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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   

neoholographicOf 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.

So Phage can't use a rainbow unicorn analogy because its off topic but you can use an analogy about Detroit, cause science?




posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





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.





What your [ you're] saying has nothing to do with science.


There is no universal generalization in that statement. Thus it cannot be falsified. I would be weary of ridiculing other people's knowledge about science in the wake of your own ignorance.

Only "All winter nights reach below zero in Detroit" can be falsified, because it is a universal statement. I could never prove it, but I could falsify it. "Some winter nights..." just doesn't work, because you'd be there checking winter temperatures until the end of time and still never falsify it.

Karl Popper wrote the book on falsification, and the use of universal and particular statements in science. It's free here. I would suggest you read it:

The Logic of Scientific Discovery




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



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



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.
You've now gone from hypothesis to theory. You know the difference, right?
 




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.
No. You said "some winter nights."
edit on 4/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


What??

Of course you can falsify it.

The statement some winter nights reach below zero can be falsified if you check the winter nights in Detroit and you don't find any winter nights below zero.

Again, this is just simple basic 8th grade science.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Newsflash.

Theories and hypothesis can be falsified. Now you're trying to play semantics because you can't debate the issue.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


The statement some winter nights reach below zero can be falsified if you check the winter nights in Detroit and you don't find any winter nights below zero.

Oh, you meant to say "There were some nights last winter in Detroit when temperatures were below 0."

Otherwise you will need to go out every night, every year, and check the records but even that won't do it because you cannot say that every night in Detroit in the winter of 1492 was below 0.

Nor can every UFO report be shown to not have been extraterrestrial.





edit on 4/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by conundrummer
 


There's zero evidence that unicorns create rainbows.

You do know there's evidence of winter nights in Detroit???

WOW!!!!

Again, any mention of unicorns creating rainbows is just pure dishonesty when compared to the ET hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Theories and hypothesis can be falsified. Now you're trying to play semantics because you can't debate the issue.

No. I am trying to keep you on track.
There is an important difference between theory and hypothesis. A theory has been tested. Has the ETH been tested? Have those tests produced new data which supports the hypothesis?

edit on 4/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Nope and that's just as dishonest as saying you would have to show parallel universes don't exist in order to falsify multiverse theories. That's just not science.

Comparing unicorns creating rainbows to the ET hypothesis is just dishonesty.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Again, you're just making things up.

When did I say the ETH was a theory??

What you quotes was talking about the multiverse. Again, you don't have to show a multiverse doesn't exist in order to falsify it.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Again, you don't have to show a multiverse doesn't exist in order to falsify it.
No. You can't. You may be able to falsify a particular parts of a theory about multiple universes by testing predictions made by it but you cannot show that another universe does not exist.

You cannot show that no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials.
edit on 4/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
If Phage was correct you would have to throw out half of science.

It's clear when you have to try and compare unicorns creating rainbows with the ET hypothesis.

There's just zero evidence to support that unicorns creating rainbows so the statement lacks a null hypothesis. There's nothing to falsify because there isn't any evidence to refute.

I guess people have just let you make these statements and others just accept them as true.

How are the ET hypothesis and unicorns creating rainbows equivalent?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


WOW!!!!!


You may be able to falsify a particular parts of a theory about multiple universes by testing predictions made by it but you cannot show that another universe does not exist.


This is exactly what I have been saying!!!

It's sad that people just accept what you're saying is true when it's a hodge podge of nonsense.

Again, you don't have to show that another universe doesn't exist to falsify multiverse theories.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

It just blows my mind that people can be so dishonest when debating these issues.

If you falsify particular parts of a multiverse theory why do you need to show another universe doesn't exist in order to falsify it???

You need to read what you just said.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Again, you don't have to show that another universe doesn't exist to falsify multiverse theories.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

No. That is not what I said. I said parts of the theory can be falsified. That does not falsify the entire theory.


If you falsify particular parts of a multiverse theory why do you need to show another universe doesn't exist in order to falsify it???
Because even though parts of the theory may be wrong, the basis (that there is more than one universe) may still be correct even though the approach was wrong. Parts of many theories have been falsified but the base idea has not. That is why and how theories are modified and continue to exist as theory. It can not be shown that there is not more than one universe. The base idea cannot be falsified.

You are acting as if all hypotheses are equal. They aren't. Some are far more complex than others. In the case of the ETH (or Detroit, or unicorns), the hypothesis is not complex. It consists of one point: "some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials". Such a hypothesis is not falsifiable. In order to falsify the hypothesis it must be shown that no UFO report ever involved extraterrestrials and that cannot be done.


edit on 4/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



There's zero evidence that unicorns create rainbows.

Is there evidence that UFOs are piloted by beings not from earth?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic
 



There's zero evidence that unicorns create rainbows.

Is there evidence that UFOs are piloted by beings not from earth?


