UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Actually the historical example ( meteors are rocks from the sky ) does not invalidate my argument at all. However if you don't like it, then let's try another approach. Perhaps you could answer the following question?

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

You've not answered the question, ufolo.

What are some cases similar to the 1952 Washington DC one so that we may make comparisons?

 

[GeeMack]

Actually, I never said, "we need something extraordinary to demonstrate an extraordinary claim like fairies". You are putting words in my mouth. What I said is that for anything requiring evidence, all that is needed is sufficient evidence. I also gave a historical example to prove the point that the evidence for something once considered to be extraordinary ( shooting stars are rocks from space ) can be very ordinary ( a rock from space ). So ECREE is misleading in that the so called "extraordinariness" of something is based on people's personal opinions regarding what they feel is extraordinary, and that to require it as extra evidence beyond what is sufficient is biased.

So for the extraordinary claim that some UFOs are alien craft, all we need is sufficient evidence like, to use your example above, an alien craft. And since you don't have an alien craft to offer up as sufficient evidence, your claim and your argument, as always, fails.

And your dishonest implication that skeptics aren't accepting your pile-o'-nonsense, logical fallacies, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, avoidance, evasion, dishonest redefinition of terms, and generally vacuous arguments because we hold some kind of bias is nonsense. The only bias the skeptics hold is that which favors reality over fantasy. Recall it's the "ufologists" who are so desperate to hang on to the "UFOs = alien craft" fantasy that it requires a total disregard for honesty in order to do it. Now that's some pretty heavy duty bias.

 

[ufology]

Yes, sufficient evidence is required. And while several tablespoons of water may be sufficient to fill a shotglass, you'd need an extraordinary number of tablespoons of water to have sufficiently fill up a hole the size of Lake Erie.

See how "sufficient" can actually mean different amounts (and perhaps quality of evidence) in different cases?

Paul,

You asked: See how "sufficient" can actually mean different amounts (and perhaps quality of evidence) in different cases?

A. I agree and mentioned that way back at the start, and it changes nothing about the requirement for some sort of deemed "extraordinariness" of the evidence. Sufficient is still all that's required.

 

[ufology]

So for the extraordinary claim that some UFOs are alien craft, all we need is sufficient evidence like, to use your example above, an alien craft. And since you don't have an alien craft to offer up as sufficient evidence, your claim and your argument, as always, fails.

More misrepresentation above. I never made the claim that I have such evidence ( an alien craft ). However you are correct that an alien craft would be sufficient. In fact it would be more tha sufficient, it would also be definitive. However in the absence of definitve evidence, study can still take place, probabilities can be calculated and a reasonable assessment of whether or not the available evidence is sufficient to take a claim seriously can still be made. With respect to UFOs there is in my view enough evidence to validate the claim, but not enough ( as yet ) to definitively prove it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul,

You asked: See how "sufficient" can actually mean different amounts (and perhaps quality of evidence) in different cases?

A. I agree and mentioned that way back at the start, and it changes nothing about the requirement for some sort of deemed "extraordinariness" of the evidence.

Where deemed = appropriate to the extraordinariness of the claim.

ie. ECREE.

Sufficient is still all that's required.

And, not at all coincidentally, is that exact amount that you don't have.

 

[Akhenaten]

More misrepresentation above. I never made the claim that I have such evidence ( an alien craft ). However you are correct that an alien craft would be sufficient. In fact it would be more tha sufficient, it would also be definitive. However in the absence of definitve evidence, study can still take place, probabilities can be calculated and a reasonable assessment of whether or not the available evidence is sufficient to take a claim seriously can still be made. With respect to UFOs there is in my view enough evidence to validate the claim, but not enough ( as yet ) to definitively prove it.

 

[ufology]

Where deemed = appropriate to the extraordinariness of the claim.

ie. ECREE.

You aren't making any sense if you think the above validate the ECREE bias. Rather it simply demonstrates that some people deem some things to be extraordinary while other people don't. Either way all that is needed s sufficient evidence, not "extraordinary" evidence, However if you don't agree, then let's go back and ask that question again:

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

 

[ufology]

I'll go back to graden shed analogy for you. If someone claims they have a shed at the bottom of the garden, and the claim requires some sort of evidence, then such things as a reciept for purchase, a land titles plot showing the location on your property, and a report from a housing inspector rating the condition and value of the shed along with the other property would probably be considered sufficient to validate the claim. However it would still not definitively prove it was actually there.

