The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

reply to post by Phage


You said:

Correct. The existence of things cannot be falsified but their existence can be demonstrated.

Exactly my point, so you were just being dishonest when you said that you need to show the multiverse doesn't. exist. You don't and I'm glad you finally came around.

Of course the evidence used to build the hypothesis can be falsified. The evidence listed in the above post can be falsified.

The problem is blind debunkers are too lazy to try to refute the evidence. They just want to make these proclamations that are meaningless.

They can falsify the hypothesis but they can't refute the evidence. So instead of admitting that they can't which would strengthen the hypothesis, they make meaningless blanket statements.

It's just pure laziness. The same evidence and investigations used to build the hypothesis can be falsified by blind debunkers if they would get off of their butts and look into the evidence used.

They can't refute the evidence used to build the hypothesis, so they make meaningless statements.

The sad part is, they can basically be dishonest and people will act like they know what they're talking about.

There's nothing stopping you from getting with your debunker buddies and investigating the evidence used to build the hypothesis but of course you won't. No debunker will because they can't refute the evidence.

Lastly, bringing up unicorns creating rainbows is just silly.

If you can't make a simple distinction between unicorns creating rainbows and evidence used to build the ET hypothesis, then you have to be acting blind to this distinction on purpose.

There's no evidence that unicorns create rainbows.

Why are you trying to lump unicorns into a debate about U.F.O.'s?

This is because you can't refute the evidence used to build the hypothesis.

reply to post by neoholographic

Exactly my point, so you were just being dishonest when you said that you need to show the multiverse doesn't. exist. You don't and I'm glad you finally came around.

No. I said that the existence of multiple universes cannot be falsified. And I'm still saying that.

Why are you trying to lump unicorns into a debate about U.F.O.'s?

Because, like UFOs, their existence cannot be falsified. Nor can Bigfoot. Nor can a lot of things.

Your thread is based on the premise that the ETH is falsifiable by the use of its null. It is not.

reply to post by Phage


Again, more unscientific nonsense. You said:

No. I said that the existence of multiple universes cannot be falsified. And I'm still saying that.

This is just not the case. If this were the case then we would have to throw out things like quarks. How do we even know that a multiverse may exist? It's through theories that predict a multiverse.

So the existence of a multiverse can be falsified if theories that predict a multiverse exist are falsified.

So when you start talking about science showing the multiverse doesn't exist, that makes no sense. That has nothing to do with falsification.

The most science can do is falsify theories that predict a multiverse.

Again, you're just don't know how science works.

Science doesn't falsify the existence of.........(fill in the blank)

You have been all over the place. The ET hypothesis is falsifiable because in order for you to falsify the theory you don't have to show extraterrestrials don't exist.

It wasn't science when you talked about showing a multiverse doesn't exist and it's not science now.

You can't falsify unicorns creating rainbows because their isn't any evidence to support it. You can falsify the ET hypothesis.

usertwelve
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?

Landing traces, medical effects on the witnesses, photographs, implants, burn marks on the ground etc.

EnPassant

usertwelve
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?

Landing traces, medical effects on the witnesses, photographs, implants, burn marks on the ground etc.

So my evidence is a one sentence post from a web site. Would your evidence happen to be the same?

Phage


"Some rainbows are created by unicorns."

Nobody has seen Unicorns or spaghetti monsters flying in the sky. But a lot of people has seen strange crafts..a.k.a flying disks, flying cylindrical objects and even triangular ones.

Please stop comparing that Unicorn thing with UFOs. Its laughable.

reply to post by radkrish


That's exactly right.

Unicorns creating rainbows is just nonsense. It tells you the evidence is really strong because they're trying to dilute the evidence by bringing up things like unicorns creating rainbows or flying spaghetti monsters.

I remember when I first started posting on ATS you would hear santa and the easter bunny.

They don't want to debate the evidence presented because they can't refute it. So they then try to say well it's just like unicorns creating rainbows or some other nonsense that has nothing to do with the debate.

usertwelve
So my evidence is a one sentence post from a web site. Would your evidence happen to be the same?

Instead of "busting his chops" why don't you do a little of your own due diligence, and do a simple search for physical trace of UFOs and ET. You will be amazed...biological/DNA, metallurgy, technology, an impressive list of not well understood "objects".

As the man said; there is a preponderance of physical trace!

The problem with this evidence is that it is spread all over the world, and is difficult to gather in a single place where it might me useful.

reply to post by tanka418

Instead of "busting his chops" why don't you do a little of your own due diligence, and do a simple search for physical trace of UFOs and ET.

I wasn't aware that asking for such evidence is somehow "busting his chops"?. Please forgive my poor forum etiquette.

You will be amazed...

I must not be very good at finding the evidence you are referring to. Maybe my country has blocked such information.

As the man said; there is a preponderance of physical trace!

Excellent. Then it should be simple to provide just a single reference, no? One might think a forum like this would house at least one source.

tanka418
You will be amazed...biological/DNA, metallurgy, technology, an impressive list of not well understood "objects".

Show a single example of any of the three which has been verified and peer reviewed by REPUTABLE scientific sources to be of Alien origin. Any single example of an artificially produced Alien alloy, an extraterrestrial DNA strand, a piece of alien technology... anything. Shouldn't be so hard to do since it's such an amazing preponderance of trace evidence.

draknoir2

tanka418
You will be amazed...biological/DNA, metallurgy, technology, an impressive list of not well understood "objects".

