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.

 

Neil Degrasse Tyson takes on every major conspiracy theory including aliens and visitation...

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Well, to start with, "eye witness testimony" is the basis of science. If you didn't have a scientist recording his observations, then you would have no science. Perhaps some science is now based on automated recording of experimental data direct from instrument readings to some media by computer, but that has certainly not always been the case.

So I think he is being a bit disingenuous when he puts down "eye witness testimony". What he is really saying is that he just isn't willing to trust what others observe as much as he trusts in what a scientist observes in a laboratory setting.


You got this wrong. The hard sciences (physics, chemistry etc) rely on reproducibility. Reproducibility means that results should be the same independent of the observer. Trust is irrelevant.


But the science is STILL dependent on the regurgitated observations of the scientists. Obviously they rely on what is a "trusted source" in evaluating the worthiness of data.


Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by bluestreak53
It is theoretically possible that a person might see an "alien spacecraft", even if he does not have access to the physical evidence that will prove the reality of his sighting to the scientist.


Yes but what good is it to the rest of us, besides an interesting read perhaps, if it can't be independently verified?


Of course the observations cannot be "independently verified" because they tend to be "random events". I see your point that it is "no use to YOU", if someone saw an alien spacecraft, but my point was that that doesn't affect the reality of whether the event occurred. The rather annoying "scientist" making the speech seemed to imply the opposite.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
The amount of butthurt Degrasse Tyson brings is evidence of his greatness




Well I would hope that science would still be awesome without this guy making all his brash, unscientific and uninformed proclamations that are based on highly prejudicial views on the soundness of the minds of UFO witnesses.

edit on 22-6-2012 by bluestreak53 because: added "uninformed" as adjective to describe the pinup "scientist" - apparently worshiped by the cripmiester



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53

But the science is STILL dependent on the regurgitated observations of the scientists. Obviously they rely on what is a "trusted source" in evaluating the worthiness of data.


They need a trusted source in that they don't want junk data, who collects the data doesn't really matter as long as it's done correctly.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

I think it's pretty obvoius that he isn't talking about any specific case. Instead I think he's talking about the slews of people (percipients) that see lights in the sky and proclaim them UFOs or worse alien craft.


I too think that's obvious. It's also pretty clear that when he makes the point about the "argument from ignorance" in his UFO shtick he is completely oblivious to the irony.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by miniatus
 


Tyson - or should I say Degrasse Tyson? Just Tyson, I think - is a prime example of the type of person who is highly educated in a particular field of study and seems to assumes that it allows him to proclaim authoritatively on any topic whatsoever.


I'll be sure to keep this in mind whenever I hear a UFOlogy proponent cite pilots, policemen, politicians and military personal as infallible, unbiased witnesses who are immune to human error.

Can't have things one way and not the other, you know...



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DissonantOne

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by miniatus
 


Tyson - or should I say Degrasse Tyson? Just Tyson, I think - is a prime example of the type of person who is highly educated in a particular field of study and seems to assumes that it allows him to proclaim authoritatively on any topic whatsoever.


I'll be sure to keep this in mind whenever I hear a UFOlogy proponent cite pilots, policemen, politicians and military personal as infallible, unbiased witnesses who are immune to human error.

Can't have things one way and not the other, you know...


An ATS Star for you my good man for that very astute observation



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
You got this wrong. The hard sciences (physics, chemistry etc) rely on reproducibility. Reproducibility means that results should be the same independent of the observer. Trust is irrelevant.


Again, how can you preach 'reproducibility' when there are alleged other intelligences with unknown technology and unknown motives? It just boggled my mind.

I'm all for science and the considering of things and testing of things. But when you proclaim knowledge regarding things that you cannot (and no-one can yet) have knowledge (only speculation of our own) it starts to sound like religious dogma to me.

Sure, sure - your speculation can be educated. But it's still just speculation, no matter how awesome a science guy is making the speculation.

Stop worshipping at the altar of science for a moment and consider the facts. If aliens are here we don't know what they want and why they're here. These facts alter any assumption about potential behaviour of alleged races. Say what you will about the UFO phenomena - you cannot even speak to the question of alien visitation until you allow that the question of motive throws a monkeywrench into scientific consideration.
edit on 23-6-2012 by TheStev because: Readability



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   



I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy — and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter.