 

[GeeMack]

More misrepresentation above. I never made the claim that I have such evidence ( an alien craft ). However you are correct that an alien craft would be sufficient. In fact it would be more tha sufficient, it would also be definitive. However in the absence of definitve evidence, study can still take place, probabilities can be calculated and a reasonable assessment of whether or not the available evidence is sufficient to take a claim seriously can still be made. With respect to UFOs there is in my view enough evidence to validate the claim, but not enough ( as yet ) to definitively prove it. I don't have any support for any of my cockamamie notions, and I can't admit outright that my belief is based on raw faith, the equivalent of a religious belief, so I'll fluff up my failure with a bunch of rambling nonsense and continue to blame other people for my complete lack of support for the claim that some UFOs are alien craft.

In "ufologist" speak things look different than they do in the state of reality, so I've translated the above comment to more accurately reflect its meaning.

 

[GeeMack]

Poor Akhenaten, always so confused. I'll go back to graden shed analogy for you. If someone claims they have a shed at the bottom of the garden, and the claim requires some sort of evidence, then such things as a reciept for purchase, a land titles plot showing the location on your property, and a report from a housing inspector rating the condition and value of the shed along with the other property would probably be considered sufficient to validate the claim. However it would still not definitively prove it was actually there.

Your argument fails. Again. As always.

Yes or no, is there objective evidence that shows garden sheds exist?

Yes or no, (and here's where the pseudoscience of "ufology" relies on the often used tactic of blind ignorance), is there objective evidence that shows alien craft exist?

Bet ya can't answer that one... honestly.

 

[Akhenaten]

You aren't making any sense if you think the above validate the ECREE bias.

That's what Wwoger would say.

Rather it simply demonstrates that some people deem some things to be extraordinary while other people don't.

Go on.

Now tell me how many sane people wouldn't deem an alien flying saucer to be extraordinary, preferably without trying to redefine 'sane'.

Either way all that is needed s sufficient evidence, not "extraordinary" evidence,

You seem to be arguing that 'sufficient' and 'extraordinary' can never refer to the same thing.

You're quite wrong.

However if you don't agree, then let's go back and ask that question again:

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

Nothing that I can see. The problems only start when you try and claim that mundane evidence ( anecdotes ) is sufficient evidence for extraordinary claims ( Omgaliens ).

 

[ufology]

You seem to be arguing that 'sufficient' and 'extraordinary' can never refer to the same thing.

You're quite wrong.

You're making presumptions again. Sufficient evidence may seem extraordinary to one person, in which case it will be both be sufficient and extraordinary at the same time to that person. However the same evidence may not seem extraordinary to someone else. Either way the evidence is the same, which illustrates the nature of the bias in requiring "extraordinary" evidence. All that is really required is for it to be sufficient.

 

[AdMan]

I'll go back to graden shed analogy for you. If someone claims they have a shed at the bottom of the garden, and the claim requires some sort of evidence, then such things as a reciept for purchase, a land titles plot showing the location on your property, and a report from a housing inspector rating the condition and value of the shed along with the other property would probably be considered sufficient to validate the claim. However it would still not definitively prove it was actually there.

I honestly find it amazing that this nonsense ("ECREE doesn't make sense") is still being pushed on this board.

If a claim is made that seems to violate what is generally accepted by science, or that requires currently accepted scientific laws to stretched beyond current understanding, it requires extraordinary evidence for it to be proven. An eyewitness testimony, or a picture, or a video, which may have been enough as evidence for a mundane claim (e.g., "I saw an airliner fly overhead"), is simply not enough for an extraordinary claim (e.g., "I saw an alien craft whiz by").

In the case of such extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required. E.g., show me the craft or an alien object.

How exactly doesn't this make sense?

 

[Akhenaten]

Poor Akhenaten, always so confused.

No, not always, but who could blame one for experiencing some confusion when reading the paragraph to which I was responding.

Perhaps I didn't make the source of my confusion obvious enough, so I'll have another go at it.

More misrepresentation above. I never made the claim that I have such evidence ( an alien craft ). However you are correct that an alien craft would be sufficient. In fact it would be more tha sufficient, it would also be definitive. However in the absence of definitve evidence, study can still take place, probabilities can be calculated and a reasonable assessment of whether or not the available evidence is sufficient to take a claim seriously can still be made. With respect to UFOs there is in my view enough evidence to validate the claim , but not enough ( as yet ) to definitively prove it.

Those two bolded and tastefully coloured bits are saying, at the same time, both that there is and there is not enough evidence to conclude "OMG . . . aliens!"

In the same paragraph.

Someone is confused, alrighty.

I'll go back to graden shed analogy for you. If someone claims they have a shed at the bottom of the garden, and the claim requires some sort of evidence, then such things as a reciept for purchase, a land titles plot showing the location on your property, and a report from a housing inspector rating the condition and value of the shed along with the other property would probably be considered sufficient to validate the claim. However it would still not definitively prove it was actually there.

