Recent developments in UFO 'Abductology'

[Aepervius]

Define "polarized skeptic".

Sound to me "anybody disagreeing with me, no matter how well laid their argument are".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Define "polarized skeptic".

A homeopathic dilution of a skeptic must mean pseudoscientist.

 

[Akhenaten]

A null hypothesis can only be applied to the statistics of controlled experiments.

No.

 

[Akhenaten]

Define "polarized skeptic".

 

[RoboTimbo]

A null hypothesis can only be applied to the statistics of controlled experiments e.g. Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable ( usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time ), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. Skeptics should stop using the null hypothesis with respect to UFO sightings and other data that has not been collected under controlled conditions.

ufology, now that you have learned that it is appropriate to have a null hypothesis in this case, what is yours?

To do so is pseudoskeptical, ( so although you may think I'm being critical or picky, I'm actually trying to help you here.)

Why do you believe that you being wrong is helpful?

It is however applicable to something like homeopathy, where conditions and results can be measured with more precision, although technically the case studies for homeopathy ( and other medicine ) still count as annecdotal evidence.

And now that you know that this is incorrect, what is your null hypothesis for alien abduction? Will you stick with one that isn't falsifiable which makes it pseudoscientific or will you adopt one that is falsifiable and shows critical thinking?

Now all that being said .... what would my assessment be? I really don't know enough about it. As bizarre as it is, I don't have any proof of a hoax, nor of truth. It's far more unbelieveable than a typical good UFO sighting, and nowhere near the same level of credibility as a report from a trained reliable observer such as an on duty USAF pilot. And if that is my opinion, I know the polarized skeptic would have a hard time even imagining it in the context of any reality.

j.r.

I'm sure believers have no problem imagining their reality but what is your null hypothesis concerning alien abduction?

 

[ufology]

Define "polarized skeptic".

One that automatically dismisses anything they have lumped into their basket of woo-woo and has therefore got a completely different perspective on the world than those at the opposite end of the spectrum, which are the believers who have had no direct experience, have not looked at the avaialble information with a critical eye, aren't willing to listen to the views of skeptics, and defend their belief as if it's a proven, without any rationale for that belief.

j.r.

 

[Complexity]

I'm sorry, but adding 'ology' to the end of something doesn't make it a science, it just makes it sound like the name of a science.

 

[GeeMack]

One that automatically dismisses anything they have lumped into their basket of woo-woo and has therefore got a completely different perspective on the world than those at the opposite end of the spectrum, which are the believers who have had no direct experience, have not looked at the avaialble information with a critical eye, aren't willing to listen to the views of skeptics, and defend their belief as if it's a proven, without any rationale for that belief.

Your continuing to dishonestly misrepresent the skeptics' position is disingenuous. Here's the reality that you so insistently and willfully ignore: Skeptics are critical thinkers. We are not going to accept your fairy tales on anecdotes, especially the anecdotes of a known liar. There is no automatic dismissal. The reasons for the dismissal of your ridiculous fantasy have been explained dozens of times. All these cooperative objective skeptics are trying to help you. That's what we do here at the JREF forums. It is up to you to accept that help or to reject it. You've chosen to reject it. And that's okay. But for you to blame the skeptics for your own failure is a lie. It's where you started here, and you're still doing it. And you're still not getting away with it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Define "polarized skeptic".

One that automatically dismisses anything they have lumped into their basket of woo-woo and has therefore got a completely different perspective on the world than those at the opposite end of the spectrum, which are the believers who have had no direct experience, have not looked at the avaialble information with a critical eye, aren't willing to listen to the views of skeptics, and defend their belief as if it's a proven, without any rationale for that belief.

j.r.

"Poopy heads who won't believe my flying saucer stories."

 

[quarky]

Well, if we're really going to go off on a flight of fancy, how about the suggestion that there will be less abductions over time because the abducting aliens found out everything they wanted to know about their human abductees after a few years, and then decided to go off to other star system.

Your 'logic' seems to me to be Imagination-land with no borders.

Thankyou, I think.
Btw, I find your point fair as well, but no less imaginative.

 

[Aepervius]

One that automatically dismisses anything they have lumped into their basket of woo-woo and has therefore got a completely different perspective on the world than those at the opposite end of the spectrum, which are the believers who have had no direct experience, have not looked at the avaialble information with a critical eye, aren't willing to listen to the views of skeptics, and defend their belief as if it's a proven, without any rationale for that belief.

j.r.

Fire departement to ufology : you'll have to remove that straw ASAP, it is becoming a real fire hazard.

 

[quarky]

I'm sorry, but adding 'ology' to the end of something doesn't make it a science, it just makes it sound like the name of a science.

Woo-ology?

Its kind of funny; a heated debate about alien abductions.

well, my rectum is sore...that's all I know.

