UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Does the above mean that you don't think the word "sufficient" suffers from the same problem? What is sufficient to one person will be sufficient to another?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

In your post above, you seem to be saying that your problem with the word "extraordinary" is that two people may not think that the same evidence is extraordinary.

You seem to be saying that that isn't the case with the word "sufficient". That what one person finds sufficient so will another.

Is that true?

 

[Akhenaten]

Tauri,

You expressed a desire to be taken seriously. So I was really hoping for better from you than an outright expression of prejudice backed by the typical biased favor of the Sagan Principle, ripped off from Marcello Truzzi who said, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." or AECREP, which is also crap or ACRAP. The original line of thought was more reasonable ( but still faulty ), and was that of Pierre-Simon Laplace who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Again, this is faulty because sufficient evidence may or may not be "strange" or "extraordinary". These are entirely subjective properties imparted by individual experience and bias. Now if you still want to wager that I don't understand. Then please answer the following question:

Some adjustments made to restore truthiness

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

Why do you keep asking this meaningless question?

 

[Paul2]

Q. You're saying that sufficiency may be different for different examples?
A. Yes. It was implied that the word "sufficient" is also subjective, however it's not unless one makes it so by adding something beyond what is needed, and merely because what is sufficient in one example isn't the same as for another another doesn't take any of that away. For example, what is sufficient water for one plant ( e.g. a cactus ) may not be sufficient water for another plant ( e.g. a water lily ). Both require sufficient water for survival yet both amounts are different.

If different claims may have different amounts of evidence that would be sufficient to accept the claim, then how does the idea of sufficiency counter ECREE, as you have implied?

Extraordinary evidence, as Stray Cat's graphic indicates, is not so much a measure of how wild or astounding (or the like) the evidence is, but merely the amount of evidence (and perhaps the quality) marshalled.

For instance, in order to say that the sun is only 10 million miles away (to take an extreme case) one would need an extraordinary amount of evidence, of excellent quality, in order to counter the vast amount of excellent, confirmed and reconfirmed evidence that says that the sun is 93 million miles away. So much evidence, in fact, that, even though its hard to imagine that much evidence, if it was there, it would clearly be extraordinary. That's merely what the "extraordinary" in ECREE need mean.

So how does the idea of sufficiency argue against ECREE in light of this?

 

[Resume]

Sufficient, sufficient . . . hmmm. So ufology, I guess you would say that in regards to your firefly-volksblimp, well, there really isn't sufficient evidence for an impartial observer to assign it much credence.

Is that what you mean by sufficent?

 

[GeeMack]

Q. You're saying that sufficiency may be different for different examples?
A. Yes. It was implied that the word "sufficient" is also subjective, however it's not unless one makes it so by adding something beyond what is needed, and merely because what is sufficient in one example isn't the same as for another another doesn't take any of that away. For example, what is sufficient water for one plant ( e.g. a cactus ) may not be sufficient water for another plant ( e.g. a water lily ). Both require sufficient water for survival yet both amounts are different.

Okay, so you saw an alien craft because... let's see... how did you put it?...

[...] truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

.. because to you, truth and objective reality are wholly disconnected concepts. To you, making something up in your head is defined as "sufficient evidence" for the existence of something. But to anyone who actually understands that we live in and participate in the real world, this objective reality where we don't just make up any old fantasy and call it true, our idea of sufficient evidence means objective and verifiable.

Aren't you glad the scientists who develop your medications and who design the buildings and who predict the weather and who engineer the brakes and engines on your car are on our side of that fantasy/reality line rather than your side?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The word "sufficient" is itself objective ... meaning simply "as much as is needed" and nothing more ... nothing "extra" anything. As soon as you start requiring "extra" beyond what is needed, your bias has kicked in and you've lost your objectivity.

And here you've actually called the word "sufficient" objective! So because courts of law ( triers of fact ) have found sufficient evidence that UFOs ( witches ) are real, do you also find there to be sufficient evidence to believe in UFOs ( witches )?

Why do you scurry away from answering the simple YES/NO questions, og?

 

[ufology]

Do you see how the more outlandish claim of cheesy lunch on the moon requires a greater amount of evidence into order to be sufficiently supported?

