UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[Pythagorean]

My word, 8 pages! I have a lot of reading to do.

I've been avoiding this thread as I couldn't afford the time to get sucked in.

to my mind, Andre's point about there not being an eject in F-14's should be addressed. A lot of the rest is us just speculating that there was some kind of incompetence cover-up on part of the general, which seems more valid to me than alien aircraft, but still... we could argue about that forever and get nowhere.

 

[FlexGunship]

to my mind, Andre's point about there not being an eject in F-14's should be addressed. A lot of the rest is us just speculating that there was some kind of incompetence cover-up on part of the general, which seems more valid to me than alien aircraft, but still... we could argue about that forever and get nowhere.

I have a hunch we'll be hearing from Ivan soon enough. Expect an 8-page response!

 

[jreelawg]

Anyway, after such a display of fallacies, certainly not the only ones in this thread, but inevitably ending in law[/url] and hence the closure of this thread; maybe I should emphasize for the third time, to read the last paragraph of the pigeon ufo's in http://edmontonskeptics.com/2010/06/amateur-astronomer-reporting-a-ufo-sighting-part-2/



illustrating how hopeless it is to attempt breaking down the craving for (scary) mystics with rationality. If this was to be a industrious, dedicated and creative young man, we'd soon read in his webpage all about UFO's, the great conspiracy and the unambigeous conformation thereof.

The fallacy is the belief that because one saw some pigeons and were fooled, all people who saw ufo's must have had a similar experience.

 

[FlexGunship]

The fallacy is the belief that because one saw some pigeons and were fooled, all people who saw ufo's must have had a similar experience.

TURDS

The Unsinkable Rubber Duck Syndrome

 

[jreelawg]

While here I want to address the argument that UFO's are not often seen by astronomers.

What is obvious that we have to factor in, is the fact that some people see things like pigeons, satellites, planes, street lamps etc etc, and make ufo reports.

If the UFO phenomena is real, and it's not mundane, why should you expect different numbers when it comes to UFO report statistics and astronomers?

What percentage of people on Earth are astronomers? What percentage of people on Earth claim to have seen a UFO?

And then there is the issue of being professional. If you are an astronomer, and you see something strange, and don't know what it is. You probably use a different name than UFO to describe it.

 

[jreelawg]

TURDS

The Unsinkable Rubber Duck Syndrome

I think this post is very important to think about.

First point, what ducks have been sunk in this thread? We could go on for days, through pages of documents, and reports, and you could honestly address each case on it's own merit.

As it stands, the UFO phenomena has not been debunked.

I would argue that the rubber duck syndrome applies to so called "skeptics" as well. In my opinion some so called skeptics have a pet hypothesis, and sometimes use a double standard.

I for one, am skeptical of the idea that a person can debunk something like this using nothing but knowledge and assumptions of human behavior.

 

[FlexGunship]

If the UFO phenomena is real, and it's not mundane, why should you expect different numbers when it comes to UFO report statistics and astronomers?

Because astronomers are not often perplexed by what they see in the night sky. Send an astronomer into the depths of the ocean and you're likely to get reports of sea monsters and mermaids.

Phil Plait is an actual astronomer (not just an armchair astronomer), and he is a member of the International Astronomical Union. On matters pertaining to astronomy and things in the night sky, I will, in most instances, yield to the professional.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/01/why-astronomers-dont-report-ufos/

That is a link to an article literally addressing exactly the questions you pose. It couldn't be a more apt and poignant article for your post, Jreelawg.

So, unless you are willing to put your night-sky-observing, professional-astronomer-friend-knowing, IAU-shoulder-rubbing, telescope-eye-piece-time credentials up against Phil Plait's, you had best leave the questions of astronomer's claims and astronomical observations to Mr. Plait himself.

 

[FlexGunship]

I for one, am skeptical of the idea that a person can debunk something like this using nothing but knowledge and assumptions of human behavior.

I, for one, am skeptical of the idea that the hypothesis of alien visitation (sic) can be advanced based on nothing but notoriously unreliable human observation and photographs/videos with a SNR less than 1.