 

[Correa Neto]

One that automatically dismisses anything they have lumped into their basket of woo-woo and has therefore got a completely different perspective on the world than those at the opposite end of the spectrum, which are the believers who have had no direct experience, have not looked at the avaialble information with a critical eye, aren't willing to listen to the views of skeptics, and defend their belief as if it's a proven, without any rationale for that belief.

j.r.

Are you aware that most(*) people here exposing positions contrary to yours have actually looked in-depth to the available information presented by UFOlogy?

Are you aware that most(*) people here exposing positions contrary to yours have not lumped or dismissed anything presented by UFOlogy without applying critical thinking?

I hope by now you realized the mistakes you made regarding the null hypothesis.

Now, this put, could you please answer what do you think would be the most plausibe explantion regarding Vilas-Boas abduction case and the alleged alien hair found around someone's wang?

a. Aliens from another star system travelled to Earth; these aliens not only happen to look very similar if not almost identical to humans but also share so much of their genetic encoding chemicals that can breed with us and despite all their advanced tech, they will resort to sex to do so, instead using some more controlled proceedure like in-vitru fertilization.

b. It never actually happened; maybe the claimed abductee even really believe it happened, but it was some sort of psychological phenomena.

c. It never actually happened; it was just a fabrication.


(*) I probably could write "all", but since I don't have enough data to back it...

 

[Correa Neto]

Woo-ology?

Its kind of funny; a heated debate about alien abductions.

well, my rectum is sore...that's all I know.

Just follow the example of the guy who claims to have found an alien's hair (with human DNA) around his member.

You drunk too much last night... Just blame aliens...

Come to think of it, I really don't know what's worse-
Someone coming out with such a tale or someone else spending money on the DNA assay.

Wait, I know- someone buying this tale.

 

[ufology]

No.

OK let me restate that because you are technically correct.

Sure, although you can apply it in other ways, unless it is applied the way it was intended, it is either as a watered down convenience term that is meant to sound scientific, which makes its use either pseudoscientific or pseudoskeptical, or it is just an incorrect application of the phrase.

Here is the part of my post that had the relevant information, as extracted from the Wikipedia article.

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable ( usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time ), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false.

Your refusal to recognize your error will only entrench you further into pseudoskepticism.

j.r.

 

[Agatha]

Entrenche sounds nice and French. Normally I wouldn't pick up on typos but you make so many while pulling other people up on theirs, I couldn't resist.

Nothing in what you have bolded makes Akhenaten's disagreement with your earlier statement incorrect, or merely "technically correct". The null hypothesis is still along the lines of "aliens are not visiting earth" and the uncontrolled nature of the dataset doesn't make that null hypothesis invalid. ECREE, and so far the EE is conspicuous by its absence.

 

[Akhenaten]

No.

OK let me restate that because you are technically correct.

Sure, although you can apply it in other ways, unless it is applied the way it was intended, it is either as a watered down convenience term that is meant to sound scientific, which makes its use either pseudoscientific or pseudoskeptical, or it is just an incorrect application of the phrase.

Here is the part of my post that had the relevant information, as extracted from the Wikipedia article.

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable ( usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time ), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false.

Your refusal to recognize your error will only entrenche you further into pseudoskepticism.

j.r.

No.

 

[Akhenaten]

Entrenche sounds nice and French. Normally I wouldn't pick up on typos but you make so many while pulling other people up on theirs, I couldn't resist.

L'ohnoes! Je me suis entrenché!

​

 

[ufology]

Entrenche sounds nice and French. Normally I wouldn't pick up on typos but you make so many while pulling other people up on theirs, I couldn't resist.

Nothing in what you have bolded makes Akhenaten's disagreement with your earlier statement incorrect, or merely "technically correct". The null hypothesis is still along the lines of "aliens are not visiting earth" and the uncontrolled nature of the dataset doesn't make that null hypothesis invalid. ECREE, and so far the EE is conspicuous by its absence.

Thanks for pointing out the typo ... it's fixed now ... but now your doing the same thing. I've been through multiple definitions of the null hypothesis and they all describe the same process ... that is unless you reduce it to a mere convenience term. But even then it implies that a particular line of investigation should be used based on some assumption. Unfortunately, because of the lack of controlled conditions, such an assumption must be based, at least in part, on some personal bias.

Consequently it makes more sense to simply examine the information with no opinion whatsoever and follow the evidence where it leads ... no null hypothesis is necessary.

j.r.

 

[23_Tauri]

Thankyou, I think.
Btw, I find your point fair as well, but no less imaginative.

You're welcome. I think we're singing from the same make-believe hymn sheet.

Oh, I just heard on the inter-galactic news bulletin. Government spending cuts in the Epsilon Aurigae star system mean that the current Homo sapien abduction and probe program on Earth is having to be scaled back, and off-planet contractors called back.