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 Scientific Method begins by making observations. Can mainstream science turn a blind eye!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
As a scientific mind ,I can not help ,but note that the Scientific Method begins by making observations.

Let me begin this thread by saying .
If millions of people , including myself, are claiming to have observed seemingly un-natural phenomena , and the next step in the Scientific Method is to make a Hypothiesis.

Then I ask , why doesn't Mainstream Science accept this logical process , when it clearly follows the Scientific Method that all of us are used to?

Einstien changed the world of Physics as we know it today , by speculating about the nature of the Universe. He used images concocted in his mind, that even children can understand , to unravel the secrets of the Universe!

What I am asking is why , does Einstiens imagination change Physics as we know it today? When My eyes , and my eyewitness testimony! Means nothing to Mainstream Science!

Are my own eye's less credible than another mans Imagination?




posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
A little clarity please. How does this relate to Aliens and UFO's?



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
you raise a good point.

i know alot of people in sciences WANT to work on UFO/ alien phenomeon etc, there is only one problem. When you work in an industry like this, trying to prove something you cannot loses your credibility.

What i mean is that alot of scientists probably want to believe, they just dont want to risk their careers.


More people need to step up to the plate and say hey, maybe these things are real lets take them serious.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dulcimer
you raise a good point.

i know alot of people in sciences WANT to work on UFO/ alien phenomeon etc, there is only one problem. When you work in an industry like this, trying to prove something you cannot loses your credibility.

What i mean is that alot of scientists probably want to believe, they just dont want to risk their careers.


More people need to step up to the plate and say hey, maybe these things are real lets take them serious.


Dulcimer,
This line of thinking is exactly what I wanted this thread to address!
If you assume that something cannot be proven , do you not negate your status as a Scientist!
Isn't modern Science as we know it based on Theory that could not be proven with convintional technology, at the time !

We make observations , we build a hypothesis around our observations, then we test our hypothesis in the lab , and make new observations.

Sometimes we are not allowed to test our theories in the lab , becuase it may not be feasable , or possible.

We must also understand that , when we decide as scientist that we may not be observing inanimate objects , that if we are observing something that may have the ability to hide from us , to study something of that nature we may need to revise our methods.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
We must also understand that , when we decide as scientist that we may not be observing inanimate objects , that if we are observing something that may have the ability to hide from us , to study something of that nature we may need to revise our methods.


Are you trying to say we should change our methods of searching for Aliens and UFOs? Depending on who you talk to, there's no need for revision, we're already finding what we "want." What do you have in mind?



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Intreped,

Let me be clear ! I have observed what I believe to have been an E.T.V.

The point of this thread is to address the hypocrisy I see between Mainstream Science and the Scientific Method , that we use to explain nature.

If you will, to confront Mainstream Science , with Science!



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer

Originally posted by lost_shaman
We must also understand that , when we decide as scientist that we may not be observing inanimate objects , that if we are observing something that may have the ability to hide from us , to study something of that nature we may need to revise our methods.


Are you trying to say we should change our methods of searching for Aliens and UFOs? Depending on who you talk to, there's no need for revision, we're already finding what we "want." What do you have in mind?


What I am saying is that I am open to the study of this Phenomena , by mainstream scientists!

I am saying that if inteligent life does not exist , and is therefor not worth study, then we could say that We would not expect to observe un-natural phenomena ! (Phenomena that can not be explained by nature , or natural phenomena)

The Fact that we as a global community over 1,000s of years , including myself in the fall of '02, have observed ,what appears to be of un-natural origin, thousands upon thousands of observations that, seem to be evidence of inteligent life other than our own, deserves the interest of the Scientific Community



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Lets take Galileo for example !

Before the time of Galileo , no-one had asked new questions over 2,000 years !

Galileo asked new questions !

He opened the world of physics as we know it today!

I ask ; is it not now time that we asked the new Questions?
Haven't many of us world wide (including myself) made Observations ?

And no, as of yet, I am not asking Science to change its Methods!

I want sceptics to chime in and explain why instead of following the Established Scientific method, that they claim what was good enough in the past to pass for science is now no longer fathomable.

I want to ask the question , why is it that what has been obsereved is no longer relivant to the discussion?