- Richard Feynman



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheStev
. If aliens are here we don't know what they want and why they're here. These facts alter any assumption about potential behaviour of alleged races. Say what you will about the UFO phenomena - you cannot even speak to the question of alien visitation until you allow that the question of motive throws a monkeywrench into scientific consideration.
edit on 23-6-2012 by TheStev because: Readability


If aliens are here, WHY don't we know what they want and why they're here?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
You got this wrong. The hard sciences (physics, chemistry etc) rely on reproducibility. Reproducibility means that results should be the same independent of the observer. Trust is irrelevant.

Yes but what good is it to the rest of us, besides an interesting read perhaps, if it can't be independently verified?


There's a difference between science and expediency. You seem to be more interested in the latter.

Most of modern science is theoretical and has little to do with use or being good for anything. It has to do with answering fundamental questions using equations, and then if someone wants to test it, great, but that's not something the mathematician is interested in, and mathematics is the king of the hard sciences.
edit on 23-6-2012 by imherejusttoread because: typo correction.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by TheStev
. If aliens are here we don't know what they want and why they're here. These facts alter any assumption about potential behaviour of alleged races. Say what you will about the UFO phenomena - you cannot even speak to the question of alien visitation until you allow that the question of motive throws a monkeywrench into scientific consideration.
edit on 23-6-2012 by TheStev because: Readability


If aliens are here, WHY don't we know what they want and why they're here?



If that is true, and I'm not claiming it is, it would clearly be because they want to remain hidden. If they want to remain hidden, surely they would want their motives to remain hidden too.

If we visited another planet - do you think we would broadcast our intentions? If we planned to colonise a planet and there was already a race there, do you think we would land and say 'Hey guys, we're Earthlings and we want to take over your planet, okay?'

It doesn't matter what the motive is, that's an even bigger speculation that the idea that they're visiting. What matters is that people remember there is a motive to be considered.

How far would police-work go if cops ignored the fact that their suspects are intelligent and have motives of their own? Why should scientific investigation ignore motive when it exists with any intelligent being?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DissonantOne

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by miniatus
 


Tyson - or should I say Degrasse Tyson? Just Tyson, I think - is a prime example of the type of person who is highly educated in a particular field of study and seems to assumes that it allows him to proclaim authoritatively on any topic whatsoever.


I'll be sure to keep this in mind whenever I hear a UFOlogy proponent cite pilots, policemen, politicians and military personal as infallible, unbiased witnesses who are immune to human error.

Can't have things one way and not the other, you know...


Absolutely right. Flying an airplane or joining the army in no way exempts a person from the standard fallibility and inherent bias that comes along with being human.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

There's a difference between science and expediency. You seem to be more interested in the latter.

Most of modern science is theoretical and has little to do with use or being good for anything. It has to do with answering fundamental questions using equations, and then if someone wants to test it, great, but that's not something the mathematician is interested in, and mathematics is the king of the hard sciences.
edit on 23-6-2012 by imherejusttoread because: typo correction.


Science is our best tool in understanding the universe around us. Understanding is an end in itself even if it has no apparent practical use at the moment. UFOlogy on the other hand will never achieve any understanding whether or not we are being visited because the data it primarily deals with (witness testimony) is inherently flawed.
edit on 23/6/2012 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Tyson is a tool, he's more interested in public appearances than actual science.
He's become a hero for atheists and skeptics all over the world. He stands for science! Or is it scientism?

there are several videos of him debunking 2012 internet myths on different occasions. In these videos he makes an absolutely astonishing mistake in his very own field!

This is by no means lending any credence to the 2012 internet myths, only to point out that he fails even in his own area of "expertise".

The statement is this - The Sun, Earth and galactic centre align every year on December 21st.

He has said it on multiple occasions. Look them up if you don't believe me.

This is absolutely wrong! I would expect high school students to know better.

There is this little thing called precession you see. The closest alignment was in 1998, from this point the alignment then begins to move from this point on the day and swings away for 13000 years to an opposite alignment, then for another 13000 years it swings back in for another alignment period.

For an astrophysicist this in inexscusable, is he really an astrophysicist? after that comment I'm not too sure, if he is, he should hang his head in shame and stop pretending to be an example of "rationality".

Tyson is debunked! thank you very much.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

UFOlogy on the other hand will never achieve any understanding whether or not we are being visited because the data it primarily deals with (witness testimony) is inherently flawed.
edit on 23/6/2012 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)


There's no getting around the obvious inadequacies of eyewitness testimony, but the undisputed fact that human perception is less than 100% reliable is no reason to ditch this whole enterprise. James E. McDonald said it well in 1968:


Then, looking at the negative side, all of us who have checked cases are sometimes in near anguish at the typical inability of the scientifically untrained person to estimate angles, to even understand what you are asking for when you ask for an angular estimation. We are all aware of the gross errors in distances, heights, and speeds so estimated.