Show a single example of any of the three which has been verified and peer reviewed by REPUTABLE scientific sources to be of Alien origin. Any single example of an artificially produced Alien alloy, an extraterrestrial DNA strand, a piece of alien technology... anything. Shouldn't be so hard to do since it's such an amazing preponderance of trace evidence.

As I happen to know that you are predisposed to reject any and all data presented, I think I'll pass on this opportunity to do your due diligence...

reply to post by radkrish

Nobody has seen Unicorns or spaghetti monsters flying in the sky. But a lot of people has seen strange crafts..a.k.a flying disks, flying cylindrical objects and even triangular ones.

Please stop comparing that Unicorn thing with UFOs. Its laughable.

It has nothing to do with UFOs. It has to do with "aliens" piloting these "Unidentified" things. People also see rainbows and some are made by unicorns.

I believe the only comparison was that they are not falsifiable statements. Santa clause brings toys to some children. The Easter Bunny makes me happy. Ghosts haunt some houses. Bigfoot is real. I sometimes talk to God. Some people mind meld with plants. My dog communicates with my lizards telepathically.

tanka418

draknoir2

tanka418
You will be amazed...biological/DNA, metallurgy, technology, an impressive list of not well understood "objects".

Show a single example of any of the three which has been verified and peer reviewed by REPUTABLE scientific sources to be of Alien origin. Any single example of an artificially produced Alien alloy, an extraterrestrial DNA strand, a piece of alien technology... anything. Shouldn't be so hard to do since it's such an amazing preponderance of trace evidence.

As I happen to know that you are predisposed to reject any and all data presented, I think I'll pass on this opportunity to do your due diligence...

How convenient for you.

tanka418 As I happen to know that you are predisposed to reject any and all data presented, I think I'll pass on this opportunity to do your due diligence...

Why is it his due diligence to research the sources you're talking about but don't provide? You made the claim, burden of proof is on you.

Maybe if you fail to convince him, following through with your claims might just convince others. Saying it won't hold up to your scrutiny so why bother hardly paints the picture of solid evidence.

First, please don't mistake my intent here, I totally get and agree with your 'stance' re: that the op is incorrect in his insistence that "unfalsifiable" equals 'true'...

And then he's accusing you of arguing semantics...tsk, tsk...it probably would have helped if you had chosen something more 'equatable' to his subject matter...maybe...

'ETs create rainbows.'?

Phage
Unicorns create rainbows. A false statement, yet not falsifiable because, as you said, the negative cannot be validated.

edit on 4/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Now my question to you is:

Concerning the 'specificity' of the statement, "Unicorns create rainbows.", wouldn't it actually be falsifiable by virtue of the fact that we know scientifically exactly 'how' rainbows are made, and unicorns (whether they exist or not) have no involvement in the 'process'?

I'm not sure exactly what my point here is...something to do with assessing scientific possibilities by looking at them from altering perspectives?

reply to post by lostgirl

Concerning the 'specificity' of the statement, "Unicorns create rainbows.", wouldn't it actually be falsifiable by virtue of the fact that we know scientifically exactly 'how' rainbows are made, and unicorns (whether they exist or not) have no involvement in the 'process'?

No.
Notice how the unicorn hypothesis is worded. It does not state that all rainbows are created by unicorns.
We do know how non-unicorn generated rainbows form but that does not mean that all rainbows are created in that manner.

I'm not sure exactly what my point here is...something to do with assessing scientific possibilities by looking at them from altering perspectives?

Your point is a good one. While many hypotheses cannot be falsified in toto, the null can be statistically evaluated.

While it cannot be ruled out that unicorns create rainbows, we can study the formation of rainbows. If a majority of rainbows form without unicorns being present we could say that the hypothesis has been falsified on a statistical basis. But even though we may never see a unicorn creating a rainbow, we cannot account for past or future rainbows. We cannot account for rainbows which are not observed to form.

What happens when we apply this approach to the ETH? First, the problem is that UFOs are a lot more rare than rainbows. This makes them difficult to study but since the vast majority of UFO cases have been falsified, the ETH can be said to have been statistically falsified. Does this mean that the hypothesis is falsified? No, it means that statistically, it is unlikely to be valid.

I know the OP seems to take offense to the use of the unicorn hypothesis. It should be obvious that I am not putting the validity of the two hypotheses on the same level, just the fact that neither is falsifiable. The same applies to Bigfoot. The hypothesis that Sasquatch is roaming the forests cannot be falsified. Claimed evidence for Bigfoot has never demonstrated that it exists. Some evidence has been falsified but the hypothesis has not been, nor can it be.

Bigfoot is real.

reply to post by Phage

Claimed evidence for Bigfoot has never demonstrated that it exists. That evidence has been falsified but the hypothesis has not been, nor can it be.

That is just silly.

reply to post by conundrummer


The data you speak of is all searchable, but scattered all over. It is not my job, nor do I truly have the time to do someone else's due diligence.

I might as why y'all are being so bleedin' lazy wen it comes to this question. If you want "links" do a search for "physical trace of extraterrestrials" and see how many "links" you get...then all ya need do is evaluate several 10's of thousands...enjoy!

But seriously...I have seen enough to form an opinion, I'm sure you are capable of doing the same search and arriving at some sort of intelligent conclusion...without my input.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

Your avatar makes my eyes hurt.