The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

reply to post by interupt42


Again, you're not any sense. You keep repeating the same nonsense but that doesn't make it true.

Yes, we can falsify the hypothesis as data accumulates.

If you're right then Scientist might as well not bother with building a hypothesis based on a rare event.

For instance, if over the next 50 years we test every comet that flies by earth for an icy discharge and we don't find an icy discharge then the theory would be falsified. There could always be new data that comes in and then Scientist would have to adjust to the new data.

I will let you in on a little secret. This happens in Science.

For instance Stephen Hawking came to a conclusion about Black Holes, he then comes out years later and talks about an apparent horizon.

You don't need to study every black hole in the universe or every future black hole that will ever be to come up with theories surrounding black holes.

reply to post by neoholographic

For instance, if over the next 50 years we test every comet that flies by earth for an icy discharge and we don't find an icy discharge then the theory would be falsified.

How do you test UFOs for aliens?

neoholographic
Yes, we can falsify the hypothesis as data accumulates.

I think you have a point here. I think the confusion on this thread results from the fact that the ET hypothesis tends towards falsifiability due to the evidence. It is really a question of degrees; there is enough evidence to make reasonable statements about the hypothesis. In other words, as the evidence accumulates, it tends towards falsifiability. It is a grey area in this respect. No scientific hypothesis is perfectly falsifiable as we cannot tell that the laws of nature are absolute. We believe they are but cannot prove it so we cannot take falsifiability to extremes.

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

Apparently not, as others don't seem to have any difficulty. There IS a link you might try, in another post here.

You see the issue here is that you like many others, don't seem to want to find such evidence, only complain that it does not exist. You don't seem to want to do YOUR due diligence, and for some (lazy) reason seem to expect others to do your work for you. Hence I have a bit of an "issue" with this mentality and behavior.

@draknoir2; these comments are for you too.

The answers, the evidence, etc. you claim to search for are readily available for your inspection, but you can't expect others to do YOUR work (due diligence) for you!. That is an unreasonable request, and, ultimately only gives you yet another reason to reject any data presented.

reply to post by tanka418


Why would I search for evidence to support a claim you make but are unwilling/unable to prove? You have a real problem with the concept of burden of proof.

draknoir2
reply to post by tanka418

 

Why would I search for evidence to support a claim you make but are unwilling/unable to prove? You have a real problem with the concept of burden of proof.

Actually...that would be unwilling!

Based on your observed past performance handling data, I am quite unwilling to supply you with any data. You have shown yourself to be rather unable to understand, analyze, and process any data provided by other parties. Thus, perhaps, IF you are required to do a little work perhaps you will have a greater appreciation for that data and what it is trying to relate.

In other words; don't be so damn lazy! Truth is never something that is simply "handed" to someone. One is frequently required to "work" to find truth. Yet you and many others seem afraid to actually do this work.

Do your own Due Diligence. And please stop using other's work as a reason to reject their data.

To answer your question above: "you wouldn't, unless you wanted truth."

EnPassant

neoholographic
Yes, we can falsify the hypothesis as data accumulates.

I think you have a point here. I think the confusion on this thread results from the fact that the ET hypothesis tends towards falsifiability due to the evidence. It is really a question of degrees; there is enough evidence to make reasonable statements about the hypothesis. In other words, as the evidence accumulates, it tends towards falsifiability. It is a grey area in this respect. No scientific hypothesis is perfectly falsifiable as we cannot tell that the laws of nature are absolute. We believe they are but cannot prove it so we cannot take falsifiability to extremes.

Exactly, but there's no confusion in science on this point. People just make things up when it comes to things like ufology or the paranormal. So they talk in absolutes.

So in when it comes to U.F.O.'s eyewitnesses are idiots and they can never help when it comes to science. Yet, when it comes to things like meteors, comets, aurora borealis and more, eyewitnesses helped science develop a better understanding of these observed phenomena. U.F.O.'s are an observed phenomena so unlike black holes or inflation scientist have to depend on eyewitness in order to build a hypothesis for these observed phenomena because every scientist isn't there to witness a comet or meteor so they talk to eyewitnesses to help them get a better understanding.

If you listen to blind debunkers though. All eyewitnesses are idiots and Scientist can never talked to them. This is the absolutes you're dealing with when it comes to blind debunkers.

reply to post by EnPassant

In other words, as the evidence accumulates, it tends towards falsifiability.

Not really. It doesn't matter how much incomplete evidence is accumulated. If it is incomplete it is not falsifiable.

How do you falsify an eyewitness report? How do you demonstrate that what someone saw was not of extraterrestrial origin when the only information you have is the persons report?

How do you falsify a radar return? How do you demonstrate that it could not have been due to anomalous propagation when there is no meteorological information available?

No scientific hypothesis is perfectly falsifiable as we cannot tell that the laws of nature are absolute.

Which is why constructing an effective null hypothesis is important. A null which can be used to test aspects of a theory. The OP's null hypothesis is that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials." It cannot be demonstrated that no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials.

reply to post by Phage


Again, more nonsense:

How do you falsify an eyewitness report? How do you demonstrate that what someone saw was not of extraterrestrial origin when the only information you have is the persons report?

