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.

 

We Haven't Been Visited? Examining Arguments Against ET Visitation.

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
Anyhoo, glad I could share my bayesian expertise with you.


You still have no clue what this is about do you? (sigh)

And, you can't share what you don't have. All you have ever done is demonstrate that you know little to nothing about Bayesian Inference...and you are still eager to show us how little you understand.

Stop trying to be the opposition in every discussion, maybe you can learn something. Seriously, man, you completely miss every single point here.

edit on 6-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

waltwillis
The Pseudo-Skeptic is not a true Skeptic!

Labeling and semantics is the last refuge of scoundrels.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

tanka418

ZetaRediculian
Anyhoo, glad I could share my bayesian expertise with you.


You still have no clue what this is about do you? (sigh)

And, you can't share what you don't have. All you have ever done is demonstrate that you know little to nothing about Bayesian Inference...and you are still eager to show us how little you understand.

Stop trying to be the opposition in every discussion, maybe you can learn something. Seriously, man, you completely miss every single point here.

edit on 6-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



Psychological Projection:

Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) in the 1900s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.

Although rooted in early developmental stages, and classed by George Eman Vaillant as an immature defence, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


you need to re-examine the available data...your conclusions are faulty.

And, I can assure you that I do fully understand this subject...in my profession I'm frequently required to understand rather advanced things...just like this, and specifically this. I write and support software that in turn is used as an inference engine.

Also, please understand, a few weeks ago ZR and I went around on this subject. At that time he was trying to pass off (actual) High school probability as Bayesian probability. I called him on it, and he insisted. quit the discussion as it was pointless to argue with someone who didn't know what we were arguing about. Now he isn't offering anything of substance to support his (fictional) knowledge other than what he has linked from sci-fy or gaming sites. In short, probability suggests, rather strongly, that he is not telling the truth about his knowledge of this subject (Pknowledge = 0.0017).

On the other hand, it is my opinion that Bayesian Inference strongly suggests that there is life, very much as I have already stated...but just for clarity; life has strong probabilities in these places: Venus, Mars, up to 3 moons of Jupiter and Saturn, Zeta 2 Reticuli, Tau Ceti.

I'll show you the "work" soon...that is not something that One can compile in "short order", and I do have other responsibilities, and projects.


edit on 6-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

tanka418

You still have no clue what this is about do you? (sigh)

let me take a shot. Its about your gross misunderstanding of a very basic concept.


And, you can't share what you don't have. All you have ever done is demonstrate that you know little to nothing about Bayesian Inference...and you are still eager to show us how little you understand.

unfortunately you have nothing to back that with except for silly condescending retorts.


Stop trying to be the opposition in every discussion, maybe you can learn something. Seriously, man, you completely miss every single point here.
stop being a condescending nutcase with outrageous claims that can't be backed up and you have a deal.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Blue Shift

waltwillis
The Pseudo-Skeptic is not a true Skeptic!

Labeling and semantics is the last refuge of scoundrels.


Well at last you are a loss for words. That shoe must fit?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



just like this, and specifically this. I write and support software that in turn is used as an inference engine.

are you talking about that god aweful code block you said was a method? Its not a method.

odd I write and support software too. I call my application bayesian extravaganza.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



Also, please understand, a few weeks ago ZR and I went around on this subject. At that time he was trying to pass off (actual) High school probability as Bayesian probability. I called him on it, and he insisted. quit the discussion as it was pointless to argue with someone who didn't know what we were arguing about. Now he isn't offering anything of substance to support his (fictional) knowledge other than what he has linked from sci-fy or gaming sites. In short, probability suggests, rather strongly, that he is not telling the truth about his knowledge of this subject (Pknowledge = 0[.0017).

interesting fantasy. Do you have the link?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
 


stop being a condescending nutcase with outrageous claims that can't be backed up and you have a deal.


See, that is where you are misunderstanding....I have no such attitude of superiority. I may come off that way, but, I won't apologize for it anymore.

And, you may not like the way I "back up" my clams, but, unlike you, I "back up" my claims. I will admit that sometimes it takes carsful logic to get to where I am, but, the logic will always be sound.



are you talking about that god aweful code block you said was a method? Its not a method.

odd I write and support software too. I call my application bayesian extravaganza.


If not a "method", then what?

Your a software type, bestow upon us your knowledge.

"Bayesian extravaganza" must me private / custom software...like most of my stuff. Though I may include a Bayesian enhancement to my data mining and analysis suite


Anyway, can we get back on topic...please. You are missing golden opportunities for real discussion. Like in the linked articles, where they talk about the probabilities of abiogenesis. Personally I think they have overlooked important data, which I'll try to compile and post here. There is also the notion that IF abiogenesis is "rare" that it does in fact occur else where. This must be dealt with logically and accounted for in the computations. But they make the statement that "IF" life arose somewhere other than Earth, that it would significantly alter the conclusion. I would posit that the analysis is ultimately self-defeating due to the fact that, even if rare, life exists outside of Earth, and thus, the opposite condition would exist. Making life ubiquitous in the Universe.