EDIT: I know what it would take for me to change my mind. There exists a set of evidence which is sufficient to change my mind.

For the UFO-faithfuls, what evidence would it take to change your mind?

The two positions are not at all equal. My duck certainly could be sunk. Can your's?

 

[jreelawg]

Because astronomers are not often perplexed by what they see in the night sky. Send an astronomer into the depths of the ocean and you're likely to get reports of sea monsters and mermaids.

Phil Plait is an actual astronomer (not just an armchair astronomer), and he is a member of the International Astronomical Union. On matters pertaining to astronomy and things in the night sky, I will, in most instances, yield to the professional.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/01/why-astronomers-dont-report-ufos/

That is a link to an article literally addressing exactly the questions you pose. It couldn't be a more apt and poignant article for your post, Jreelawg.

So, unless you are willing to put your night-sky-observing, professional-astronomer-friend-knowing, IAU-shoulder-rubbing, telescope-eye-piece-time credentials up against Phil Plait's, you had best leave the questions of astronomer's claims and astronomical observations to Mr. Plait himself.

But we are in agreement about what I posted then right. So if astronomers don't report ridiculous or sketchy sightings, and since they are a minority as well, that only 1% of UFO sighting are reported by astronomers makes perfect sense.

The failed logic in your argument is the idea that astronomers don't report UFO's. They do, it's just a smaller percentage, and because the files are so cluttered with lunies, pranksters, high people, etc. Well the rest is obvious.

So as your article argues the point that, if UFO's are buzzing around as commonly as we are led to believe, why aren't astronomers reports consistent with this. Answer is obvious, because UFO's aren't as common as you would be led to believe assuming every single UFO report ever made was an advanced spaceship.

But no rational person would expect this. We can expect a lesser percentage of astronomers to report sightings, based on their expertise. As well, I argue that a professional may be risking their reputation telling UFO stories.

You come up with different statistics when you ask astronomers if they have seen things they have tried but could not identify, and when you ask if they have seen a UFO.

The Article you posted is pretty poorly done. The title is contradicted by the first sentence.

 

[jreelawg]

"I have, from time to time, made a point that astronomers rarely if ever report UFOs."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...t-report-ufos/

First of all, the context of this sentence needs to be more clear. There are two possible contexts which I could postulate. The first is that an individual astronomer within their lifetime will either rarely report UFO's, or never report them. The second context is that which includes all astronomers. In this context he is unclear. It is either rare, or it is none? This implies he doesn't know how many astronomers report UFOs.

In my opinion, the article is leaking water fast. You what else doesn't hold water.

 

[FlexGunship]

But we are in agreement about what I posted then right. So if astronomers don't report ridiculous or sketchy sightings, and since they are a minority as well, that only 1% of UFO sighting are reported by astronomers makes perfect sense.

[...]

The Article you posted is pretty poorly done. The title is contradicted by the first sentence.

We aren't in agreement, I'm afraid. The number of UFO reports from astronomers is disproportionately small compared to the number of astronomers.

I would also be cautious in your dismissal of Phil Plait (and his writings). I will avoid the "argument from authority" here, but, instead, simply suggest that his observations and metaobservations (observations of observations) are worth considering strongly. Between him and Neil deGrasse Tyson, you would be hard pressed to find more reputable sky-observers. In part, though, they are reputable because they have learned to disregard "brain failures" (as Tyson calls it) in favor of scientific objective observation.

As Tyson says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68): "in the court of science, eye witness observation is the lowest form of evidence."

P.S. Yes, I know he was talking about abductions at that exact moment. But even 2nd graders know that you can't rely on stories (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k&feature=related - go to 5:00 for "brain failures").

At 8:20 of that second video Tyson also addresses your question again of astronomers and UFOs.

 

[jreelawg]

We aren't in agreement, I'm afraid. The number of UFO reports from astronomers is disproportionately small compared to the number of astronomers.

I would also be cautious in your dismissal of Phil Plait (and his writings). I will avoid the "argument from authority" here, but, instead, simply suggest that his observations and metaobservations (observations of observations) are worth considering strongly. Between him and Neil deGrasse Tyson, you would be hard pressed to find more reputable sky-observers. In part, though, they are reputable because they have learned to disregard "brain failures" (as Tyson calls it) in favor of scientific objective observation.

