Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

page: 20
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Yeah, you are real good at answering questions!

Knock it off already.




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



I'm perfectly content just hoping that people will read as much as possible and make up their own minds. Wherever they come down, at least their ideas will then be based on knowledge and information and not just invalid assumptions, cultural biases and taboos.


Great. I get the feeling it won't matter. But I will try.

So if I turn my deck of cards into punch cards, does that make difference to you? The problem is exactly the same. It doesn't matter what type of data you have, it's data. So I have cards with holes in them now. I have a rows of data in a table with columns. Are you familiar with databases? I work with data for a living. The problem is I don't need to know how to do statistics, it's all done for me by the software so i dont know it that well. I never came across a problem like this though. Do you know if this data has ever been put into an actual database? That would be interesting.

Anyway, I have been looking at the data and their methods and the results and their conclusions. Regardless of where the data came from, thats a separate issue, you really don't have much as far as evidence for ET. That's my opinion. Not a fact. Is that OK? I don't know any of the skeptical arguments. Maybe we will say the same thing, I don't know.

Here is why I think that:
you have your knowns, and unknowns and run the chia pet thing on them and you get your results. The results, as you stated, are that 5 out the 6 sets of categories have significantly different distributions. with a less than 1% chance that they are from the same population. So what this means to me is that I can look at an unknown punchcard and say there is some actual mathematical probability that it is truly an unknown based on the data provided. I think I have that correct. If you disagree, let me know because math is math and that's easy to fix. You either do it right or you do not.

The only thing I can determine is that there is a good chance an unknown is an unknown and a slight chance that it is a known. That is the math without inferring anything. The only way to put any value on the unknown is to have a known to compare it to. My original assumption that I stated and that you objected to was that you need to have actual alien crafts in your known category in order to figure out the odds of one of your unknowns being an alien craft. There IS ultimately some probability but not from this data set or any other known data set. From what I can tell that is how this works mathematically.

To me it looks like the sample size is too small to get accurate results. That's my guess and could be wrong. Also the unknowns were significantly more than the knowns so they had to adjust the known values down to match the unknowns. I'm not sure if that means anything but why not adjust the unknowns up? Would that change the results? It is just seems like a very odd problematic data set to draw any conclusions from.

Now if we start picking apart newspaper clippings, intelligently controlled crafts, the year and on and on, you still get nowhere because they are all valid arguments.

Anyway, I am thrilled to have found this archive. Thanks for the challenge, I am sure we are not finished.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

You said you new about robotics or something? Do you know anything about Fuzzy Math? Looks like it could be applied here. That's on my list and this may be my jumping point into learning that.


I've built and maintained robotic equipment for various industrial assembly processes. Not a programmer, beyond the motion control and sensor integration. I'm just as fuzzy as you, if not more so, on fuzzy math. I have designed analog circuits that emulate it, though.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets[/url]

The real question is, do you think any of this UFO stuff points toward the presence of non-human intelligence?


Depends on what you mean by "think" [no, not pulling a Clinton]. I do not think the evidence is there to make such a leap in logic. Do I "think" [as in believe]? Don't know. My beliefs are often contradictory, unscientific, and logically unsound, which is why I chose not to get into them in a thread about logical trickery and belief vs. skepticism.


Originally posted by DJW001

I put it to you: the question is do these reports point to something far more mind boggling than merely the presence of non-human intelligence?


Since they point to an unknown, a category full of possibilities, both mind-boggling and mundane, then the answer is perhaps... which translates to a greater than zero chance. This would include statistical insignificance.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Yeah, you are real good at answering questions!

Knock it off already.


Which question, Zeta? Can you direct-link the post? I went back and very quickly read your last 10 or so, and I only see questions I've either answered in other responses, or questions I've said I won't answer. (By that I refer to your statistical analogies, which I don't think are actually analogous; they seem loaded... something which, in fairness, most everyone in the last few days has been guilty of.)

Also, it does feel a bit like I have several people coming at me with swords drawn, and it's hard to keep track. My time off is also rapidly approaching, so I can't keep writing those long replies. (I think I heard cheers?!?) But I'll answer your questions if you keep them concise and non-loaded, please.

I'm glad you enjoyed Special Report #14. It really is a fascinating document.
edit on 27-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: It needed editing....



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



These SR14 battles have been fought before, and pseudo-skeptics dis not fare well. (Which is why you'll very rarely see them introduce this topic.)

why? did they not know how to copy and paste? For the record, I am not a skeptic, pseudo-skeptic, debunker or any of that...I am a Retard on the Internet. lets get that straight.


