The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

reply to post by BayesLike


What you said has nothing to do with science. Let me give you a list of theories that Scientist have accepted that wasn't falsifiable.

Higgs Boson
Inflation
Loop Quantum Gravity
M-Theory
String Theory
Hawking Radiation
Many Worlds interpretation
Simulation Theory
The Holographic Principle
Randall-Sundrum
Dark matter/Energy

I can go on and on. Science is built on hypothesis and theories that are not falsifiable.

They are called U.F.O.'s THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T BUILD HYPOTHESIS'S TO TRY AND EXPLAIN THE OBSERVED PHENOMENA. Like I said, I don't see many debunkers complaining when a Scientist will come out saying U.F.O.'s are ball lightning. Science is supposed to build hypotheses to explain these observed phenomena. Debunkers want us just to stick are heads in the sand and stop thinking.

reply to post by neoholographic


Hawking radiation is a conjecture, or theory, not a hypothesis suitable for testing per se. A testable hypothesis would perhaps state a property of Hawking radiation about which evidence could be collected and examined. Then the null hypothesis about the property would be supported or the alternate hypothesis would be supported. It would then be interpretation that Hawking radiation was supported or not as a direct measure of its existence is not testable per se at this time. And it may never be testable at any future time given the nature of the theoretical radiation.

Over the years, the preponderance of evidence regarding measurable properties will give us reason to believe that Hawking radiation might actually exist or some other theory (conjecture) will be needed that is more consistent with the known, observable facts.

This isn't a Webster's definition of hypothesis which is very loosey-goosey and fits a common person's use of the word, but this is how science works and how hypotheses are used in science. Technical definitions are not usually found in common dictionaries. But that does not mean the technical definition does not exist or is not important.

reply to post by neoholographic


Again, these are theories or conjectures. But they are not testable, scientific hypotheses. We can collect evidence about properties of these and assumed consequences but we cannot use these theories as hypotheses. Again, Webster's or even Oxford dictionaries do not give technical definitions. They give a common person's usage of the terms.

BTW: I don't know what this "falsifiable" nonsense is. It's part of popular culture, but it doesn't mean much in a technical sense. One person's falsifiability is not another's as far as I can tell. The proper terminology is admissibility of a test. If there is no admissible test, either the null or the alternate hypothesis as stated is unable to be supported by evidence. We can precisely define what an admissible test is for a given hypothesis, without exception. Many hypotheses or tests are mal-formed, not everything that comes to mind is worth pursuing.

reply to post by BayesLike


Again, you're not talking about science. They're are plenty of hypotheses that aren't testable. Just because a theory isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it's lacking evidence to support it. It just means we may not have the technology to test it.

I know you want to turn science into something it's not when it comes to U.F.O.'s but ask your friend Phage. The ET Hypothesis is scientifically valid.

neoholographic
reply to post by BayesLike

 

Again, you're not talking about science. They're are plenty of hypotheses that aren't testable. Just because a theory isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it's lacking evidence to support it. It just means we may not have the technology to test it.

I know you want to turn science into something it's not when it comes to U.F.O.'s but ask your friend Phage. The ET Hypothesis is scientifically valid.

A "theory" is not a testable hypothesis although observations related to the theory may be testable. Phage may have bought into the common definition of a hypothesis for the argument, but that doesn't mean that was a technically correct thing to do. There is a large body of knowledge about how to set up and test scientific hypotheses. These are not covered by Webster's definition for the common usage of the term. The sad fact is that much of this body of knowledge is not generally taught to science majors even at a PhD level -- what is taught is patterns of research methods that have been found to produce acceptable results. Few scientists work on the frontiers of new methodology, and they do so at great risk to their careers.