As Tyson says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68): "in the court of science, eye witness observation is the lowest form of evidence."

P.S. Yes, I know he was talking about abductions at that exact moment. But even 2nd graders know that you can't rely on stories (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k&feature=related - go to 5:00 for "brain failures").

Doesn't change the fact failed logic was used in the article.

 

[jreelawg]

All I care about is the substance. If you are going to argue that the proportion of sightings by astronomers says something about the UFO phenomena, then let's see the evidence. Then let's look closely at it, and discuss it.

 

[jreelawg]

In part, though, they are reputable because they have learned to disregard "brain failures" (as Tyson calls it) in favor of scientific objective observation.

How reputable would they be if they went public about seeing a UFO and reported it to MUFON?

 

[jreelawg]

I agree with Carl Sagan.

"The idea of benign or hostile space aliens from other planets visiting the Earth [is clearly] an emotional idea. There are two sorts of self-deception here: either accepting the idea of extraterrestrial visitation by space aliens in the face of very meager evidence because we want it to be true; or rejecting such an idea out of hand, in the absence of sufficient evidence, because we don't want it to be true. Each of these extremes is a serious impediment to the study of UFOs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_hypothesis#Opinions_among_scientists

 

[nismaratwork]

How reputable would they be if they went public about seeing a UFO and reported it to MUFON?

...And how immortal would their names become if they were one of the first people to provide more than just blurry images of "orbs"? I think if pilots are willing to risk their flight certs, and Generals their reputations, that yes... astronomers would be willing if they saw something absolutely inexplicable. You're placing the burden of proof on the people who are skeptical, but in reality that's neither logical nor scientific: if you want to prove a belief, you have to provide commensurate evidence. You keep saying, "I could say the same for the skeptics...", but actually you can't. The skeptic isn't a CYNIC, and isn't saying, "nope, nope, that can't be real," they're just people with a standard of proof that is in line with the claim.

Eyewitnesses are terrible when it comes to mundane events, so why would they be considered worthwhile for something that would be LITERALLY out of this world? Anecdotes, no matter how trustworthy the source, do not forward science... that is part of the success you find as a result of using the scientific method. If you have evidence of skeptics rejecting evidence out of hand, present it, otherwise quoting Carl Sagan is just an appeal to authority and cherry picking for something you interpret as supporting your position.

 

[jreelawg]

...And how immortal would their names become if they were one of the first people to provide more than just blurry images of "orbs"? I think if pilots are willing to risk their flight certs, and Generals their reputations, that yes... astronomers would be willing if they saw something absolutely inexplicable. You're placing the burden of proof on the people who are skeptical, but in reality that's neither logical nor scientific: if you want to prove a belief, you have to provide commensurate evidence. You keep saying, "I could say the same for the skeptics...", but actually you can't. The skeptic isn't a CYNIC, and isn't saying, "nope, nope, that can't be real," they're just people with a standard of proof that is in line with the claim.

Eyewitnesses are terrible when it comes to mundane events, so why would they be considered worthwhile for something that would be LITERALLY out of this world? Anecdotes, no matter how trustworthy the source, do not forward science... that is part of the success you find as a result of using the scientific method. If you have evidence of skeptics rejecting evidence out of hand, present it, otherwise quoting Carl Sagan is just an appeal to authority and cherry picking for something you interpret as supporting your position.

Any claim or argument should be subject to the burden of proof skeptic or not. Science is the investigation and research of observed phenomena.

I quoted Sagan in response to Flex's post in which he expects me to take an accomplished astronomers unsupported opinions at face value.

I also quoted Sagan because he said what I've been trying to say well, and yes, I thought maybe someone would take Sagan more seriously than me.

 

[jreelawg]

...And how immortal would their names become if they were one of the first people to provide more than just blurry images of "orbs"? I think if pilots are willing to risk their flight certs, and Generals their reputations, that yes... astronomers would be willing if they saw something absolutely inexplicable.