[edit on 8-5-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
The first post on this thread said that (scientists) may not be willing to compromise their careers , for something they cannot prove.

Let me just let everyone in on the secret that Einstien , was only a patent clerk after his Physics Professor had him dismissed from university. He then changed the Universe as we know it today , with his mind !



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   
As a (ex)scientist I'd be happy to explain. Observation leads to theory. Theorys that are not-testable are unprovable. Its that simple.

If you can propose an experiment, that can be carried out, to test the theory that non-earth based craft are in our skys, I'm all ears.

Also, when experimentation is not possible, logic and philosophy often have to take over. In the case of UFO the known existance of top-secret aircraft (and space craft?) makes it logical that UFOs are man made. I have seen several UFOs very much beyond public domain, but I have no reason to say if they are man made or not.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
As a (ex)scientist I'd be happy to explain. Observation leads to theory. Theorys that are not-testable are unprovable. Its that simple.

We use unproven theories all the time(E=mc2) is famous, because it apears to be correct, even after 80 yrs.

If you can propose an experiment, that can be carried out, to test the theory that non-earth based craft are in our skys, I'm all ears.

This is where we have to go with this ! I saw what I beilive to have been an E.T.V.
Its my observation!
If its is not an E.T.V. it is no doubt in my mind that there is an alternative to fossill fuels in use today on Earth , becuase I witnessed , what I beilieve to have been a machine , defy physics as we know it today !


Also, when experimentation is not possible, logic and philosophy often have to take over. In the case of UFO the known existance of top-secret aircraft (and space craft?) makes it logical that UFOs are man made. I have seen several UFOs very much beyond public domain, but I have no reason to say if they are man made or not.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I don't mean to come off telling anyone anything , but isn't it abit counter intuitive when you ask why won't anyone in Mainstream Science address the "U.F.O. Phenomena", after it has been observed for years if not centuries or even thousands of years , because we don't know !!!

We refuse to look at the subject . (objectivly since the late 40's)

Some of us are considered uncredible, becuase we are witnesses!!!

When does science win?

I believe in Science , I believe it will take us further than our wildest dreams,we just haven't goten there yet!

So agian I'll ask "Whywill Mainstream Science (If it is really Science?) not take an open ,objctive scientific approach to explain this phenomena?



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   


If you will, to confront Mainstream Science , with Science!


Exactly what I've tried to do in some posts...


Actually, there also is evidence, in the govts' own released docs, that highly accredited scientists have studied the phenomena and concluded the same ET theory. Also, several scientists ARE UFOlogists, despite the stigma. Hynek, Ruppelt, Friedman, etc. just to name a few.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
As a (ex)scientist I'd be happy to explain. Observation leads to theory. Theorys that are not-testable are unprovable. Its that simple.

If you can propose an experiment, that can be carried out, to test the theory that non-earth based craft are in our skys, I'm all ears.

Also, when experimentation is not possible, logic and philosophy often have to take over. In the case of UFO the known existance of top-secret aircraft (and space craft?) makes it logical that UFOs are man made. I have seen several UFOs very much beyond public domain, but I have no reason to say if they are man made or not.



Your telling me some of the craft observed(manuvers;speeds) in the 40's, 50's, and 60's could have been man made? Thats not logic that is being retarded. If your going to say logic and philosophy should take over than why not say it is logical in the immense universe we live in a highly advanced civilization dicovered the technology to travel the stars. Seems logical to me.

Lost shaman like Gazrok said many scientists have already studied the phenomenom. Lately I have heard many scientists proclaim that science should be looking into this more. Maybe one of the problems is that scientists would rather spend their time on things that they can take past the observation stage. Perhaps they feel it would be more fulfilling to their lives and careers.

[edit on 8-5-2005 by pompano]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I understand that living a fulfilling life , and having a sucsessful career is important!

I also believe that Science is important!

We can not claim to be Scientists if we reject evidence when we don't like what we find!

Edward J. Ruppelt , the former head of the Air Forces Project Blue Book, invesigated thousands of reports made to the Air Force on the subject of U.F.O.'s and concluded that the Scientific comunity should investigate the phenomena.