Tauri

In your example above, you wouldn't need any greater evidence for cheese on the moon than cheese in your sandwich, all you would need is some actual moon cheese mmm ... cheese ... give me a tray of fresh cheese buns with butter and I'll agree with whatever you say.

 

[Akhenaten]

Tauri

In your example above, you wouldn't need any greater evidence for cheese on the moon than cheese in your sandwich, all you would need is some actual moon cheese

<snip>

Bollocks.

What LMW would need is sufficient ( extraordinary ) evidence that she'd been to the Moon.

Perhaps you should have tried to read and understand the whole post, instead of looking for something to make a lame joke about.

 

[ufology]

If different claims may have different amounts of evidence that would be sufficient to accept the claim, then how does the idea of sufficiency counter ECREE, as you have implied?

Extraordinary evidence, as Stray Cat's graphic indicates, is not so much a measure of how wild or astounding (or the like) the evidence is, but merely the amount of evidence (and perhaps the quality) marshalled.

For instance, in order to say that the sun is only 10 million miles away (to take an extreme case) one would need an extraordinary amount of evidence, of excellent quality, in order to counter the vast amount of excellent, confirmed and reconfirmed evidence that says that the sun is 93 million miles away. So much evidence, in fact, that, even though its hard to imagine that much evidence, if it was there, it would clearly be extraordinary. That's merely what the "extraordinary" in ECREE need mean.

So how does the idea of sufficiency argue against ECREE in light of this?

Sufficiency and extraordinaryness are two separate concepts. Sufficiency only requires what is needed whereas extraordinary, requires something "extra" or implies something which evokes an emotional response such as being "strange" or "shocking" or "special". So no matter what the situation, as soon as you invoke a need for it to be extraordinary, it ends up biasing the issue.

ex·traor·di·nar·y [ik stráwrd’n èrree, èkstr? áwrd’n èrree] adjective

1. very unusual: very unusual and deserving attention and comment because of being wonderful, excellent, strange, or shocking
2. additional: additional and having a special purpose

3. employed for special purpose: employed for a special purpose or to do additional work 4. additional and greater: additional to and going beyond the scope of something in ordinary or established use.
=====================

Of particular note, when the issue of evidence is the focus, it implies going beyond what has been established as sufficient. The scientific method is designed to provide sufficient results when sufficient evidence to apply it is presented. No "extraordinary evidence" is required unless you need to satisfy some personal disbelief based on personal bias that the results from the usual or "ordinary" application of the scientific method do not provide.

With respect to your example on the distance of the Sun. No extraordinary evidence is required to change the present number. All that is required is an accurate measurement of the distance, and we can do that using a not so extraordinary formula thats been around for thousands of years and some very familiar technology ( RADAR ).

 

[Akhenaten]

Sufficiency and extraordinaryness are two separate concepts.

<the usual>

Not really. One is something of a catch-all word and the other is somewhat more specific.

Although to the extent that the two words can't be freely interchanged you have something of a point, which makes one wonder why you seem to be hoping that you'll be allowed to get away with doing it.

 

[Paul2]

Sufficiency and extraordinaryness are two separate concepts. Sufficiency only requires what is needed whereas extraordinary, requires something "extra" or implies something which evokes an emotional response such as being "strange" or "shocking" or "special". So no matter what the situation, as soon as you invoke a need for it to be extraordinary, it ends up biasing the issue.

ex·traor·di·nar·y [ik stráwrd’n èrree, èkstr? áwrd’n èrree] adjective

1. very unusual: very unusual and deserving attention and comment because of being wonderful, excellent, strange, or shocking
2. additional: additional and having a special purpose

3. employed for special purpose: employed for a special purpose or to do additional work 4. additional and greater: additional to and going beyond the scope of something in ordinary or established use.
=====================

Of particular note, when the issue of evidence is the focus, it implies going beyond what has been established as sufficient. The scientific method is designed to provide sufficient results when sufficient evidence to apply it is presented. No "extraordinary evidence" is required unless you need to satisfy some personal disbelief based on personal bias that the results from the usual or "ordinary" application of the scientific method do not provide.

With respect to your example on the distance of the Sun. No extraordinary evidence is required to change the present number. All that is required is an accurate measurement of the distance, and we can do that using a not so extraordinary formula thats been around for thousands of years and some very familiar technology ( RADAR ).

