is circular since they have already determined ET exists and UFOs are INDENTIFIED as ET. This is implied in the null and quite clearly stated in this thread.

I believe the actual null hypothesis would be "there are UFOs" as in there are UNIDENTIFIED things. What they are NOT due to is as UNKNOWN as what they ARE due to.

The other thing that is implied is that UFOs represent some kind of controlled craft. Before you get to ET, that has to be shown. The next issue is defining ET. Apparently ET can do just about anything except make crop circles as good as humans. So essentially, anything that cant be identified or explained can be attributed to being ET. Other rational explanations may exist for each case individually but since they cant be proven, ET works better because it encompasses all cases and any odd behavior.



If we agree this is a 'scientific' hypothesis regarding falsifiability we could argue that the original ETH in the OP is scientifically sound because proving this hypothesis false automatically proves the orginal ETH true...right?

There is nothing wrong with the ETH in general and I think it is a legitimate competing hypothesis to explain an unknown. As it has been presented here, its not workable by any stretch.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join