And the conclusions of this work are important in deciding IF it is even possible for ET to visit.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

tanka418
All that crap being said...

Bayesian Inference is a poor tool for building on the hypothesis that Extraterrestrials are not visiting. Given all the available data Bayesian Inference would build a VERY good case for visitation. And, may even give a very positive indication on "where" ET is from. For those who have done the math; there are strong indications of visiting life, and from such places as Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. There are of course other places (but not the Pleiades)where ET calls home.



I dont know how you guys got hooked on this since depending on what you choose to include it can be used to validate eithers claims. This was not the best way to prove aliens visiting or proving they're not visiting. Since by the very nature of the equation there is bias built into it. This was just a way You can introduce opinion into statistical analysis.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


the claim is that there is something like a 94% certainty that there is humanoid life on another planet using bayesian statistics. This being based on current scientific knowledge.

claimant insists there is no other conclusion.

I counter that this number represents biased speculation and not a real number since there is no known aliens from which to calculate a number.

I site this article www.technologyreview.com...

from the "MIT Technology Review" which is apparently a gaming site according to the opposition. This article is about the paper published by David Spiegel at Princeton University and Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo which reaches a similar conclusion that the probability of et life is small based on "current" knowledge.

This has nothing to do with anything I may or may not know about.


edit on 6-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


I thought this was funny too

The vast majority of Bayesians are pragmatic, reasonable people. But there is a sub-group of die-hard Bayesians who do treat Bayesian inference like a religion. By this I mean:

1. They are very cliquish.
2. They have a strong emotional attachment to Bayesian inference.
3. They are overly sensitive to criticism.
4. They are unwilling to entertain the idea that Bayesian inference might have flaws.
5. When someone criticizes Bayes, they think that critic just “doesn’t get it.”
6. They mock people with differing opinions.

normaldeviate.wordpress.com...

Here is someone else that doesn't "get it"

"There is a commonly heard argument that life must be common or else it would not have arisen so quickly after the surface of the Earth cooled," Winn said. "This argument seems persuasive on its face, but Spiegel and Turner have shown it doesn't stand up to a rigorous statistical examination — with a sample of only one life-bearing planet, one cannot even get a ballpark estimate of the abundance of life in the universe.

www.princeton.edu...


You are missing golden opportunities for real discussion

say it aint so!


edit on 6-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



I'll show you the "work" soon...that is not something that One can compile in "short order", and I do have other responsibilities, and projects.

Let me make it clear. I am certain posting your "work" will be nothing short of a waste of time as is anything I would post and claim as mine. I am certain you have some fantasy that you will "wow" everyone with your fantastic math that no one will get except for you. Why on earth are you wasting your time showing this to the dregs of the interwebs is beyond me. What I am looking for is anything at all that resembles what you are talking about by someone else, and yes, I have no clue what you are talking about and apparently no one else does either as you have consistently remind us. So there apparently exists nothing else in existence that looks anything like what you are trying to wow us with.

Why don't you go email the people I mentioned who have done the real work and dispute their claims. I predict no one here will "get it" or even care.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by dragonridr
 


the claim is that there is something like a 94% certainty that there is humanoid life on another planet using bayesian statistics. This being based on current scientific knowledge.

claimant insists there is no other conclusion.

I counter that this number represents biased speculation and not a real number since there is no known aliens from which to calculate a number.

I site this article www.technologyreview.com...

from the "MIT Technology Review" which is apparently a gaming site according to the opposition. This article is about the paper published by David Spiegel at Princeton University and Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo which reaches a similar conclusion that the probability of et life is small based on "current" knowledge.

This has nothing to do with anything I may or may not know about.


edit on 6-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


Well i agree there is no way to even put a statistic on if life develops on a planet or not because we dont know all the variables involved. Its nothing more than a guess until we actually have information from other planets to compare to. So you are correct without a baseline the equation means nothing other than information bias.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
 



I'll show you the "work" soon...that is not something that One can compile in "short order", and I do have other responsibilities, and projects.

Let me make it clear. I am certain posting your "work" will be nothing short of a waste of time as is anything I would post and claim as mine. I am certain you have some fantasy that you will "wow" everyone with your fantastic math that no one will get except for you. Why on earth are you wasting your time showing this to the dregs of the interwebs is beyond me. What I am looking for is anything at all that resembles what you are talking about by someone else, and yes, I have no clue what you are talking about and apparently no one else does either as you have consistently remind us. So there apparently exists nothing else in existence that looks anything like what you are trying to wow us with.

Why don't you go email the people I mentioned who have done the real work and dispute their claims. I predict no one here will "get it" or even care.



Never turn down a chance to see someones equations it can give you insight in to how they think.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
 



I'll show you the "work" soon...that is not something that One can compile in "short order", and I do have other responsibilities, and projects.

Let me make it clear. I am certain posting your "work" will be nothing short of a waste of time as is anything I would post and claim as mine. I am certain you have some fantasy that you will "wow" everyone with your fantastic math that no one will get except for you. Why on earth are you wasting your time showing this to the dregs of the interwebs is beyond me. What I am looking for is anything at all that resembles what you are talking about by someone else, and yes, I have no clue what you are talking about and apparently no one else does either as you have consistently remind us. So there apparently exists nothing else in existence that looks anything like what you are trying to wow us with.