Let's see some kind of evidence at all, that the % of astronomers claiming to have seen UFO's is of some ratio.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh Lord, here we go. I should have just started a log of canned responses long ago. We have been over this soooooo many times. I will probably just nibble away at this.

That's what logic dictates, Ivan. What other possibilities do you see?

I don't have to offer any explanations in order to say that we don't know.

he facts are not of scientific quality - that's why they are not accepted. Your position, dismissing reasonable skepticism, is anti-science.

Reasonable skepticism? I am the one being skeptical of your explanation.

The purpose of scientific inquiry is to get answers - to draw conclusions.

So first you argue that the information is not of scientific quality, and then you argue that we should draw conclusions.

There is no other reason to do it. Furthermore, humans are hard-wired to draw conclusions.

So it is your position that we succumb to our animal nature in order to remain objective.

It's our nature and is essentially impossible to avoid, even if it were desirable, which it isn't. It is unscientific and disingenuous to claim that one can do decades of research and not even come up with potential/tentative conclusions. It's also counterproductive since failure to properly apply scientific thought to these sightings can result in incorrect conclusions being drawn.

Says who? What research? You are talking complete nonsense here. The accumulation of information does not constitute or pretend to be scientific research from which conclusions can be drawn.

As I said, I am the skeptic here. I refuse to leap to conclusions based on some predispostion to draw conclusions, where none can be supported. The need to believe something does not justify conclusions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No. Heck, I won't even stipulate to the premise of the question! I have *never* seen a UFO report that made me stand up and say "Wow, I think that's an alien spacecraft !" like proponents of the Mexican Air Force sighting said I should. And in cases like that one, my skepticism has served me well, whereas the wishful thinking/grasping at straws of the UFO crowd has served them poorly. No, it is being suggested that language suggestive of ET is being deleted/not used for the sake of comfort by the author. The impression given is leading us toward a conclusion, then not explicitly stating what that conclusion is. It is argument by inuendo and you did something similar above when you said my conclusions were limited without explaining what the alternatives are.

You are making this about ET, not me. Where in the Iran report does anyone say anything about ET? You and I agreed seven years ago that we have no credible scientific evidence for an ET presence, so why do you consistently make this the argument?

It seems to me that you are the one hung up on ET. Yes, the claim is out there, get over it already. Do you automatically consider a rejection of your eplanations, a claim for ET? I think so. If we don't limit the scope of explanations to your frame, its crackpot, right?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

According to many, the Mexican Air Force UFO sighting of a few years ago was an extremely convincing sighting of alien spacecraft ...which turned out to be oil rigs. The conclusion a skeptic must draw from that is that in the absence of convincing proof of a mundane explanation, many UFO advocates jump to the alien spacecraft conclusion.

Don't pick and choose examples and then misrepresent them. "According to many" can be said about most beliefs. No one credible was jumping to any conclusions.

As is generally stated in the serious efforts to examine this phenomenon, we take it as a given that 90-95% of all UFO reports can be explained. Don't waste our time by pointing to the obvious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does her book mention the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkHt6br1Q4"?

No, and we debunked this one long ago. That is the view from a US jet, not a Mig.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

More later, but here's some red meat.

What are the chances of an ET encounter?

Answer: We have no idea. It may be a near certainty that we will encounter ETs.

Prove me wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't have to offer any explanations in order to say that we don't know.

No, but you do have to offer an explanation to make the affirmative claim that I'm limiting the possibilities. You're basically saying 'you're wrong, but I can't/won't prove it.' Pathetic cop-out.

Reasonable skepticism? I am the one being skeptical of your explanation.

I'm perfectly willing to let you flip the issue over, but your refusal to be logical/scientific and support your claims is most certainly not reasonable skepticism.

So first you argue that the information is not of scientific quality, and then you argue that we should draw conclusions.

What conclusion are you referring to? When you have data that is not of scientific quality the only conclusion to be drawn is that the hypotheized effect is not borne-out by observation. In other words, the conclusion is that the hypothesis that there are alien spacecraft visiting us is not supported by observation.

So it is your position that we succumb to our animal nature in order to remain objective.