It you want to show something, you need a testable hypothesis and you need admissible tests. You cannot just do anything you think is OK. We cannot test Hawking radiation, but we can test consequences that are consistent with it's presumed existence or non-existence. This is precisely what science does, no matter how strongly you protest otherwise. Theories (or conjectures) often evolve with the evidence as it is collected over time. And, over time, all theories are supplanted by new theories which often more simply describe the facts. None are ever proven.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Agree no negative can be scientifically proven in fact all data points indicate that there is always a statistical possibility for everything to be true or occur, what changes is the relation to the observer. So far as we can speculate eventing is possible and does seem to happen, it just isn't observed. In the face of that proving negatives is a fools errand, the best we can come up with is the probability of in our limited reality someone observes an occurrence, reports it to the collective and hopefully provides a way that someone can replicate the observation.

In the face of the complexity of the process, the myriad of ways that something can just goes unnoticed, the limited human capacity to apprehend reality, too much can occur that constructing feeble walls in our minds serves no real purpose beyond satisfying the ego delusion of control over reality, and force a fake consensus over what it is. While there is a cultural and sociological need for said consensus to occur as to permit coordination of actions and thoughts among individuals we must keep in mind that its basis are extremely flimsy (even intentionally deceitful, as people work primarily in self interest).

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

I dislike the term ET, I prefer the more broad term alien (as in stranger that does not belong to the set). I put the chance of it being extra terrestrial below many other possibilities (but above magical thinking, like religious beings, good or bad, that is the last option to live with the unknown). I would even put time travelling/inter-dimensional humans above ETs (not that I don't accept they have a high likelihood to exist), but the data we have gives more strength to a lot of other possibilities.

So far life seems restricted to our blue marble and so it remains the primal origin of any intelligent entity we may find, all other hypothesis should come after that until more facts are proven true. The more we find out the more precisely we can theorize.

Do I believe there is "proof" that it is in fact happening? No.

I disagree (depending on the definition of ET), there is a much broader dataset that proves that "aliens are visiting us". To me the most important facts are the need that was felt for states to study the phenomena, the conclusions (even taking in consideration that they were highly skewed, and governments even more than individuals are not only self serving but actively enforce continuity and stability), the deafening silence from the entities that should openly face the subject (even reputable non-governmental organization) and occurrences like the Colares Incident that had too many observers and factual data to be dismissed.

Empirical evidence supporting a hypothesis or even a theory does NOT amount to "proof". Theories are not fact.

Well, agree, but facts are in fact also falsifiable, especially those that are not directly observed, so I really don't put much "faith" in facts that I haven't directly observed and tend to be fully aware of my own limitations. I like to stratify my view of reality and refuse absolutes, especially those from outside sources. I see no requirement for factual validation of anything in general to reach my own conclusions based in my experiences. I just avoid as best as I can to make assumptions and try to keep my view of things as plastic as possible...

My view of things is that the consensus that "aliens are visiting us" is becoming greater in our society, most of us just fail to agree on the definitions and details and seemingly a great effort seems apparent in suppressing any rational examination of the subject (that is one of the data points that leads to my conclusions).

reply to post by Phage

The hypothesis as stated, "some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials", cannot be falsified.

That makes no sense, of course it can be falsified, even using the broader definition of the terms...

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

From Hypothesis vs Theory

To say that some UFOs aren't controlled by extraterrestrials you have to show that just some (even just one) UFOs are not controlled by extraterrestrials. That would prove that some UFOs are not controlled by extraterrestrials.

There is a large set of flying machines that proves that point, in fact that is by large the primary origin that should be granted to much of the observed UFOs, long before getting to the little green men or magic...

Wile I protest that magic is not a real answer any other thing should be listed in a ever decompressing level of probability.

Why does the evidence have to be 'scientific'? Sometimes common sense evidence can take on such force it is tantamount to proof. In discussions like this the line between evidence and proof is confused. Whether proof exists is debatable because proof depends on how the evidence is interpreted. Some people argue that the ET hypothesis is already proved (Friedman).

The real problem here is that, in the strictest sense, nothing can be proved. You cannot even prove that you are reading this post; it can always be argued that you are dreaming or hallucinating. Proof belongs in the realm of mathematics alone.