Lord love a duck! I don't believe it. Let me try it this way.

It's as if we have an informal measure of how much evidence and how good the evidence is for claim A. That amount of evidence is calculated to be quantity X. Claim B, which isn't as well evidenced, has its evidence calculated at Y where Y is less than X.

In order for claim not-A (the contrary of A) to succeed over claim A, the evidence for not-A must be calculated to be greater than X, and perhaps significantly so.

In more common terms, I'm merely saying that the claim that has more evidence and the better evidence is the one we accept between mutually conflicting claims.

Right? Do you agree?

Please note there is nothing about extraordinariness anywhere in the above.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've mentioned the Battelle Memorial Institute study several times, the independent statistical evaluation of thousands of UFO reports submitted by the USAF, the results of which ( not the mere opinions of those who did the study ) show that the existence of completely unknown objects is in some cases a virtual certainty;

A study conducted by three or four toddlers playing in a sandbox would soon enough show the existence of completely unknown objects.

So?

. . . and when we consider that in the context of UFO reports, saying something completely unknown to us ( humans ) is flying around in our skies is exactly the same as saying something alien to our, knowledge, experience and civilization is flying around in our skies.

Your Jedi mind tricks antipragmatic redefinitions will not work on me, boy.

If you want to know exactly how the statistical results were obtained, then read up on the study. It's not too hard to find.

How about giving us a summary? What are the stats for 'Number of Alien Spaceships Found"?

 

[GeeMack]

A study conducted by three or four toddlers playing in a sandbox would soon enough show the existence of completely unknown objects.

Well, duh. Sign them up for the USI alien believers club. At least they'd be showing the existence of something, which is more than you can say for any of the "ufologists" we've met.

How about giving us a summary? What are the stats for 'Number of Alien Spaceships Found"?

"Ufologists" don't do math.

 

[ehcks]

"Ufologists" don't do math.

Zero is too difficult of a concept, apparently.

 

[John Albert]

I believe alien craft have visited Earth because I've seen one. If I'd never seen one myself I'd only believe that given the various reports and studies that it's reasonable to think that the probability of alien visitation is high enough to be taken seriously.

The thing is, you don't know that you've seen an alien craft; you just believe you did. You saw what you saw—whatever it was—and assumed it was an alien spacecraft, when the simple fact is you have no possible way of knowing that whatever you saw was alien, or even a "craft" as such.

For all you know, it only appeared to be the size of two Volkswagens, and only appeared to perform the "extraordinary maneuvers" that you think you saw it perform, on the scale you believe it was. In reality, it might have actually been much smaller and closer than you think it was, and it might have even been a number of different objects that you unconsciously conflated into a single one. Your perception of the experience might have been erroneous, and of course your memory might also be completely distorted by countless re-tellings and mental revisions of the story over the past 40-some odd years.

Lots of posters in this thread are content to forward the (gently mocking) assumption that whatever you saw was a firefly, but I won't even go that far. While a firefly might certainly be a reasonable explanation under some circumstances, we have no way of knowing it was a firefly, any more than any other mundane phenomenon. There's simply not enough information to know for sure, and there certainly is no evidence to support the conclusion of anything extraordinary.

Even if indeed you saw exactly what you claim to have seen, then the best opinion you can offer about its identity with any degree of certainty is that it is unknown. And I don't mean "unknown" as in "something alien from another planet," nor "unknown" as in "something of non-human manufacture." I'm saying "unknown" in the classic English definition that you quite simply "don't know what the hell it was." You cannot make any such determination with any confidence because there's absolutely no evidence to support that determination. The total and complete lack of evidence that your "sighting" was an alien craft is roughly equivalent to the lack of evidence that it was a flying witch on a broomstick, a will 'o' the wisp, an angel, a portal to Hell, or anything else that has likewise never been shown to exist.