For more, see .

I am actually interested in [Maccabbe's report on SR14]. But in the mean time, how do you explain this?
en.wikipedia.org...

Among his papers was a reanalysis of the statistics and results of the famed Battelle Memorial Institute Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14,
...
Another was a reanalysis of the results of the Condon Committee UFO study from 1969.
(Like many others, Maccabee concluded that Edward Condon lied about the results.)

Comments please.


Is this what you meant Zeta? I don't see much to comment on. It's almost trivial to show that Condon's summary does not reflect the actual findings of his project scientists.

And off the top of my head, I can name several highly credible scientists plus at least one very respected scientific / professional organization that publicly criticized the Condon Report: Hynek and McDonald, of course, but also skeptics like Thornton Page, David R. Saunders (who went into it as a skeptic, but emerged on the other side), Sturrock, the AIAA ... plus others I can't recall without digging.

Yes, Maccabbe too, who's criticized SR14 as well. But... so what? Are you saying he has an agenda or is somehow being dishonest? Maybe he simply has an opinion of the USAF's official approach to UFOs? (One that can be backed up quite convincingly, in my opinion.)

Even those skeptical of UFOs should have serious issues with the official handling of it all.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Nope, I already admitted I made a mistake regarding that.

Comments please.

I will admit my mistake but please rant on.

Im just showing how its OK to be wrong sometimes. I caught my mistake bt didn't delete the post. Thats how awesome I am.

Comments please:
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Comments Please:
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Not sure how you missed Spock!

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
bla bla bla


Believe me, this would not be acceptable research by todays standards. I will read past the first couple of sentances of your posts and reply to your comments when you answer my questions.

1. How can you use the Fermi Paradox to support your position when he gave no credibility to ETH. And at the same time Criticize people for having that same belief? I posted it 3 or 4 times now.

UFO researchers note that the Fermi Paradox arose within the context of a wave of UFO reports, yet Fermi, Teller, York and Konopinski apparently dismissed the possibility that flying saucers might be extraterrestrial – despite contemporary US Air Force investigations that judged a small portion of UFO reports as inexplicable by contemporary technology.


2. Explain why my card anolagy is wrong using your own words and without copying and pasting from a source you dont understand.

3. comment on the Hynek quotes I posted. please.

until then:

edit on 26-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


edit on 27-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

(By that I refer to your statistical analogies, which I don't think are actually analogous; they seem loaded... something which, in fairness, most everyone in the last few days has been guilty of.)

Its not loaded. Its a math problem that I am trying to understand.



(I think I heard cheers?!?) But I'll answer your questions if you keep them concise and non-loaded, please.

Yes, I am sure if we met in person, we would have a laugh and possibly a good conversation. I don't think they are loaded. If you do, just say so and I will re-word them.


I'm glad you enjoyed Special Report #14. It really is a fascinating document.

Thank you. at least I can say I read the damn thing now!



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


Even those skeptical of UFOs should have serious issues with the official handling of it all.


Which is why I found it odd that you chose to reference the Condon report.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Just some random thoughts: Taking in consideration of the time period and the events of the time, could Bluebook have been more of an attempt to determine if the Russians were in US airspace? Is it possible they took advantage of the UFO "craze" during that time?

The languange of the Twining letter could be geared more towards identifying a threat from "some foreign nation"


h. Due consideration must be given the following :-
(3) The possibility that some foreign nation has a form of propulsion possibly nuclear, which is outside of our domestic knowledge.
files.ncas.org... if read in that respect, it seems to make sense. There really is no mention of aliens.

This would account for why they would use newspaper clippings. If you were concerned about an enemy country that had apparently just acquired some advanced technology, I think it would be reasonable to use any means necessary to try to identify this possible threat.

I think they were more worried about "commies" than aliens. Thats my logical trickery for today.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

You said you new about robotics or something? Do you know anything about Fuzzy Math? Looks like it could be applied here. That's on my list and this may be my jumping point into learning that.


I've built and maintained robotic equipment for various industrial assembly processes. Not a programmer, beyond the motion control and sensor integration. I'm just as fuzzy as you, if not more so, on fuzzy math. I have designed analog circuits that emulate it, though.


Good stuff. What I understand is that Fuzzy Logic is used for Machine Learning. so if you feed a computer the properties of various objects, like size, shape or color, the computer will categorize these items based on some approximation that they match the known categories. once a new item is added to a category, that category is adjusted to allow for a better match when fed another set of properties. So it learns. the data is Fuzzy but becomes lees Fuzzy the more info it gets. Thats about as much as understand if its even correct. its just Fuzzy.

www.kev.pulo.com.au...

