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.
“If the Battelle group had had a real appreciation for how loose the data were, they never would have bothered with a statistical comparison to begin with”.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Apparently Brighter and I disagree on this, but I'm not sure. I simply don't see how we apply the principles of science to something "unknown" unless we first assume it's something particular ... or maybe "pretend it's something particular" better describes the idea. Without a working hypothesis -- and yes, of course there must be assumptions within it -- we have no rudder, nothing to suggest which kinds of particulars we want to or should be focusing on.
This working hypothesis -- whatever idea forces the least extension by us -- simply provides a way of organizing our thoughts and approach. There is no need that it be the answer, or one of the answers, or the most likely answer. That doesn't matter. We've gained knowledge either way. And we keep going down the list....
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I have been trying to slow down my posting here since my posts go virtually unchallenged and I'm sure people are sick of seeing them already. But when I see stuff like this, I can't let it go.
Wouldn't ETH be a future explanation and therefore imaginary? Because its not a current explanation. Future explanations are imaginary just the same. Here's the logical equation:
Future Explanation=imaginary
ETH = future explanation
ETH=imaginary
We can give a probability to future explanations being due to a known explanation since we do have known explanations.
We can not give a probability to ETH as being a future explanation since we know of no cases of actual ET.
So future explanations being due to known explanations is not as imaginary as ETH since we know of known explanations.
I agree that some of those unexplained cases look really cool though!
This is pretty much what you guys are arguing about.
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Wouldn't ETH be a future explanation and therefore imaginary?
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
We can not give a probability to ETH as being a future explanation since we know of no cases of actual ET.