Of course, nothing's stopping you from making the assumption, or proverbial WAG ("wild-ass guess") that what you saw was an alien craft (or a witch, will 'o' the wisp, etc. for that matter), but you should at least have the forthrightness to admit that your conclusion is a "wild-ass guess" and not a certain fact. You should at the very least be able to acknowledge that neither you nor anyone else has any actual evidence on which to claim the existence of extraterrestrial life (let alone ET intelligence or technology). You should at least be honest enough to refrain from asserting this nonsense about "firsthand knowledge," and "scientific evidence" versus "anecdotal evidence." Evidence is evidence. Anecdotes do not constitute evidence. Anecdotes are claims, and claims do not represent evidence for themselves, no matter who's telling them. Evidence is the stuff that is required to validate claims.

The kind of analysis, logical weighing of evidence, and intellectual honesty that I just described is the fundamental procedure of critical thinking. It is the exact opposite of making determinations of unproven things without any evidence. It's also the basis of Dr. Sagan's ECREE quote, which is not, as you claim, a biased assumption, but the logical extent of critical analysis when applied to so-called "extraordinary" claims, ie. claims of the existence of things which have never been proven to exist.

I've mentioned the Battelle Memorial Institute study several times, the independent statistical evaluation of thousands of UFO reports submitted by the USAF, the results of which ( not the mere opinions of those who did the study ) show that the existence of completely unknown objects is in some cases a virtual certainty;

That was not the conclusion of the researchers who conducted that study. In fact, their conclusion was the exact opposite:

Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

—p. 94, Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, a.k.a. the "Battelle Study"

http://www.scribd.com/bren_burton/d...ion-The-Investigation-of-UFO-s-22nd-Sept-1993​

See?

...and when we consider that in the context of UFO reports, saying something completely unknown to us ( humans ) is flying around in our skies is exactly the same as saying something alien to our, knowledge, experience and civilization is flying around in our skies.

That makes no sense. You're once again engaging in a deliberate and dishonest fallacy of semantic equivocation.

The adjective "unknown" is not synonymous with the adjective "alien" in the context of meaning something extraterrestrial or of non-human manufacture.

If you want to know exactly how the statistical results were obtained, then read up on the study. It's not too hard to find.

I already have. That's how I recognize that you're blatantly lying about its conclusion.

 

[ufology]

Lord love a duck! I don't believe it. Let me try it this way ...

Paul,

Well you've got my attention ... where do you guys come up with those expressions? Lord love a duck! That's great. I can hardly wait until rush hour tomorrow when I can incorporate it into my road rage.

Anyway ... you still haven't answered my question, but I'll answer yours anyway. You asked if I agree with the following:

The claim that has more evidence and the better evidence is the one we accept between mutually conflicting claims.

A. This is not a "yes" or "no" issue because even though one claim may have more and/or better evidence than the other, both may still possess insufficient evidence to accept either claim, in which case we would be dealing with what seems to be the best choice between the two in terms of probabilities. So for example in the case of UFOs being alien craft or being witches, we have here a certain faction that considers both to be of equal probability based on the way they view evidence ... I present official USAF case studies and intelligence memos confirming radar/visual contact with a foreign craft unknown to human technology, while the pro-witch supporters produce mocking graphics and fake videos. You tell me who has the "better" evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

The word "sufficient" is itself objective ...

Drivel.

. . . meaning simply "as much as is needed" and nothing more ...

As much as is needed by whom?

I'd like to assume you have enough nous to realise that any answer to this question immediately shows your assertion that 'sufficient' is completely objective to be false, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope.

. . . nothing "extra" anything. As soon as you start requiring "extra" beyond what is needed, your bias has kicked in and you've lost your objectivity.

Your only chance of saving any face after posting this unmitigated garbage is to try and convince people that someone held a gun to your head and forced you to write it.

 

[Akhenaten]

I present official USAF case studies and intelligence memos confirming radar/visual contact with a foreign craft unknown to human technology,

That's an outright lie.

Nobody anywhere has ever confirmed contact with "a foreign craft unknown to human technology".

. . . while the pro-witch supporters produce mocking graphics and fake videos. You tell me who has the "better" evidence.

Witchologists by default since the ufologists are great big fibbers.

 

[ufology]

The thing is, you don't know that you've seen an alien craft; you just believe you did. You saw what you saw—whatever it was—and assumed it was an alien spacecraft, when the simple fact is you have no possible way of knowing that whatever you saw was alien, or even a "craft" as such.

Actually I do know I saw an alien craft. What I can't do is prove it to you, and we've been through that enough times already.