Apparently it works pretty well. well enought to play Jepordy.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 




"In five of the six cases, the probability is less than 1 percent that the distributions [Known vs. Unknown] are the same."


It doesn't mean that much. Sorry.

it says you have a category thats not categorized and nobody cared that much, regardless of how much you cut and paste.
I think the problem is more that you don't understand what is being said. Seems like you're the fellow to wave any statistical results away when they don't please too much. Since you already admitted to being an internet retard (your words!
), I am seriously interested in knowing just how many of you 'skeptical' peeps have any actual degrees starting at the bachelors level. My personal guess, not too many.

OK. so I think I demonstrated that I read and understood the report to some degree. The other option is that I just made it up in which case you have no idea either. I believe I did make an error in my first reply to you. Do you concur, if so what is the error? I think the only value this report has as far as finding ET is how NOT to go about it. So without hiding behind other members "knowledge" why don't you put out your evaluation of this report for others to scrutinize? Mine is out there and I put it out there knowing that it could well be wrong. So far no one has challanged it. So I am a retard, what does that make you?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


So I get the feeling my questions are being avoided. Why? If you think my analogy is wrong, why? It's a math problem. That's all. No different than 2+2=4. Logic is also math. Why do you not want to discuss the basic math involved with SR14? It's actually very simplistic from what I can see.

You seemed all about discussing it BEFORE I read it and you made it obvious that I hadn't. So now I have read it.

So to complete our math problem:
Twining memo = 0 aliens
SR14=0 aliens
Every UFO sighting =0 aliens
Knowns = 0 aliens
Unknowns = X aliens
Unknowns = an actual probability of being a known or future known

That is the basic math problem you have laid out after reviewing your posts. It's not loaded. Either you don't understand basic math or you don't understand basic math.
edit on 28-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



Of course he and other 'skeptics' here can't accept them; they completely undermine the skeptics' primary argument that the Unknowns are simply future Knowns which for now just lack identifying information. The favorite claim of the skeptics is refuted, and it has been for over 60 years.


How does any of your hand waving refute the simple tautology that unknowns are potentially future "knowns?" Even if they remain unknown, that does not mean they are necessarily extraterrestrial, which is the actual point you should be trying to prove.
edit on 26-2-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


There is a secondary argument that is as valid as your" Even if they remain unknown, that does not mean they are necessarily extraterrestrial," and that is they could also very well be extraterrestrial in origins", out of the percentages of blue books unknowns how many are know "knowns" today?? Why should we even trust those that were involved in "blue book", the amount of "force fit debunking" explanations given to those cases that due to their levels of "high strangeness" is embarrassing , why trust known lairs? Dr James E MacDonald personally took apart these "force fir debunking explanations by "blue book" and he was no crank.

The evidence is there in blue books force fit debunking explanations, the fact that they done this was to avoid at any costs(,and that included the desperation of actually making up explanations for "high strangeness" cases), the notation or perception that the ET hypotheses was acceptable,possible or plausible in any credible or scientific way. Those that controlled the investigations and the final conclusions reached in blue book made up explanations and the fact they did that is testimony to the reality that they were prepared and willing to do so despite the enormous implications that the ET possibility would have on humanity as a whole, why conceal or lie about it??

Once a bull#ter always a bull#ter and blue book got found out by Dr MacDonald in his investigation's.

Science in Default ;20 years of inadequate scientific investigation's/methods of the UFO Phenomena by Dr James E MacDonald really puts the perspective and reality into blue books failings as a cohort ,acceptable, fair and trusted scientific investigatory organisation into the UFO phenomena.How can the ET hypotheses be rejected when it never really got a fair hearing in the first place??????
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



These SR14 battles have been fought before, and pseudo-skeptics dis not fare well. (Which is why you'll very rarely see them introduce this topic.)

Not only will I introduce this topic, I will beat this dead horse until it looks like best cattle mutilation in history!



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
1. How can you use the Fermi Paradox to support your position when he gave no credibility to ETH. And at the same time Criticize people for having that same belief?


There IS credibility to the ETH. It's predicted. More and more mainstream scientists are saying that we need to start scouring our own solar system for ET artifacts. (See my only thread. See 'Von Neuman probes'.) And there's absolutely no reason to assume that, if they're here, each sighting is preceded and followed by a trip of lights years.