This means that the real question is concerned with when evidence becomes proof. not everyone will agree on this. Some will have higher standards than others.

Another standard is the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt". In this respect some will argue for the ET hypothesis.

S+F for the OP. Very well written and presented.

Panic2k11
reply to post by Phage

 

The hypothesis as stated, "some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials", cannot be falsified.

That makes no sense, of course it can be falsified, even using the broader definition of the terms...

If you can define what was seen then surely it's no longer a UFO? If you cannot identify what you are looking at then you cannot say what is 'controlling' it, therefore you cannot falsify it. Isn't that the point?

reply to post by Panic2k11

That makes no sense, of course it can be falsified, even using the broader definition of the terms...

How do you prove that no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials? If you can't do that the hypothesis is not falsifiable.

reply to post by Phage

How do you prove that no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials? If you can't do that the hypothesis is not falsifiable.

As I said no negative can be validated (or disproved). Notice that you specifically stated hypothesis and an hypothesis can indeed be false and so falsifiable as I also said. We live in a world of credentialization and populism and so the strongest consensus (aka majority thinking) is easily managed and fabricated, in the absence of direct observation what you have in a chain of trust/faith in validity that we make part of our cultural baggage...

reply to post by uncommitted

If you can define what was seen then surely it's no longer a UFO? If you cannot identify what you are looking at then you cannot say what is 'controlling' it, therefore you cannot falsify it. Isn't that the point?

False proposition, you can make a myriad of observation about any unknown without labelling it. If I see a object that seems a construct I define it as a device but can use the broader label of UFO if said device operates in ways that demonstrate some form of intelligence I can clearly state that it is under intelligent control. I can therefore categorize if further and match it with the "norm" and known capabilities of my society to define it as alien to it. So the problem seems the abuse of the word UFO and the label of extraterrestrial, but I understand that people fear the unknown and seek comfort of control by putting things in boxes.

reply to post by Panic2k11

As I said no negative can be validated (or disproved).

Not entirely true but in this case it is.

Notice that you specifically stated hypothesis and an hypothesis can indeed be false and so falsifiable as I also said.

If it cannot be shown to be false it is not falsifiable.
Unicorns create rainbows. A false statement, yet not falsifiable because, as you said, the negative cannot be validated.

reply to post by Phage


You keep mentioning this unicorn making rainbows and it makes no sense.

It has nothing to do with science and building a hypothesis. Is string theory like unicorns creating rainbows? Is the holographic principle or Hawking radiation like unicorns creating rainbows?

Again, you only hear this type of nonsense when it comes to things like U.F.O.'s or the Paranormal.

People are not building a hypothesis or reaching this conclusions on a whim. Of course blind debunkers seem to ignore the mountains of evidence that's used to build a hypothesis. I just listed a fraction of in an earlier post.

The null hypothesis helps strengthen these things as evidence grows for or against your hypothesis.

Like I said, sometimes we don't have the technology to test these things but that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence.

reply to post by neoholographic

You keep mentioning this unicorn making rainbows and it makes no sense.

In the context of this thread it does because like the ETH, it is not falsifiable.

EnPassant
Why does the evidence have to be 'scientific'? Sometimes common sense evidence can take on such force it is tantamount to proof. In discussions like this the line between evidence and proof is confused. Whether proof exists is debatable because proof depends on how the evidence is interpreted. Some people argue that the ET hypothesis is already proved (Friedman).

The real problem here is that, in the strictest sense, nothing can be proved. You cannot even prove that you are reading this post; it can always be argued that you are dreaming or hallucinating. Proof belongs in the realm of mathematics alone.

This means that the real question is concerned with when evidence becomes proof. not everyone will agree on this. Some will have higher standards than others.

Another standard is the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt". In this respect some will argue for the ET hypothesis.

S+F for the OP. Very well written and presented.

edit on 8-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Exactly and that's a good point about proof and evidence.