He was riddiculed , even though his work was cited as having de-bunked U.F.O.'s.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Well since what you are asking about is what has actually happened I think there are a couple factors that need to be added into the discussion:

1) Direct efforts by the US government to supress
2) Human resistance to the concept being proven

Scientists being human plays a part here, we investigate that which we choose to investigate. No matter how knowledgeable, trained, experienced a person may be, they can also still be quite young emotionally.

Someone already mentioned that UFOs tend to fall in the one major flaw in the scientific method and that does play a big part. The need to be able to reproduce results is a bit of a problem.

To undertake the quest to really learn the truth would require us as a Society to say 'it is ok if what we find changes any, or all, of what we have known in the past'. And that is not something that has ever been done to my knowledge.


A.T
(-)



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Then I ask , why doesn't Mainstream Science accept this logical process , when it clearly follows the Scientific Method that all of us are used to?

Because anecdotes about paranormal happenings are not observations, they're anecdotes, stories, etc.


Einstien changed the world of Physics as we know it today , by speculating about the nature of the Universe.

Speculation was necessary, but hardly sufficient. He had to demonstrate that his speculations were getting at something in his papers, and his papers had to give testable, 'verifiable' 'predictions' that could be experimentally tested under controlled conditions. If his thoughts failed to do this, then it'd, correctly, be placed in the mumbo jumbo scrap heap.



Are my own eye's less credible than another mans Imagination?

Yes. Your own observations are not credible. Science doesn't operate merely be people having said to have seen stuff. They have to report their observations/experiments/results in the Literature. This allows other scientists to examine their work, research it on its own, and judge it on its own merits. Thats why change in science, btw, can be a slow process, because there is an 'elaborate' and 'strict' vetting process.


The point of this thread is to address the hypocrisy I see between Mainstream Science and the Scientific Method , that we use to explain nature.

There is no hypocrisy. You saw a ufo of some sort.
Big deal. Its interesting, but its meaningless. You can't say anything other than that you think you saw something. How is somoene supposed to do 'scientific research' based on that?

why is it that what has been obsereved is no longer relivant to the discussion?

Observations, on their own, have never been sufficient. They're a good starting point, but on their own are nothing. Galileo's observations were nothing. It only became science when other researchers read his works, thought about his theories, saw how they applied, tested them, confirmed them, tested them some more, etc etc.

If its is not an E.T.V. it is no doubt in my mind that there is an alternative to fossill fuels in use today on Earth , becuase I witnessed , what I beilieve to have been a machine , defy physics as we know it today !

Thats great. But your observations don't count for anything. You saw something, it behaved in a way that defies physics. No one else saw it. Its up to you to work out a theory of how it works, to find out what was wrong with the current understanding of physics that says 'this should not happen'. A scientist starts with an observation that he made. Other scientists can't waste their time assuming that what other people report as merely seeing are completely accurate, just like someone else couldn't simply rely on galilieos word that the planets moved in such and such way, especially since he has no theory for how it happens (ie, heliocentric theory, in this analogy). Its slightly different, since its trivially easy for them to repeat his observations. Its well nigh immpossible for anyone else to repeat your observations.

We can not claim to be Scientists if we reject evidence when we don't like what we find!

It would also be unscientific to make conclusions without evidence and experiment.

dulcimer
What i mean is that alot of scientists probably want to believe, they just dont want to risk their careers.

Thats not true, there are lots of scientists who maintain outside itnerests and their careers aren't affected by it, and there are also a lot of people with no careers to risk that should be more than capable of being scientific within the 'beleiver' community.
A phsyicist who, without evidence, and without logic, starts publishing bogus papers on ufos and aliens, should be looked at with suspision. A scientists integrity is of extreme importance in the field, because of the nature of the way in which science is done. A person who's a known fraud can't be taken too seriously. But a person who is just 'weird', but has good worthwhile information, well, other scientists aren't going to reject him simply because he's weird. Lots of scientists are weird anyway.
SO the reason you don't see too many papers on aliens and ufos in the scientific literature (but of course, there are entire journals dedicated to this and there are other non dedicated journals that publish papers on it) is because most of the 'research' that is done out there does not stand up to the requirements of the scientific methodology. Most information about aliens are just reports made by non-researchers, they amount to nothing more than stories, no matter how 'credible' or 'high up' the story-teller is.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
SO the reason you don't see too many papers on aliens and ufos in the scientific literature (but of course, there are entire journals dedicated to this and there are other non dedicated journals that publish papers on it) is because most of the 'research' that is done out there does not stand up to the requirements of the scientific methodology.