Huh? That doesn't make sense, but it kinda sounds like exactly the opposite of what I said. What I'm saying is that it is our animal nature to seek-out signal in the noise. That's what "UFOology" is: an attempt to find signal in noise. And predominantly what I've seen from "UFOologists" is that there is a signal they want to find and because our brains are hardwired to seek out and find patterns even when there aren't any, their animal nature overrides their objectivity and causes them to see a signal that isn't there.

Says who? What research? You are talking complete nonsense here. The accumulation of information does not constitute or pretend to be scientific research from which conclusions can be drawn.

Oh, really? Then I misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempts were being made to study the UFO phenomena scientifically. Should I stop using the term "UFOology" then and just say 'flying saucer hunters'?

As I said, I am the skeptic here. I refuse to leap to conclusions based on some predispostion to draw conclusions, where none can be supported. The need to believe something does not justify conclusions.

No, you're really not, Ivan. You cling to a signal that isn't there and dismissively refuse to apply logic and scientific thought to the subject. You're basically looking at the issue backwards, claiming that because the signal is weak it can't be proven it isn't there so we should assume it is for the purpose of investigation.

You are making this about ET, not me. Where in the Iran report does anyone say anything about ET?

It is disingenuous to claim that the UFO issue is not about ET. It is. That was part of the discussion earlier: ET advocates tend to avoid talking about ET because they don't want to be seen supporting that hypothesis. But every now and then, they let their true position slip.

You and I agreed seven years ago that we have no credible scientific evidence for an ET presence, so why do you consistently make this the argument?

Because while you acknowlege that, you also said you are still almost completely convinced that there is an ET presence. You're playing both sides in an attempt to appear more objective than you really are. And that appears to me to be the norm of ET believers. That is why I continually harp on this: The "UFO" phenomena is about ET and it is disingenous to claim otherwise. It's probably an internal struggle that manifests externally and not really a conscious attempt to deceive, but nevertheless, it is a real issue here. IOW, you probably believe you are being objective/scientific, but you aren't.

Don't pick and choose examples and then misrepresent them. "According to many" can be said about most beliefs. No one credible was jumping to any conclusions.

Unless you use a recursive definition, that's just plain not true. The "UFOologist" that the Mexican military brought in (Jaime Maussan) was one of/the first to utter that conclusion.

As is generally stated in the serious efforts to examine this phenomenon, we take it as a given that 90-95% of all UFO reports can be explained. Don't waste our time by pointing to the obvious.

I point out the obvious because UFO advocates dismiss the obvious: the fact that 90-95% including many seen to be compelling can eventually be explained is the signal to noise ratio that I'm referring to. You can't treat a later-explained sighting that was intially thought to be alien spacecraft as if it never happened. It is disingenuous and unscientiifc to discard data because it doesn't fit the hypothesis - especially when the fraction is so large! I harp on it because UFO advocates want to pretend it didn't happen. That's data cooking.

 

[russ_watters]

More later, but here's some red meat.

What are the chances of an ET encounter?

Answer: We have no idea. It may be a near certainty that we will encounter ETs.

Prove me wrong.

Ivan, "prove me wrong" is right out of the crackpot handbook. An armchair skeptic such as myself has no burden of proof here: the burden of proof is always on the one doing the research/making the claim - even if that claim is only backhandedly implied.

And even worse, what you want me to prove wrong is an obvious unscientific analysis of data. And yes, we have data. Every UFO sighting that can't be proven to be ET - and you have acknowledged that so far none can - is another data point to the 1/x upper bound odds that an ET encounter can be scientifically proven. In other words, if there have been 1,000,000 sightings then the odds that any new sighting will be a confirmed ET has an upper bound of one in a million.

"It may be a near certainty..." is an unscientific possibility to extract from the data.

Furthermore, since as you say, 90-95% of initially unexplained sightings can later be explained to be mundane and/or misunderstood, any scientifically minded person should conclude that with better data, the rest would also be. Flipping the signal and noise: 90-95% confidence is a conclusion is a pretty good signal to noise ratio.

 

[russ_watters]

I cannot speak for or against the eyewitness accounts.

