The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

neoholographic
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.

You don't need to collect any more data! Over the past 70 years enough data has been collected toprove the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. It remains "unproven" because you have yet to properly use that data.

Seriously...collect all of the "UFO / ET" data extant into one place. Process that data into a coherent relational database. You will have more "proof" than you know what to do with! Period!

reply to post by neoholographic

How are the 2 equivalent in any way?

They are equivalent in that neither is falsifiable, which was my point. Neither can be disproven.

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

The ETH cannot be falsified because it says that some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials. Even if every UFO reported from now on was shown to be other than extraterrestrial it would leave the possibility that past UFOs were. In order to falsify the ETH one would have to demonstrate that no UFO ever reported was controlled by extraterrestrials. It is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

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.

I cannot falsify the hypothesis because I cannot show that every UFO ever reported was not controlled by extraterrestrials. Any UFO report for which I cannot provide an explanation for could be extraterrestrial.

Individual UFO reports are falsifiable. Many UFO reports have been falsified. If we take those that have been (80%? 90%?) it would seem that statistically the ETH has been falsified since far more reports have been falsified than not. But by saying "some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" you have created a hypothesis which cannot be falsified.

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

Nor is there evidence that they can't.

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

Scientific evidence? Remember, you saying that the ETH is a scientific hypothesis.

I've said the ETH is a valid hypothesis. A hypothesis does not have to be falsifiable to be valid. The ETH is not falsifiable.

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)

One area that is sadly neglected about ufonauts is the psychological study of them. This is possible - but only by intelligent people such as Vallee and Keel.

We can, for example, start with the ET hypothesis and assume, for the sake of argument, that they are here and we can then ask questions;

1. Why would they be so secretive? Their secrecy is deliberate.

2. Why do they give contradictory answers? Is this part of the secrecy?

3. Vallee says the cattle mutilations are an exercise in terror. If so, why?

There is plenty of room for evaluating the psychology of these beings based on their behaviour. Where are the psychologists on ATS?

EnPassant

There is plenty of room for evaluating the psychology of these beings based on their behaviour. Where are the psychologists on ATS?

edit on 9-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

The only way you can seriously analyze the behavior of an extraterrestrial being, is by conclusively proving that what you're dealing with, is in fact an alien being. We've yet to see enough evidence to support alien visitations to earth. Giving out a cursory prognosis or attempting to psychoanalyze something that could very well be a natural phenomenon or experimental craft flown by human beings, is unprofessional and ignores the scientific process completely.

EDIT: I do think claims of alien abductions can be more accurately (And best) addressed with psychology, as most "abductees" are either lying, delusional, schizophrenic or projecting their apparent feeling of insignificance.

LogicalRazor

EnPassant

There is plenty of room for evaluating the psychology of these beings based on their behaviour. Where are the psychologists on ATS?

edit on 9-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

The only way you can seriously analyze the behavior of an extraterrestrial being, is by conclusively proving that what you're dealing with, is in fact an alien being. We've yet to see enough evidence to support alien visitations to earth. Giving out a cursory prognosis of something that could very well be a natural phenomenon or experimental craft flown by human beings, is unprofessional and ignores the scientific process completely.

I think there is sufficient evidence. But that is not my point. I was answering a question. It is possible that they are ET so, at this point, it is worth doing a psychological study of them in case they exist. If this study was done the results of it might even strengthen the ET hypothesis.

An example from history might be the psychological study of Hitler carried out by an American psychologist. I'll get a link and get back to you

I think this is it.

EnPassant

LogicalRazor

EnPassant

There is plenty of room for evaluating the psychology of these beings based on their behaviour. Where are the psychologists on ATS?

edit on 9-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

The only way you can seriously analyze the behavior of an extraterrestrial being, is by conclusively proving that what you're dealing with, is in fact an alien being. We've yet to see enough evidence to support alien visitations to earth. Giving out a cursory prognosis of something that could very well be a natural phenomenon or experimental craft flown by human beings, is unprofessional and ignores the scientific process completely.

I think there is sufficient evidence. But that is not my point. I was answering a question. It is possible that they are ET so, at this point, it is worth doing a psychological study of them in case they exist. If this study was done the results of it might even strengthen the ET hypothesis.

Since there's no direct evidence of ET's visiting earth, the analysis would be completely invalid and be of no actual scientific value.

reply to post by Phage


You just made the ET hypothesis even stronger. You said:

I cannot falsify the hypothesis because I cannot show that every UFO ever reported was not controlled by extraterrestrials. Any UFO report for which I cannot provide an explanation for could be extraterrestrial.

This is just a total lack of understanding on how science works.

THE REASON YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT EVERY U.F.O. EVER REPORTED WAS NOT CONTROLLED BY EXTRATERRESTRIALS IS BECAUSE THERE'S EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ET HYPOTHESIS.

What you're saying has nothing to do with Science.

If there weren't abduction cases, close encounters, eyewitness accounts, radar reports, Kaku, Mitchell, Hawking and more then you couldn't build the ET hypothesis.