The Fermi Paradox simply says "they should be here by now, so where are they?" My interest, whatever Fermi's UFO thoughts, is in his conclusion that they should be here by now. He supported it mathematically, even when using conservative estimates.

His (or any scientist's) UFO opinion would matters to me if:
a) it could be confirmed that he studied the topic objectively and thoroughly.
b) his public statements on UFOs do not appear to be tainted by the stifling nature of the UFO taboo, present since day 1, or by decades-old and now-crumbling assumptions.

If our science points to the conclusion "they should've been here by now", then HOW does the ETH have "no credibility", as you say? That just makes no sense to me. Why is it ridiculed or precluded as invalid in whole? To me, it seems that's done mostly by those ignorant of the breathtaking discoveries of modern astronomy (Kepler mission, extra-solar planet results, etc.), just as the "Black Project" hypothesis is offered by those mostly unfamiliar with the principles of flight,

Next, I don't think I "criticized" anyone for his Fermi Paradox views. The paradox itself is simply a reality (if absolute proof is the standard), so what "view" could one even have on it?

I do remember finding it highly ironic and contrary to logic that it would be inserted into the discussion by one who, in the same post, seemed to argue that ET is not proven, so the ETH can't be part of any hypothesis.

Anyone blind to the logical problem there doesn't understand that hypotheses do and must contain assumptions The more reasonable those are, the better the tentative hypothesis. We're required to reduce, not eliminate assumptions. They can't be eliminated.



2. Explain why my card anolagy is wrong using your own words and without copying and pasting from a source you dont understand.
No complex statistical understanding is needed. The analogies are invalid because:

a) The ETH is increasingly predicted by science. Real, mainstream science. Not just pro-UFO science.

b) Not every hypothesis is created equal.

Can we really pretend that any UFO hypothesis posited is as valid and likely as all others? No.

To illustrate, here's a paraphrased hypothesis jokingly offered by a well-known TV character: In the center of every black hole there's a little man with a flashlight searching for the circuit breaker.

What's 'inside' a black hole is "unknown". But is that hypothesis as valid or likely as any other?

In your card analogies, the significance of any face-down card is distorted by equating it to any "unknown" UFO hypothesis. Swamp gas, for example, really is as valid as the ETH on your cards. In reality, most know it's not. So your deck is stacked and the cards marked ... in favor of the ETH, actually. Yes, we know swamp gas exists, but that hypothesis doesn't account for all reasonably reliable data.

(Remember, I don't care about ETH vs. EDH, time travel, etc. But ETH must be default, for now. The strangest reports might be explained by this principle: "any advanced civilization's technology would appear to us to be 'magic' ".)



3. comment on the Hynek quotes I posted. please.


a) 1st Hynek quote: "The reports are real, and their cause must be real[. E]ven if the cause is mass hallucination, it is still a real cause."

Do you think Hynek ultimately believed that "mass hallucination" was a viable hypothesis for all cases? Of course he didn't. Anyone could post any number of his quotes to demonstrate whatever desired, since (as I thought was well known) his UFO position evolved -- from skeptic to pro-ETH to pro-'stranger than ETH'. His views in later years obviously carry more weight

Ironically, that quote works against UFO deniers. It's more evidence of the UFO taboo. Why has there not been a push within the social sciences to study the significant and supposedly "nutty" portion of the population which claims to have seen alien craft? Either the topic IS taboo, or they eliminate those explanations soon after delving into the evidence.

That also addresses your 2nd quote: of course such things are valid hypotheses. Equally likely? No

Your 3rd quote is not cited, and is not a Hynek quote. It's a quote about him. I have no doubt somebody could or would make that claim. As to its legitimacy, I have no idea.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
...
So to complete our math problem:
Twining memo = 0 aliens
SR14=0 aliens
Every UFO sighting =0 aliens
Knowns = 0 aliens
Unknowns = X aliens
Unknowns = an actual probability of being a known or future known
Summary: no hard proof of aliens.

No kidding. ????? ;-)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


(Remember, I don't care about ETH vs. EDH, time travel, etc. But ETH must be default, for now. The strangest reports might be explained by this principle: "any advanced civilization's technology would appear to us to be 'magic' ".)




Why must a hypothesis of pure speculation be the "default", for now or ever? Because "magic" might explain the strangest reports [which might have conventional, albeit yet unknown explanations]?

You don't see a fundamental problem with this approach?