That should answer your question about your eyes vs. imagination. Einstein didn't "imagine" relativity, Maxwell didn't "imagine" a changing electric field, they both worked long and hard, were relatively smart (excuse the pun) but most of all were intelligent. When Maxwell looked at Ampere's Law and said "Hmm, something's missing here, there should be more symmetry," he didn't conclude there should be something. He went and tried it out, and rigorously proved one of the most important parts of physics, electromagnetic radiation.

Your eyes, though they may see something wonderful, are nothing to someone else. Your eyes do not provde physical and possibly mathematical proof of an occurence. WOM is not part of the scientific method, even if there are a lot of mouths.

Everything observed is relevant, but my toast landing face up is less interesting than 110 people winning the lottery from a fortune cookie, which is far less interesting than an asteroid colliding with planet Earth.


He then changed the Universe as we know it today , with his mind !

So did you...



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
We can't take eyewitness testimony at face value.

However, most poeple need an outside Stimulus to have seen something, since true hallucinations are rare.

If millions of poeple world wide are reporting U.F.O.'s , and according to Blue Books figures that on Average 22% of these reports are "Unknown", when will we investigate the science behind these reports?

Let me also add , that , not only do poeple report these objects, but they also are detected on RADAR , and have been photographed and tracked by our millitary. (Whitesands the millitary in an attempt at a triangulation experament, by mistake tracked and photographed two different objects , and was not able to make a triangulation.)

I started this thread just to hear everyones opinion on this subject.

I personally find it hard to believe that the science isn't being done behind closed doors , away from public scrutiny.

The Worlds most respected Poeple and scientists , in the 50's, didn't seem to be above the subject!
If we have no answers today , just as they did then, what has changed to put mainstream science above this topic ?

I have my own opinions , and my own bias as to what the answers might be when we find them, it just seems to me that we aren't looking .

If we were looking at one time , and we just haven't found the answers yet , why did we stop looking? That hasn't ever stopped science before!

I talked about Einstien using his imagination , those are not my words but his, as he talks about using your imagination to preform experiments that you can't do in a lab i.e. ( imagining light waves travling at light speed, parallel to a Train moving at light speed,ect.) as he expounds on this concept of imagination in his book, THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS The Growth of IDEAS from EARLY CONCEPTS of RELATIVITY and QUANTA , Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld

A Great book by the way!

And I have never said that becuase I have seen something and I think I know what it was , or wasn't , I've never expected anyone else to believe !
So just to clarify that I'm not saying that others should believe because I've seen something. I was only making a point about observations being made.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
when will we investigate the science behind these reports?

How can we investigate any science behind these reports? THe phenomena are gone, there is nothing to be studied. All we can say is 'the ufo moved with high velocity and made angular turns that indicate our understanding of flight and possibly physics are somehow flawed'. No testable theories to explain those observations.



I personally find it hard to believe that the science isn't being done behind closed doors , away from public scrutiny.

?
What does that have to do with it? Science is done in the publically available scientific journals. I'm sure that there are secret experiments done by the government, corporations, and researchers who don't bother to report their stuff, yes. But science, in general, is done openly, in the journals, thats how other scientists get to it.



If we have no answers today , just as they did then, what has changed to put mainstream science above this topic ?

Its not that science is 'above' it, its that, there is nothign for science to work with. All that can be said is that there are anecdotes about weird things in the sky.




If we were looking at one time , and we just haven't found the answers yet , why did we stop looking? That hasn't ever stopped science before!

It allways stops science. Insufficient data does not compute. Einstein couldn't come up with his theories without the data and theories that came before him. He needed data. He needed experiments, in order to come up with his theories. There is no data wrt UFOs, just anecdotes and stories, or 'weirdness on the radar'



So just to clarify that I'm not saying that others should believe because I've seen something. I was only making a point about observations being made.

A fair enough point, but I don't see how science can be applied to UFOs and such, because there is nothing to apply science to. There are only stories, not real data.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join