It's the accumulation of evidence vs. no evidence and this is why your unicorn example is so blatantly dishonest.

I can say with 100% certainty that unicorns don't create rainbows because there's zero evidence to support it.

With the hypothesis that some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials is built upon EVIDENCE.

Again, blind debunkers throw basic common sense out of the window.

People are not reaching these conclusions in a vacuum. It's based on the accumulation of evidence.

LogicalRazor

EnPassant

LogicalRazor

EnPassant

There is plenty of room for evaluating the psychology of these beings based on their behaviour. Where are the psychologists on ATS?

edit on 9-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

The only way you can seriously analyze the behavior of an extraterrestrial being, is by conclusively proving that what you're dealing with, is in fact an alien being. We've yet to see enough evidence to support alien visitations to earth. Giving out a cursory prognosis of something that could very well be a natural phenomenon or experimental craft flown by human beings, is unprofessional and ignores the scientific process completely.

I think there is sufficient evidence. But that is not my point. I was answering a question. It is possible that they are ET so, at this point, it is worth doing a psychological study of them in case they exist. If this study was done the results of it might even strengthen the ET hypothesis.

Since there's no direct evidence of ET's visiting earth, the analysis would be completely invalid and be of no actual scientific value.

You don't know that. Until the study is done nobody knows what light it may shed on the subject. If the study shows the psychology of real beings that would tell us a lot. My own opinion is that they do act like real beings with intelligence and an agenda.

reply to post by neoholographic

This is just a total lack of understanding on how science works.

No. It seems that you do not understand the concept or purpose of falsification.

THE REASON YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT EVERY U.F.O. EVER REPORTED WAS NOT CONTROLLED BY EXTRATERRESTRIALS IS BECAUSE THERE'S EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ET HYPOTHESIS.

No need to yell. The reason I can't show that every UFO ever reported was not controlled by extraterrestrials is because I cannot show that every UFO ever reported was not controlled by extraterrestrials.

It's the accumulation of evidence vs. no evidence and this is why your unicorn example is so blatantly dishonest.

Accumulation of evidence for a hypothesis has nothing to do with if a hypothesis is falsifiable.

People are not reaching these conclusions in a vacuum. It's based on the accumulation of evidence.

That's fine. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the hypothesis is falsifiable. But, again, since you are putting this in the realm of science, is that evidence scientific?

reply to post by Phage


What???

Of course you can. You said:

No need to yell. The reason I can't show that every UFO ever reported was not controlled by extraterrestrials is because I cannot show that every UFO ever reported was not controlled by extraterrestrials.

All you have to do is refute the evidence that built the hypothesis.

Again, this is science.

Example, the steady state theory. The steady state theory was popular but fell out of favor because observation contradicted the evidence.

All you have to do is refute the evidence that built the hypothesis. The fact that you can't refute it strengthens the hypothesis.

Let's go back to your silly unicorn example.

There's zero evidence to support it so you can say with 100% certainty that unicorns don't create rainbows.

There's no evidence to refute so saying unicorns create rainbows isn't scientific.

Saying some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials is scientific because it's a hypothesis based on evidence. You can easily falsify the hypothesis by refuting the evidence the hypothesis is built on.

reply to post by neoholographic

Saying some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials is scientific because it's a hypothesis based on evidence. You can easily falsify the hypothesis by refuting the evidence the hypothesis is built on.

As I said, only individual cases can be falsified, the hypothesis cannot be falsified unless every case is falsified. It cannot be demonstrated that no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials. It can be shown that a great majority are not controlled by extraterrestrials, but not all. Individual cases are falsifiable, the ETH is not though based on statistics, the evidence against is stronger than that for. There are many more falsified cases than not.


But, again, since you are putting this in the realm of science, is the evidence you keep talking about scientific evidence?

Let's list some more evidence the hypothesis is built on. Again, blind debunkers like to throw things out like unicorns creating rainbows but it's just silly. There's no evidence to support that unicorns create rainbows so there's nothing to refute.

With the hypothesis that some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials there's mountains of evidence to build the hypothesis.

Radar reports.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Physical evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Abduction cases

www.ufocasebook.com...

Close encounters

www.ufoevidence.org...

Cometa report

www.ufoevidence.org...

Sturrock report

www.ufoevidence.org...

Stephen Hawking saying Aliens almost certainly exist.

Edgar Mitchell



Dr. Michio Kaku



Robert Hastings on CNN talking about extraterrestrials, Nukes and a Government panel that presented the evidence as well as his book.



Again, it's just dishonest to try to compare the ET Hypothesis with unicorns creating rainbows. People aren't reaching these conclusions in a vacuum. It's based on evidence.

reply to post by neoholographic


I agree that there is evidence supporting alien visitation, and some people may argue that the evidence is of a quality that would (using the standards of the scientific method) amount to "proof" of ET hypothetis for the UFO phnomeon (again, that would be the use of the term "proof" as defined by the scientific method).

Personally, I don't think it has reached the level of proof. However, I'm not here to argue whether or not it has, and (frankly) I'm not sure what I personally think has anything to do with it, anyway...