But, for all practical purposes, a bullet coming out of a gun barrel accelerates instantly - to the human eye. Lead and black powder - 2,500 years old.

And have you ever seen an adept Australian aborigine throw a boomerang ? Depending on it's attitude to the wind, and your point of observation, it can sure as hell appear to make a 90 deg turn - or even a 30 deg turn sometimes. Wind and wood - 70,000 years old. How's that, Mr Einstein ?

It's probably inadvertent, but you are agreeing with me here. When someone says 'it executed a 90 deg turn and since our technology/science says that is impossible, it must be ET' that shows that they almost certainly misunderstood and misreported what they were seeing. There is a huge difference in the implications of 'it executed a 90 deg turn' and 'it appeared to execute a 90 deg turn'. We've examined examples in this thread where that is exactly the misinterpretation that drove the event.

 

[russ_watters]

No, alt is still talking. Can someone else take a whack at this for a while.

By the way, "illusion, confusion, hallucination, and hoax" is hardly a quatrotomy (quadchotomy?). Illusion describes thousands of possible experiences. Confusion describes ever more! This is an entire spectrum of human interaction with reality and none of it requires aliens or super-high-tech secret military aircraft.

How is that not more reasonable? You need nothing extraordinary to explain it. Furthermore, if most are simply cases of confusion or illusion, with a few cases of hallucination and hoax, why wouldn't we just admit that they all could be? And until something compelling arises, we will depart from the wild speculation.

Furthermore, since 90-95% of the initially unknown can be shown to be mundanely explained/misinterpreted, it is reasonable to conclude that with higher quality data, the rest could be too.

 

[jreelawg]

Furthermore, since 90-95% of the initially unknown can be shown to be mundanely explained/misinterpreted, it is reasonable to conclude that with higher quality data, the rest could be too.

How is this reasonable to conclude?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know how interesting it really is, though. I don't think there was much hallucination going on, more confusion with a light splash of illusion. Lying? Sure, what military leader wants to come out and say: "Wow, everyone, we were really silly there. Sorry about the scare. It's just that we don't really know what we're doing with this radar stuff, and these jets... sheesh, have you seen the number of buttons?! We only press the green ones for the most part."

The general point that humans are 'belief engines', pre-programmed to find signal in noise without even realizing it may be basic to you and me, but not everyone is aware of/accepting of it. I recommend reading Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" for those just discovering the concept. His basic point is that throughout history, the realm of the supernatural has been sized precisely to fit what we do not understand and as our understanding of the natural world has increased, the realm of the supernatural has decreased. Thus it can be concluded that things that are currently unexplainable probably have explanations that don't require jumping outside of science/logic.

 

[jreelawg]

What does it mean to conclude that probably? If it's probably then it's not conclusive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, but you do have to offer an explanation to make the affirmative claim that I'm limiting the possibilities.

You are not allowing that it simply something that we don't understand - the opportunity for discovery.

You're basically saying 'you're wrong, but I can't/won't prove it.' Pathetic cop-out.

And you are simply changing the facts and misreprenting my position. I didn't say you were wrong. I said that I am skeptical. I don't accept any explanation as a fact. You seem to need to believe something.

I'm perfectly willing to let you flip the issue over, but your refusal to be logical/scientific and support your claims is most certainly not reasonable skepticism.

I didn't make a claim. State my claim. The thing that you seem to be incapable of understanding is that I don't have a position. I draw no conclusions. None are possible.

What conclusion are you referring to? When you have data that is not of scientific quality the only conclusion to be drawn is that the hypotheized effect is not borne-out by observation. In other words, the conclusion is that the hypothesis that there are alien spacecraft visiting us is not supported by observation.

You ask what conclusion. Then you state a conclusion based on evidence that you yourself admit is not scientific quality. No one is claiming this is proof of anything. What bothers you is that if we take the report at face value, one quickly runs out of reasonable explanations. That is a simple fact.

Huh? That doesn't make sense, but it kinda sounds like exactly the opposite of what I said. What I'm saying is that it is our animal nature to seek-out signal in the noise.