I have no idea what that waffling nonsense is supposed to be an anology for, or why you think it addresses the issue of you having two wildly contradictory statements about evidence for Omgaliens ( UFOs ( alien craft ) ) within a single paragraph.

 

[abaddon]

You have admitted that you have no material scientific evidence.

You have evaded the very simple question:

Feet to the flames.

What do "alien craft" look like?

Why are you unable to answer this simple question?

 

[ufology]

I honestly find it amazing that this nonsense ("ECREE doesn't make sense") is still being pushed on this board.

If a claim is made that seems to violate what is generally accepted by science, or that requires currently accepted scientific laws to be broken or stretched beyond current understanding, it requires extraordinary evidence for it to be proven. An eyewitness testimony, or a picture, or a video, which may have been enough as evidence for a mundane claim (e.g., "I saw an airliner fly overhead"), is simply not enough for an extraordinary claim (e.g., "I saw an alien craft").

In the case of such extraordinary claims, only extraordinary evidence is sufficient. E.g., show me the craft or an alien object.

How exactly doesn't this make sense?

The problem is that what one person thinks is extraordinary may not be extraordinary to someone else, therefore introducing a requirement that sufficient evidence must also be seen as extraordinary is pushing a bias onto the issue. Certainly There is nothing wrong with you personally thinking that some sort of evidence is extraordinary, provided you recognize when the evidence before you is sufficient, regardless of how extraordinary you think it is or isn't.

 

[ufology]

You have admitted that you have no material scientific evidence.

You have evaded the very simple question:

Feet to the flames.

What do "alien craft" look like?

Why are you unable to answer this simple question?

You must have missed this answer.

 

[Akhenaten]

You're making presumptions again.

Yes, I am. At the moment I'm presuming that you feel a need to bog the discussion down with this ridiculous semantic nonsense in order to distract the viewers from noticing that you don't have any evidence of any kind to support your flying saucer ( Omgalien ) fantasy.

Sufficient evidence may seem extraordinary to one person, in which case it will be both be sufficient and extraordinary at the same time to that person. However the same evidence may not seem extraordinary to someone else. Either way the evidence is the same, which illustrates the nature of the bias in requiring "extraordinary" evidence. All that is really required is for it to be sufficient.

You have a full-blown case of adjectiphobia, just as Rramjet did.

You should probably get it looked at.

 

[Akhenaten]

The problem is that what one person thinks is extraordinary may not be extraordinary to someone else, therefore introducing a requirement that sufficient evidence must also be seen as extraordinary is pushing a bias onto the issue.

Drivel, folo. Requiring a higher standard of evidence for something that's never been shown to exist than for something that's as common as dirt is not "pushing a bias onto the issue".

Whether you refer to that higher standard of evidence as 'sufficient', 'extraordinary' or 'Whoa! Look at that!!!' is nothing more than semantic lollygagging that you hope will keep people from noticing that you don't have any evidence for Omgaliens, no matter what you choose to call it.

Certainly There is nothing wrong with you personally thinking that some sort of evidence is extraordinary, provided you recognize when the evidence before you is sufficient, regardless of how extraordinary you think it is or isn't.

Meaningless claptrap.

 

[AdMan]

The problem is that what one person thinks is extraordinary may not be extraordinary to someone else, therefore introducing a requirement that sufficient evidence must also be seen as extraordinary is pushing a bias onto the issue. Certainly There is nothing wrong with you personally thinking that some sort of evidence is extraordinary, provided you recognize when the evidence before you is sufficient, regardless of how extraordinary you think it is or isn't.

Certainly if the evidence has been objectively deemed sufficient, there is no need to ascertain whether it's extraordinary or not, as that doesn't have any importance.

This has probably been argued thoroughly before in the other ECREE thread(s), but the point is different, in my view. Taking a look at the definition of "extraordinary" (and, truth be told, I dread going in this area for fear of provoking yet another round of attempts at redefinition...), the basic meaning of extraordinary is "beyond what is usual." If you agree that someone claiming to have seen an alien craft is "beyond what is usual," you agree that for us to believe his claim, he needs to provide some evidence that is also "beyond what is usual." That is, it has to be more than an eyewitness report, or a blurry picture or two. While that evidence could have been enough for us to believe that he had seen something not "beyond what is usual," like a jetliner, it would most likely not be enough for us to believe that he had seen an alien craft. Therefore, we would need evidence "beyond what is usual" (i.e., extraordinary) for us to believe him.

Why doesn't that make sense?