Who said you need to falsify an eyewitness report in order to build a hypothesis?

Again, just a lack of understanding of science.

For instance, when eyewitnesses saw the meteor shower radiating from a point in space. All blind debunkers had to do at this time is wait for the next meteor shower and then FALSIFY that the meteor showers were radiating from that point in space.

This point in space is still called the radiant.

Again, it's just lazy debunkers talk in absolutes and many of them have no understanding how science works.

The way you falsify the null hypothesis is to refute the evidence that's used to build the hypothesis. Most blind debunkers are to lazy to actually look at any evidence so they make silly statements about unicorns creating rainbows.

All blind debunkers have to do is refute the evidence that shows that U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence, leave physical and trace evidence, radar reports and more. Then you could falsify the ET hypothesis.

reply to post by neoholographic

Who said you need to falsify an eyewitness report in order to build a hypothesis?

We aren't talking about building a hypothesis, we are talking about attempting to falsify one. "Some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials" is not falsifiable.

All blind debunkers had to do at this time is wait for the next meteor shower and then FALSIFY that the meteor showers were radiating from that point in space.

I don't get your point. How does showing that subsequent meteors did not come from the same radiant show that the eyewitness was wrong? How does that show that the witness did not see meteors come from that radiant?

Unless one has an inner motive, I seriously doubt people would be close-minded to even deny the possibility of ufos being Alien in origin. I suspect the reasons to be one of the below:

1. personal distaste of the phenomenon
2. the be-all know-it all folks who mock everything that sounds u...f....o
3. allergic to unknown phenomenon
4. it doesn't fit your world view
5. shameful to admit it because you hung in there..trying to debunk it all your life( i know!)

last but not least..

6. you are all 'online' skeptics..in reality hiding behind your sheets praying for an alien invasion

reply to post by neoholographic

All blind debunkers have to do is refute the evidence that shows that U.F.O.'s are controlled by intelligence,

Rainbows are controlled by intelligence. Otherwise, how would they get so perfect and pretty? How do you test UFOs for aliens or even intelligence?

Comets were once thought to be aliens:

Until the sixteenth century, comets were usually considered bad omens of deaths of kings or noble men, or coming catastrophes, or even interpreted as attacks by heavenly beings against terrestrial inhabitants.

en.wikipedia.org...
what type of demonstration can be applied to UFOs to show "alien-ness"?
for instance:

In the 16th century Tycho Brahe demonstrated that comets must exist outside the Earth's atmosphere by measuring the parallax of the Great Comet of 1577 from observations collected by geographically separated observers. Within the precision of the measurements, this implied the comet must be at least four times more distant than from the Earth to the Moon

Rainbows are controlled by intelligence. Otherwise, how would they get so perfect and pretty? How do you test UFOs for aliens or even intelligence?

Never heard of a rainbow that travels hundreds of miles in the sky..making gravity defying stunts.

reply to post by Phage


Again, a lack of understanding of science.

I don't get your point. How does showing that subsequent meteors did not come from the same radiant show that the eyewitness was wrong? How does that show that the witness did not see meteors come from that radiant?

You do 2 things here.

You actually strengthen eyewitness accounts. The fact that scientist thought the eyewitness accounts of the meteor shower were so strong, they used the eyewitness accounts to get a better understanding of meteors.

This shows blind debunkers are wrong again when they say Scientist can't use eyewitness accounts. That's just not true.

Secondly, science isn't out to prove eyewitnesses wrong. They could just demonstrate the falsehood of they're eyewitness account. This is why some eyewitnesses were stronger than others and they used the strong eyewitnesses to build a better understanding of meteors.

Like I said, it's called not being lazy. If you check the meteor shower again and it doesn't come from the point that the eyewitnesses said, then you're not trying to prove them wrong as a scientist, you just know you may have to modify your understanding.

The thing you don't understand is falsifiability is not about proving someone wrong or showing things don't exist.

The problem here is blind debunkers are too lazy to look at the evidence so I will list it again.

Radar reports

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Vehicle interference cases

www.ufoevidence.org...

Electromagnetic effects

www.ufoevidence.org...

Physical evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Government U.F.O. Documents

www.ufoevidence.org...

U.F.O. articles published in scientific journals

www.ufoevidence.org...

Again, science isn't about petty things like blind debunkers are. It's not about proving someone wrong or showing things don't exist.

radkrish

Rainbows are controlled by intelligence. Otherwise, how would they get so perfect and pretty? How do you test UFOs for aliens or even intelligence?

Never heard of a rainbow that travels hundreds of miles in the sky..making gravity defying stunts.

Exactly!!

This is just the type of nonsense you get from blind debunkers. It's just pure laziness.

When I first came to ATS it was Santa, the Tooth fairy and the easter bunny. They then added flying spaghetti monsters. Now it's unicorns creating rainbows.

Blind debunkers are like Sith's from Star Wars. They only deal in absolutes when it comes to U.F.O.'s and it's just nonsense. So all eyewitnesses are idiots and science never uses eyewitnesses which is just a lie.

reply to post by neoholographic

This shows blind debunkers are wrong again when they say Scientist can't use eyewitness accounts. That's just not true.

