Just because it's relevant (from
here) ...
____________________________________
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Xtraeme
the problem for transient phenomenon is you cant repeat the same incident over & over like you can with exoplanet evidence.
Haven't we gone over this already? Any observation that's picked up independently by
numerous modes of detection is considered a tangible
objective
repeated observation. This is a type of
six sigma
variance. Again if we were to contrast this against the "Wow Signal!" or Dr. Ragbir Bhathal's Gliese
581g OSETI detection, all that's required are 3 or 4
independent observations for academia to sit-up and take notice (scrape to 1:58),
This changes whatever's being observed to a "candidate" for
being an objective something. Assuming you have a hypothesis, the object
becomes a candidate for that hypothetical
something. The question of
what the object represents remains an open and unanswered line of
inquiry.
In exoplanetary research the hypothesis of the
objective candidate involves waiting for a full circuit of the object. If this occurs there's
good cause to think it represents a planet (i.e. the subject of the hypothesis). If not that doesn't invalidate that there was
something
provably observed. So, irregardless if it fits the hypothesis or not, there are still positive attributes that can be used to describe this
something. The first and most obvious being that the object more than likely wasn't a planet. Also details from spectrographic tracks might
give a hint of the objects composition.
The difference with UFOs is that rather than have a positive hypothesis (like an exo-planet), what's sought after is determining if the candidate
represents a genuine unknown (or
TRUFO) that given perfect information
wouldn't turn out to be a misidentification of an already known phenomena (i.e. a negative hypothesis).
If the object doesn't belong to the category of "known phenomena" then it represents a question mark worth further investigation. Put another way True
UFOs (TRUFOs) represent problems for all scientists to attack. Very much the same way "unsolvable math problems" or "dark energy" represent goal-posts
for mathematicians and physicists. The study of the unknown allows us to categorize things that are outside current understanding so people in
specific fields of research can attempt to bring their specialty to bear against "true unknowns."
Unfortunately the phrase "unidentified flying object" has become bastardized to mean "alien spacecraft." This sort of
a priori bias presupposes
all unknowns seen in the sky must represent a singular phenomena when in all likelihood it represents
many unique and different anomalies.
Through careful categorization and an exhaustive ruling out process this mechanism for finding TRUFOs would reduce the amount of time between
anecdotal observation and objective confirmation using rigorous scientific processes (e.g. TLEs sighted in late 1880s that were only officially
recognized in 1989).
That's what a UFO
should represent. A crowd-sourcing technology that informs people of what they're seeing, and to keep scientists up-to-date
on bizarre observations. This creates a nice feedback loop educating the public (reducing superstition) and provides helpful tips to research
facilities looking for new lines of scientific inquiry.
To be extremely anal
H(x) → y represents a function that tests a hypothesis against a given
x_n candidate by giving a true or false
y_n result. The falsification of an
x_n candidate does not mean the given
x_n is false, rather it simply means that
x_n is
not a part of the domain of
H(x) → true. Then since all things
are something, for any given six-sigma objectively provable
x_n
∃ a hypothesis
H_n(x_n) → y_n, where
y_n is true. So all we have to do is create an application that tests
x_n against all
probable
Σ(H_i())'s. This then will allow us to empirically determine if the
x_n is a true unknown.
why arn't ufologists raising money to conduct such experiments that you think they should be doing. Just like seti do instead of making money
selling books & dvds?
Because most "ufologists" (skeptic or otherwise) have no science backgrounds ‒ and this is to say nothing of the frauds. Those who write books on
the subject in a legitimate and serious manner do so because it's a way to attract public interest through simple anecdotal stories (no different than
a "A Brief History of Time" vs. arXiv:
hep-th/0507171v2). Often times the money from those books gets
placed in to research programs like FUFOR. As for academic funding, well, today's climate isn't exactly salubrious for finding research dollars.
ufo community needs to look at themselves instead of whining at everyone else.
What needs to change is the culture of dismissal because the "crazys" may in fact turn out to be right.
edit on 11-12-2010 by Xtraeme because:
(no reason given)