So here's my point:

As I said before, my argument is that even if a majority of people (I'm not sure who those people would even be) all decided to agree that there IS IN FACT a sufficient quality of evidence to support proving the ET Hypothesis by using the scientific method, then what?

It's not like the scientific method is the ultimate final word on "Absolute Truths". It's not like the scientific method declaring a hypothesis proven would necessarily make that hypothesis suddenly become the "actual truth of the matter at hand".

That's not what the scientific method does. The scientific method is simply one tool that is used to gather information that may eventually lead us to learn what we believe to be the truth about nature and the universe. However, the scientific method alone does not necessarily provide us with what is actually the truth about nature and the universe. What we believe to be the truth may not actually be the truth -- even when that belief is backed up by the a hypothesis proven by the scientific method.

The evidence we have gathered on the ET hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon may (in the yes of some) be enough to say the the hypothesis can be proven by the standards of the scientific method -- and that's great. However, to find the actual truth about alien visitation, we need to have hard evidence amounting to those aliens openly contacting us, or vice versa (openly, meaning for the world to see and for the world to agree upon).

Again, it's just dishonest to try to compare the ET Hypothesis with unicorns creating rainbows.

The nature of the hypothesis is not relevant to whether or not it is falsifiable.

A hypothesis of multiple universes cannot be falsified. It cannot be shown that another universe does not exist.

It cannot be shown that some UFOs are not controlled by extraterrestrials. It is not falsifiable.

reply to post by neoholographic

With the hypothesis that some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials there's mountains of evidence to build the hypothesis.

I don't think you need a mountain of evidence to support that some UFOs are ET, you only need "some" evidence that is good. I think the "mountain" you refer to only makes it more confusing and less helpful.

Yes, I am sure that makes no sense and supports everything you said. What do the blind debunkers say again?

Phage is on point when it comes to the scientific method and he's been cool and composed even when the OP has been getting defensive and ALL CAPPIN' it.

reply to post by Phage


Again, this statement has nothing to do with science just like your silly unicorn example. You said:

A hypothesis of multiple universes cannot be falsified. It cannot be shown that another universe does not exist.

You don't have to show another universe doesn't exist in order to falsify a multiverse.

All you have to do is show that evidence used to build the hypothesis is false. If observation disagrees with the hypothesis. This would mean the idea of a multiverse becomes less likely based on the available evidence.

Again, you wouldn't have to show another universe doesn't exist in order to falsify a multiverse hypothesis. That has nothing to do with how science works.

You would have to show that some U.F.O.'s being controlled by extraterrestrials is false by refuting the evidence and showing it's unlikely or it isn't a possibility.

For instance, I can say your silly example of unicorns creating rainbows isn't a possibility because there's no evidence to support it. You can't falsify something that doesn't have any evidence to support it.

With the ET Hypothesis you can falsify it by refuting the evidence and showing the hypothesis isn't likely or that it isn't a possibility based on the available evidence.

Again, you have to first understand what it means for something to be falsifiable:

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.[1]

So in order to demonstrate the falsehood of the ET hypothesis, you would need to refute the evidence used to build the hypothesis. In contrast, your silly unicorn example isn't falsifiable because there's evidence to refute it therefore there's no null hypothesis.

For example, I can make the statement SOME nights reach below zero in Detroit during the winter. I wouldn't have to check every night in Detroit to falsify that some nights reach below zero in Detroit. I would just need to check the nights that support the hypothesis which are nights of winter months.

conundrummer
Phage is on point when it comes to the scientific method and he's been cool and composed even when the OP has been getting defensive and ALL CAPPIN' it.

That's a joke.

Anyone that compares unicorns creating rainbows to the ET hypothesis doesn't know science.

Anyone who claims you can't show another universe DOESN'T exist doesn't know science.

You wouldn't have to show another universe doesn't exist in order to falsify a multiverse theory.

Those things have nothing to do with science.

reply to post by neoholographic

You don't have to show another universe doesn't exist in order to falsify a multiverse.

Yes, you do.

All you have to do is show that evidence used to build the hypothesis is false.

No. At that does is show that the evidence for it is not good evidence. That doesn't mean that another universe does not exist.

For example, I can make the statement SOME nights reach below zero in Detroit during the winter. I wouldn't have to check every night in Detroit to falsify that some nights reach below zero in Detroit. I would just need to check the nights that support the hypothesis which are nights of winter months.

You are not talking about falsification, you are talking about verification.

reply to post by Phage


What??

You don't have to show that a universe doesn't exist in order to falsify the theory. You just have to show that multiverse theories don't agree with observation.

For instance, Inflation. You can't show that inflation doesn't exist. That's not scientific in any way.

The most you can do is see if observations or experiments agree or disagree with the evidence used to build the theory of inflation. This way you can demonstrate the falsehood of the theory.

Again, you're not talking about science.

Of course the statement some winter nights reach below zero in Detroit can be falsified.

All you have to do is check the winter nights in Detroit and if you don't find a night that was below zero than the statement is falsified.

Again, you have convinced people that you know what you're talking about.

What your saying has nothing to do with science.