You are talking about falsification. How do you demonstrate that what someone saw was not of extraterrestrial origin when the only information you have is the person's report?

Secondly, science isn't out to prove eyewitnesses wrong. They could just demonstrate the falsehood of they're eyewitness account.

I know. That's the basis of falsification. How do you demonstrate the eyewitness did not see what he said he saw?

The thing you don't understand is falsifiability is not about proving someone wrong or showing things don't exist.

I understand the concept of falsification. It is about being able to falsify a hypothesis. It is about attempting to do so. It is not possible to demonstrate that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials."


Radar is subject to the effects of anomalous propagation. How does that falsify the ETH?

Trace evidence can be shown to be due to other causes. How does that falsify the ETH?

Vehicle interference can be due to other causes. How does it falsify the ETH?

The same can be said of everything you listed. The ETH cannot be falsified because it is not possible to demonstrate that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials."

reply to post by Phage


You said:

You are talking about falsification. How do you demonstrate that what someone saw was not of extraterrestrial origin when the only information you have is the persons report?

I'm starting to think you don't understand falsification because you have said some things that seem ignorant to what falsification is. Saying someone is ignorant to a subject isn't being derogatory, I have ignorance of certain subjects.

You're saying things like showing multiverses doesn't exist and proving eyewitnesses wrong. This is just pure nonsense and has nothing to do with falsification.

You don't only have the person's report and that's why I just listed the evidence that supports the persons report when they see a U.F.O. Again, just common sense here.

When it comes to eyewitnesses you do this simple, common sense thing called weighing the credibility of the witness. So when Scientist talked to eyewitnesses that saw the meteor shower, they saw that there were strong eyewitnesses. Again, just basic common sense. Blind debunkers talk in absolutes so they can't do basic things like weighing the evidence.

You said:

Trace evidence can be shown to be due to other causes. How does that falsify the ETH?

This again goes to the laziness of blind debunkers.

If trace evidence can be shown to be due to other causes outside of the U.F.O. that was seen hovering by witnesses or multiple witnesses then that will falsify the hypothesis in part.

The problem is most blind debunkers are too lazy to investigate and look into the evidence. They want to talk about unicorns creating rainbows.

reply to post by neoholographic

When it comes to eyewitnesses you do this simple, common sense thing called weighing the credibility of the witness. So when Scientist talked to eyewitnesses that saw the meteor shower, they saw that there were strong eyewitnesses.

You are talking, again, about verification of evidence not falsification.
I also see that you went from a single witness in your original example to witnesses. But it doesn't matter. How do you demonstrate that the witness was wrong? How do you falsify the report?

If trace evidence can be shown to be due to other causes outside of the U.F.O. that was seen hovering by witnesses or multiple witnesses then that will falsify the hypothesis in part.

No. It will falsify that single instance of physical trace. It will not address other cases nor will it do anything to show that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials."

The problem is most blind debunkers are too lazy to investigate and look into the evidence. They want to talk about unicorns creating rainbows.

Don't forget Bigfoot.

reply to post by Phage


You said:

You are talking, again, about verification of evidence not falsification.
I also see that you went from a single witness in your original example to witnesses. But it doesn't matter. How do you demonstrate that the witness was wrong? How do you falsify the report?

I will say it again, lazy debunkers have to get off of their butts and investigate these things. You falsify it by refuting the evidence.

You then made this statement:

No. It will falsify that single instance of physical trace. It will not address other cases nor will it do anything to show that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials."

Again, this shows a lack of understanding on how science works. The ET hypothesis is built on multiple cases. Just like are understanding of meteors isn't built on one meteor or one meteor shower. Just like confirmation of the Higgs will not come from just one signal. Scientist will want to see multiple signals.

Like I said, the fact is U.F.O.'s are an observed phenomena. If they want to falsify the ET hypothesis all they have to do is refute the evidence. Yes, it's about the accumulation of evidence. Just like the Higgs Boson will take an accumulation of signals not just one signal.

The ET hypothesis isn't about a single case, it's about multiple cases and it's a hypothesis built on an observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s.

Another example is crop circles. According to you the hypothesis that crop circles were created by aliens could never be falsified. This just isn't the case. There's still some cases that are open to questions but for the most part it has been shown that humans can make very intricate crop circles.

This just destroys your point and shows the laziness of blind debunkers. They just have to refute the evidence the same way some people did with crop circles.

If you provide an alternative hypothesis to the ET hypothesis that explains the evidence used to build the ET hypothesis then you falsify the hypothesis in part the same thing that occurred with crop circles.

If blind debunkers would stop being lazy and talking about unicorns and rainbows, maybe they can falsify the ET hypothesis the same way they did with crop circles.

I'm skeptical when it comes to Bigfoot. This is because the evidence for or against Bigfoot has nothing to do with the evidence for or against the ET hypothesis. You just try to lump these things together because you can't refute the evidence when it comes to the ET hypothesis.

reply to post by neoholographic

Blind debunkers are like Sith's from Star Wars. They only deal in absolutes...

Didn't they wipe out all of the Jedi and take over the galaxy?