I never said you can prove the ET hypothesis. I said there's evidence to support the ET hypothesis and there's mountains of evidence. This is no different than saying.

You can't prove Hawking Radiation.
You can't prove String Theory.
You can't prove many worlds interpretation
You can't prove the Holographic Principle
You can't prove loop quantum gravity
and more

All of these things are heavily debated in the scientific community and some scientist accept these things based on the available evidence.

To act like you can never build a hypothesis to explain an observed phenomena, U.F.O.'s is silly. To act like people are just rolling out of bed and saying maybe some of these U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials makes no sense because there's mountains of evidence and I just listed a fraction of it in the above post.

reply to post by neoholographic



OK -- Let's stipulate that (from the standpoint of the scientific method) the ET hypothesis has enough evidence to say it is "proven"...

...now what?

Phage
reply to post by neoholographic

 

You keep mentioning this unicorn making rainbows and it makes no sense.

In the context of this thread it does because like the ETH, it is not falsifiable.

That's just pure nonsense.

Explain to me how a unicorn making a rainbow shares the same evidence as some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

This is the same nonsense I encountered when I first came to ATS when people were trying to compare these things to Santa. It's just sad and ridiculous that someone who acts like they know about science would say something so childish.

How are the 2 equivalent in any way?

How is Hawking Radiation like Unicorns creating rainbows or how is the Holographic Principle like Unicorns making rainbows?

You keep throwing around falsifiable because you must think it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

Of course it can be falsified as technology advances. Just like Hawking radiation can be tested as technology advances or extra dimensions.

You can easily falsify the hypothesis now. Refute the evidence the hypothesis is built on. You can do that now but it seems blind debunkers ignore the evidence like the plague.

See there's NO EVIDENCE THAT UNICORNS CAN CREATE RAINBOWS.

There's mountains of evidence to build the ET hypothesis.

Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by neoholographic

 

OK -- Let's stipulate that (from the standpoint of the scientific method) the ET hypothesis has enough evidence to say it is "proven"...

...now what?

edit on 4/9/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

If there was enough evidence to say it's proven, then we should be preparing to greet them as a planet. It should be a worldwide effort because it's proven.

It's not proven but there's evidence. So at this point we need to continue to build the evidence as technology increases and we're able to look for life and signatures of life in our solar system and on exoplanets.

neoholographic

Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by neoholographic

 

OK -- Let's stipulate that (from the standpoint of the scientific method) the ET hypothesis has enough evidence to say it is "proven"...

...now what?

edit on 4/9/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

If there was enough evidence to say it's proven, then we should be preparing to greet them as a planet. It should be a worldwide effort because it's proven.

It's not proven but there's evidence. So at this point we need to continue to build the evidence as technology increases and we're able to look for life and signatures of life in our solar system and on exoplanets.

If they come, they come. If they don't come, they don't come.
I'm not sure how a proven ET Hypothesis of the UFO phenomenon (proven from the standpoint of the scientific method) matters that much. A proven ET hypothesis will not make it any more likely that ETs will come and reveal themselves.

Trust me, most major world governments have contingency plans for many different "what if" scenarios -- even for scenarios that they may not necessarily believe is imminent or even likely. So an ET hypothesis proven using the scientific method really wouldn't change what they are doing. They probably already have plans for the potentiality of aliens coming to Earth and to say "greetings".

The general public for decades has already accepted the possibility of life elsewhere (just look at pop-culture fiction of the last 100 years), and even the possibility of alien visitation -- so a proven ET hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon would not make much of a difference in their minds, either.

As for searching for life elsewhere (which is a different hypothesis than the "ET Hypothesis for the UFO Phenomenon"), it is already the general belief among most mainstream science that intelligent life almost surely exists elsewhere. It's not only science, but it is even the belief of most average people (with a moderate enough amount of education to understand the scope of the universe) that there is other life in the universe...

...And again I don't see how proving the ET hypothesis of the UFO phenomenon from a scientific method standpoint would really change how mainstream science and the average person feels or acts.