What I am saying is that you seem to need to believe something here, but I don't.

That's what "UFOology" is: an attempt to find signal in noise. And predominantly what I've seen from "UFOologists" is that there is a signal they want to find and because our brains are hardwired to seek out and find patterns even when there aren't any, their animal nature overrides their objectivity and causes them to see a signal that isn't there.

Just like any true believer, that is your statement of faith.

Oh, really? Then I misunderstood. I was under the impression that attempts were being made to study the UFO phenomena scientifically. Should I stop using the term "UFOology" then and just say 'flying saucer hunters'?

Just as historians are gossip hunters.

No, you're really not, Ivan. You cling to a signal that isn't there and dismissively refuse to apply logic and scientific thought to the subject.

What you really mean is that I don't completely dismiss the possibility that ET has visited. I don't accept that, but I allow that it might be possible. You, on the other hand, have made up your mind. So again, I am actually the skeptic. You are the true believer. You need to believe that ET can't be here. My position is that I have no idea. It would seem to be highly unlikely, but I can't completely rule it out. No one can.

You hide behind the criteria for science for claims that can only be considered logically. The point of this forum is to consider evidence that cannot be tested directly. The claim of ET is not derived indirectly from reports like this. There are plenty of direct accounts of flying saucers, or whatever, hovering over houses, flying down the highway with police in pursuit, landing in pastures, and on and on for decades the stories go, in fact, for centuries, with some rare accounts of encounters with actual beings. Anecdotal evidence is still logical evidence, and the point is to consider the scope and depth of the claims - to provide some perspective. Why do people believe these things?

You simply refuse to consider the anecdotal evidence. It threatens you because were one word of it true, your belief system would collapse. You fail to recognize the difference between the willingness to not pass judgement, of being truly skeptical of any position here, and driving over a cliff. The idea of an open mind offends you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, there is no doubt in my mind that at least some natural phenomena are mixed in with UFO reports. No doubt ball lightning can account for some reports. Maybe this and other phenomena can explain all of the really interesting reports, but we certainly don't know this to be true. We would expect this to be true, but we don't know it. It would be crackpottery to say that we do.

 

[nismaratwork]

Holy CRAP this got ugly fast...

For what little it's worth, in all of this I haven't seen Ivan talk about ETs other than to dismiss them in the context of what UFOs might be. I'm of the opinion that the "belief engine" notion probably accounts for the vast majority of observed "weirdness", but as Ivan's point is made with ball lightning, that doesn't cover EVERYTHING. I go back to how DaveC approaches science in the strictest sense... there isn't enough information here to draw conclusions across the board, only in a case-by-case basis. I do NOT see where Ivan is saying anything other than that, but Russ, you do seem to have a kind of faith in something you cannot possibly know.

I don't believe in god, or that ETs have visited Earth, but I recognize that's because no evidence of either has ever been presented to me which I find rigorous and scientific. I ALSO recognize that doesn't automatically make me right... it's just my belief.

Ivan, where Russ is CLEARLY right, is that in the midst of saying you are skeptically aloof, you start to talk about anecdotal claims being "logcial evidence". Now, I don't know what that's supposed to be, but it sure as hell is NOT scientific evidence: you can get a trillion bits of anecdote from 7000+ years of human record and still have nothing which a decent skeptic would do more than read, and put aside. Anecdote is essentially the OPPOSITE of evidence.

Maybe I'm not getting this, but it seems to me that Russ is arguing against you as if you do believe that ETs are an explanation for some things, and you do entertain that view. I don't see how you can make the skeptic's argument and then even CONSIDER that Russ or anyone should take anecdotes as evidence of anything. When you really look at history, the birth of science was the moment that anecdotes, no matter how convincing, were considered to be personal accounts and NOT evidence.

Clearly this is a long-standing issue between you two, and while Russ isn't being a true skeptic in that he comes to definite conclusions where only high probabilities can be drawn, you seem to be aiming for the acceptance of anecdote as evidence, which is disturbing.