Why don't you go email the people I mentioned who have done the real work and dispute their claims. I predict no one here will "get it" or even care.


So, just to be very clear, the membership of ATS are " the dregs of the interwebs"? Is that so Y'all? Are we the "dregs of the interwebs"? I don't think so.

I'd also like t get this straight; At first you likened Bayesian Inference to the simple probability involved with card games like Poker, then you were an expert on the subject, now, it is a virtual "cult"...

And, NO; I have NO fantasies.






posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



Never turn down a chance to see someones equations it can give you insight in to how they think.

I can only ride a rollercoaster for so long before I vomit. But you are right I shouldn't deny others this historical opportunity.


Well i agree there is no way to even put a statistic on if life develops on a planet or not because we dont know all the variables involved. Its nothing more than a guess until we actually have information from other planets to compare to. So you are correct without a baseline the equation means nothing other than information bias.

That has to be the most basic statistical concept I can think of. Pretty much everyone agrees that there is life out there, its just that you cant put any number on it. But we aren't just talking microbial life or even intelligent life, we are talking 94% probability of humanoid life on a specific planet. not just humanoid life, we are talking about people that look just like you and me. Not only that, we are talking about them coming here to earth and probably having sex with our wives and stuff. That is some pretty fancy math that might be better applied predicting the weather or the stock market.

Now I don't have any problem with anyone working some assumptions, speculating, imagining and then even applying math to get some meaning from it. I actually believe its a healthy creative process. Same with drawing superheroes or writing sci fi. The problem is that its trying to be passed off as real data.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



I'd also like t get this straight; At first you likened Bayesian Inference to the simple probability involved with card games like Poker
no I didn't. I provided you a link on how it could be applied to poker. it was a good article, you should have read it.


then you were an expert on the subject

I said I had some experience with it and was familiar with it. I said I was an expert as a joke which I thought was obvious.


now, it is a virtual "cult"...
according to that article but not my words obviously. I just said I thought it was funny.

I will say this, its a pretty trivial concept and do find it interesting how much importance you place on it. Almost magical importance.


So, just to be very clear, the membership of ATS are " the dregs of the interwebs"? Is that so Y'all? Are we the "dregs of the interwebs"? I don't think so.

If you think your audience consists of anyone more than draknoir and myself, you are more deluded than I thought. Im not going to speak for anyone else, but I am certainly an interweb dreg and if the way you speak to others is any gauge, you certainly don't consider them much more than that either. the membership of ATS is not really paying attention to you. sorry. of course, the membership of ATS can certainly chime in at any time and prove me wrong. There is a good chance this thread dies as soon as I stop responding to you.


edit on 7-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
I counter that this number represents biased speculation and not a real number since there is no known aliens from which to calculate a number.


Alas, this really shows the depth of your understanding. I have asserted before, and I will again, Extraterrestrials are not needed to estimate their probability. The "base line" for the probability of ET is 1 chance in the sample size (Earth being necessarily a part of the sample, and Earth has the kind of life we are looking for.)...so we start off with a "prior probability" for ET life...its sort of "built in". Thus your notion of "not having data" is wholly inappropriate, and acts as a "Bar" to further research.

Further, there seems to be extraterrestrials upon which to begin to build: Fresh claim for fossil life in Mars rock



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
On the previous posts, I can't even spell or pronounce "Bayesian Inference" let alone comment on it. Anyhow...on Alien Visitation, I think this:

1. There is plenty of evidence of a cover up on ET visitation. This could mean that it's a cover up of top secret earthly Military or Intelligence Operations as well. But there is some compelling evidence. You could even start with Roswell, what did they cover up and why are some of the documents still classified after all this time.
2. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts. Not all of them can be thrown aside or in with everything else. Not everything can be swamp gas and sleep paralysis. It only takes one real incident.
3. Aliens could well be hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of years more advanced than we are. We can't even imagine what technologies they have and scientific discoveries they have made. With that in mind, if there were/are Alien civilizations out there, they could very likely have the means to visit earth.
4. Again, with that much advanced technology, we not ever know they had visited. Maybe most -95% even 99% of sightings are explainable by terrestrial means, you may still have a valid sighting because, we all know that sometimes technology fails and unseen circumstances happen.
5. We're pretty sure that there is life on other planets. There is a good chance that some of that life evolved. There is still a really good chance that some of that life has evolved to our level if not higher.

In summary, that's, in my opinion, 5 good points to consider. We can't just put a blanket statement that 'no evidence' or 'the nearest planet is X number of light years away, so it's impossible' etc. These items do need to be considered, and not just skeptically or as true believer but with an actual open mind. I'm always amazed at how close minded many scientists are. History is full of them and there are many of them working today. Sometimes I wonder how anything ever gets discovered with such a closed minded attitude. Not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical, but an open mind is equally important.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join