And I would emphasize to those who cite jury trial experience that the tendency for a group of witnesses to an accident to come in with quite different accounts, must not be overstressed here. Those witnesses don't come in from, say, a street corner accident and claim they saw a giraffe killed by a tiger. They talk about an accident. They are confused about details. There is legally confusing difference of timing and distance, and so on; but all are in agreement that it was an auto accident.

So also when you deal with multiple-witness cases in UFO sightings. There is an impressive core of consistency; everybody is talking about an object that has no wings, all of 10 people may say it was dome shaped or something like that, and then there are minor differences as to how big they thought it was, how far away, and so on. Those latter variations do pose a very real problem. It stands as a negative factor with respect to the anecdotal data, but it does not mean we are not dealing with real sightings of real objects.


I think we need to make sure we're not throwing away a baby here because we don't like the imperfect bathwater. I think we need to educate ourselves as to just how unreliable human perception is and in what ways it is unreliable. And I can't believe I'm quoting Jim Oberg, but...




My current campaign is to develop an interest in finally measuring the degree to which eyewitness testimony can occasionally -- RARELY -- get very imaginative when confronted with once-in-lifetime bizarre sky apparitions...Missile/space events offers an opportunity -- perhaps a uniquely fertile opportunity -- to actually measure the varieties, and extremes, of human misperception.

Something like a 'control experiment' -- except the stimuli are randomly and unpredictably created, and studying subsequent witness reports has to be done on an opportunistic basis. It IS a challenge.

I still think it could teach us ALL something about the as-yet completely unquantified range of potential misperception.




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

The statement is this - The Sun, Earth and galactic centre align every year on December 21st.

He has said it on multiple occasions. Look them up if you don't believe me.



Seems several others say it too.

www.nasa.gov...

The sun appears to enter the part of the sky occupied by the Dark Rift every year at the same time, and its arrival there in Dec. 2012 portends precisely nothing.

earthsky.org...

Yes, Earth will cross the galactic equator in 2012. As seen from the sun, the Earth does this every year – twice. However, the Earth won’t be physically passing through the plane of the Milky Way galaxy anytime in the near future.

www.universetoday.com...

There’s another type of galactic alignment. This is where the Earth, Sun and the center of the galaxy are in perfect alignment from our perspective. This actually happens every year during the winter solstice, on December 21st. Because of a wobble in the Earth’s orbit, the positions of the constellations slowly shift from year to year. The most perfect galactic alignment between the Earth, Sun and the center of the Milky Way happened back in 1998, but now we’re slowly shifting away from that alignment. In the coming decades, the perfect alignment will shift to another day.

Again, the alignment of these objects is purely a coincidence.


curious.astro.cornell.edu...

In any case the Sun crosses the plane of the Galaxy twice every year as we orbit around it, with no ill effect on Earth.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


In 50+ years eye witness testimony has yielded nothing more than interesting stories. No conclusions can ever be drawn, it's just endelss collecting of anecdotes. A measure on human misperception will not change this. It might sound harsh but that's my view on it. When I come here I tend to skip everything that doesn't involve photos or video. If there's nothing to dig into it's useless to me. Because of the lack of good data debunking is all that UFO cases offer for those that wish to approach them scientifically.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Science is our best tool in understanding the universe around us.



Can't disagree with that but what if the scientists are ignorant about the reports?



"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."

Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987



It's been posted before but I think this statement by the AIAA's Ronald Story also makes a very important point:



"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study.
From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."

Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980






Originally posted by Orkojoker

This indicates to me that Tyson is woefully unfamiliar with the serious literature on the subject.


Yes, I'd even go as far to say he is an ignoramus.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Even if they are mostly ignorant of the litterature they're aware of the lack of good data to study. If there was any it would have made it into the scientific journals wouldn't you say?

Even with corroborating radar data all one can say is 'there was *something* there'. Unless there was a technical malfunction or human error in evaluating the radar returns of course. This is usually where investigations end.
edit on 23/6/2012 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by karl 12
 


Even if they are mostly ignorant of the litterature they're aware of the lack of good data to study. If there was any it would have made it into the scientific journals wouldn't you say?
edit on 23/6/2012 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)


The analysis and investigation of UFO reports is not physics. It's more akin to a blend of law enforcement and psychology. The phenomenon is not amenable to our customary concept of "hard science", but scientists should at least take a look at what data exists - out of intellectual honesty - before proclaiming an opinion in the way Tyson tends to.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join