And you JUST stated that not all hypotheses are equally likely, citing the little man in the black hole analogy... then you turn around and say that something that has not been proven to exist at all is the "default" over conventional explanations because they do not account for ALL of the data, after vehemently denying that you sought a singular hypothesis "to explain the entirety of the phenomenon"?

A little contradictory, isn't it?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

edit on 28-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
1. How can you use the Fermi Paradox to support your position when he gave no credibility to ETH. And at the same time Criticize people for having that same belief?


There IS credibility to the ETH. It's predicted. More and more mainstream scientists are saying that we need to start scouring our own solar system for ET artifacts. (See my only thread. See 'Von Neuman probes'.) And there's absolutely no reason to assume that, if they're here, each sighting is preceded and followed by a trip of lights years.

The Fermi Paradox simply says "they should be here by now, so where are they?" My interest, whatever Fermi's UFO thoughts, is in his conclusion that they should be here by now. He supported it mathematically, even when using conservative estimates.

His (or any scientist's) UFO opinion would matters to me if:
a) it could be confirmed that he studied the topic objectively and thoroughly.
b) his public statements on UFOs do not appear to be tainted by the stifling nature of the UFO taboo, present since day 1, or by decades-old and now-crumbling assumptions.

If our science points to the conclusion "they should've been here by now", then HOW does the ETH have "no credibility", as you say? That just makes no sense to me. Why is it ridiculed or precluded as invalid in whole? To me, it seems that's done mostly by those ignorant of the breathtaking discoveries of modern astronomy (Kepler mission, extra-solar planet results, etc.), just as the "Black Project" hypothesis is offered by those mostly unfamiliar with the principles of flight,

Next, I don't think I "criticized" anyone for his Fermi Paradox views. The paradox itself is simply a reality (if absolute proof is the standard), so what "view" could one even have on it?

I do remember finding it highly ironic and contrary to logic that it would be inserted into the discussion by one who, in the same post, seemed to argue that ET is not proven, so the ETH can't be part of any hypothesis.


Tea,

Please note that Fermi's "Paradox" is no paradox at all.

His logic rests on an alien civilization using self-reproducing robotic probes to expand out over the galaxy, since there is no known method for traveling such vast distances.

The idea is that drones are sent out, they locate raw materials, they build new drones, they send those drones out, etc...

What if other civilizations don't want to, or can't afford to do this? What if they did do this hundreds of thousands of years ago and the system subsequently broke down?

Fermi's "paradox" is really nothing but a logical exercise and infers absolutely nothing about the ETH or any related idea. It's not a paradox at all, in fact, because of the things I mentioned (among many other things.)

Just because a famous physicist's name is attached to an idea doesn't make it valid. Linus Pauling showed the entire world his ignorance regarding vitamin C, and he won a Nobel in Chemistry.

Harte



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Thank you for your well thought out response. I even starred you.

I don't want to go point by point anymore, it's just to time consuming. I like your Fermi responses but I don't think he proved anything mathematically or was even trying to prove anything regarding ET. My middle name is taken from his first name converted to English ...Henry. At least that is what I was told from my father when he was telling me how brilliant Italians Were. So I should know!

His view that ETH was implausible was probably due to his mathematical way of thinking. I'm not sure what assumptions we can make about how much he knew of the phenomenon. It is interesting to note though.

What I am trying to do with my card analogy is show what the exact math problem was that they were trying to solve. In fact, they reduced their UFO sightings to cards! So they took subjective data and tried to make it objective. The WHOLE report is exactly that; a math problem. Math is math is math whether or not its playing cards or Bluebook punch cards. Same thing. Suite, color, number or face are values the same as color, number, shape or brightness. The ONLY difference is that playing cards are not ambiguous. Not rigged or marked.

The thing you are missing is that it is neither for or against your point of view. It's the math they used. Their conclusions at the end were valid based on the data they had.

They were unable to come up with a "model" of a flying saucer at the end because each unknown was different. So the whole category of unknown could be broken down into how many different unknowns you have. You can't do anything with this data! Now if you were able to come up with a whole new category based off the unknowns, we would have something to talk about. What we have is ...ambiguous.

I think where you get hung up on is the bizarreness of the cases as they seem inexplicable. I could easily say they were hallucinations but I don't because I can't prove it even though there is more evidence to suggest that then ET!
We know that it's possible for someone to hallucinate. There is evidence for spontaneous hallucinations in otherwise healthy people. So we are in the same boat since I can't prove that any of these were that! We have ZERO cases where we know where this has occurred! But I don't carry on about it!

I'm good with Hynek response.
edit on 28-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join