Do I have this right? Essentially, Russ LEANS towards "UFO anything is crackpottery and nuts looking for magic" and Ivan LEANS towards "There is anecdotal 'evidence' that should make us consider claims without scientifically acceptable basis."...
... but when challenged you both hide behind the word "skeptic".

As I understand it a skeptic might have a personal belief based on likelihoods, but those are merely conditional and not worth arguing about until REAL evidence emerges. I have my leanings, which tend towards Russ' as it happens, but I don't dismiss a claim out of hand until the evidence is examined. If there's nothing, but an anecdote, log it in some file and put it away until it can be paired with real evidence. If it never is, then for me it means only that someone said something, period.

Beyond that, maybe this 7+ year argument you two are having should be... well... in its own thread or in a PM.

 

[alt]

The general point that humans are 'belief engines', pre-programmed to find signal in noise without even realizing it may be basic to you and me, but not everyone is aware of/accepting of it. I recommend reading Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" for those just discovering the concept. His basic point is that throughout history, the realm of the supernatural has been sized precisely to fit what we do not understand and as our understanding of the natural world has increased, the realm of the supernatural has decreased. Thus it can be concluded that things that are currently unexplainable probably have explanations that don't require jumping outside of science/logic.

His basic point is that throughout history, the realm of the supernatural has been sized precisely to fit what we do not understand and as our understanding of the natural world has increased, the realm of the supernatural has decreased.

That is much the same as saying that todays magic is tomorrows science.

 

[alt]

Holy CRAP this got ugly fast...

For what little it's worth, in all of this I haven't seen Ivan talk about ETs other than to dismiss them in the context of what UFOs might be. I'm of the opinion that the "belief engine" notion probably accounts for the vast majority of observed "weirdness", but as Ivan's point is made with ball lightning, that doesn't cover EVERYTHING. I go back to how DaveC approaches science in the strictest sense... there isn't enough information here to draw conclusions across the board, only in a case-by-case basis. I do NOT see where Ivan is saying anything other than that, but Russ, you do seem to have a kind of faith in something you cannot possibly know.

I don't believe in god, or that ETs have visited Earth, but I recognize that's because no evidence of either has ever been presented to me which I find rigorous and scientific. I ALSO recognize that doesn't automatically make me right... it's just my belief.

Ivan, where Russ is CLEARLY right, is that in the midst of saying you are skeptically aloof, you start to talk about anecdotal claims being "logcial evidence". Now, I don't know what that's supposed to be, but it sure as hell is NOT scientific evidence: you can get a trillion bits of anecdote from 7000+ years of human record and still have nothing which a decent skeptic would do more than read, and put aside. Anecdote is essentially the OPPOSITE of evidence.

Maybe I'm not getting this, but it seems to me that Russ is arguing against you as if you do believe that ETs are an explanation for some things, and you do entertain that view. I don't see how you can make the skeptic's argument and then even CONSIDER that Russ or anyone should take anecdotes as evidence of anything. When you really look at history, the birth of science was the moment that anecdotes, no matter how convincing, were considered to be personal accounts and NOT evidence.

Clearly this is a long-standing issue between you two, and while Russ isn't being a true skeptic in that he comes to definite conclusions where only high probabilities can be drawn, you seem to be aiming for the acceptance of anecdote as evidence, which is disturbing.

Do I have this right? Essentially, Russ LEANS towards "UFO anything is crackpottery and nuts looking for magic" and Ivan LEANS towards "There is anecdotal 'evidence' that should make us consider claims without scientifically acceptable basis."...
... but when challenged you both hide behind the word "skeptic".

As I understand it a skeptic might have a personal belief based on likelihoods, but those are merely conditional and not worth arguing about until REAL evidence emerges. I have my leanings, which tend towards Russ' as it happens, but I don't dismiss a claim out of hand until the evidence is examined. If there's nothing, but an anecdote, log it in some file and put it away until it can be paired with real evidence. If it never is, then for me it means only that someone said something, period.

Beyond that, maybe this 7+ year argument you two are having should be... well... in its own thread or in a PM.

Well, I hope they don't take it to PM. Many of us would be highly respectful of both of them, and very interested to see this discussion develope, and possibly taken to some conclusion - else, what's a forum for ?