There is evidence that they are piloted by ETs. But evidence is not proof. Evidence is a body of facts that can be interpreted in a way that supports a hypothesis. The more the evidence supports the hypothesis the closer it comes to proof. There is much physical evidence for ufos and if this phenomena is physical that fact supports the ET hypothesis because it is not likely that such physicality originates on earth.

When it comes to falsifiability the ET hypothesis cannot be falsified. To falsify a hypothesis is to show that it is ALWAYS untrue and that cannot be done even if 99.999% of sightings were shown to be weather balloons the remaining percent could be ET and nobody can prove they are not, hence the idea cannot be falsified." ALL ufos are ET" has been falsified because it has been shown that some are weather balloons. "Some UFOs are ET" cannot be falsified because it would have to be shown that every object in the sky is not ET and this cannot be done.

But the hypothesis that some are ET is a worthy hypothesis and is even scientific because of the preponderance of physical evidence.
edit on 10-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic
 



There's zero evidence that unicorns create rainbows.

Is there evidence that UFOs are piloted by beings not from earth?


Actually yes.

Try Betty/Barney Hill Case.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


But the hypothesis that some are ET is a worthy hypothesis and is even scientific because of the preponderance of physical evidence.

There is physical evidence?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Falsify the entire theory?

That makes zero sense. You said you need to show that a multiverse doesn't exist in order to falsify it. You then say you can falsify part of a theory to falsify it but that doesn't falsify the base of the theory.

This is just gobbledy gook.

This is because you're looking at falsification as an all or nothing proposition.

The most unscientific thing that you have said besides the silly unicorns creating rainbows thing is you need to show a multiverse doesn't exist in order to falsify it.

Science doesn't show that things don't exist. Science can demonstrate the likelihood that it exists is false through observation and experimentation.


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.


Again, the key line here is this:

That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false;

This is why most theories live on in some fashion. This is because science isn't interesting in falsifying the base of a theory, whatever that means.

So you can falsify the ET hypothesis by falsifying a key component of the ET hypothesis. The key components are these.

1. U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence

2. U.F.O.'s move in ways that defy our current understanding of physics

3. U.F.O.'s cause an electrical disturbance with cars.

4. U.F.O.'s can disable nuclear weapons

5. U.F.O.'s leave trace and physical evidence

6. U.F.O.'s show up on radars

7. U.F.O.'s can't be captured by our current planes

These things all have evidence that you can falsify. Here's some of the evidence.

Robert Hasting on CNN talking about his investigation of Nukes and U.F.O.'s.



Leslie Kean's book.

UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record


With the support of former White House Chief-of-Staff John Podesta, Kean draws on her research to separate fact from fiction and to lift the veil on decades of U.S. government misinformation. Throughout, she presents irrefutable evidence that unknown flying objects – metallic, luminous, and seemingly able to maneuver in ways that defy the laws of physics – actually exist.




Here's more on U.F.O.'s and intelligence



The Documentary Out of the Blue


From UFOTV®, accept no imitations. Narrated by Peter Coyote, OUT OF THE BLUE is widely considered one of the best documentary films ever made about UFOs and was directed by celebrated filmmakers James Fox, Tim Coleman and Boris Zubov. The films producers traveled around the world to investigate some of the most famous UFO events on record. Through exclusive interviews with high-ranking military and government personnel, this award-winning film supports the theory that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

This film features Governor Fife Symington, Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Russian General Leonid Aleviev, President Jimmy Carter, Cosmonaut Major General Pavel Popovich, UK Admiral Lord Hill Norton, Physics Professor Dr. Brian Greene, President Gerald Ford, Astronaut Colonel Gordon Cooper. White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, and many more. Presents an International Scope, Quality Testimony, and Scientific Perspectives. OUT OF THE BLUE provides a Definitive Investigation of the UFO Phenomenon.




Radar reports

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Vehicle interference cases

www.ufoevidence.org...

Electromagnetic effects

www.ufoevidence.org...

Government U.F.O. Documents

www.ufoevidence.org...

U.F.O. articles published in scientific journals

www.ufoevidence.org...

The problem here is most blind debunkers misuse science when it comes to things like U.F.O.'s and the Paranormal. This is why Phage is all over the place about what's falsifiable.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


You then say you can falsify part of a theory to falsify it but that doesn't falsify the base of the theory.
Yes.

This is just gobbledy gook.
No.



Science doesn't show that things don't exist.
Correct. The existence of things cannot be falsified but their existence can be demonstrated. I cannot prove that unicorns do not exist but if I caught one it would prove that they do. Bigfoot cannot be falsified even though "evidence" has been.



That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false;
Yes, I said that here:

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


So you can falsify the ET hypothesis by falsifying a key component of the ET hypothesis. The key components are these.
No. You can falsify individual UFO cases by applying those criteria. You cannot falsify all cases, one reason being that there is usually not enough information to do so. The ETH is not falsifiable.

BTW, there are eyewitness reports of unicorns you know.
edit on 4/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join