Both the cases you cite, Val, have the same problem of being utterly unfalsifiable. That is, they necessarily rely on LACK of evidence for proof.

That's like the Intelligent Designer saying, "because you cannot explain every detail of the evolution of the eye, it must be irreducibly complex." Argument from ignorance is a fallacy.

Exactly backwards, Outcast. The point of the matter is that an argument from ignorance is necessary fallacious. Otherwise I could say that all UFOs are God's boogers. Disprove it! You can't? Well, then you have to add it to the stack of possiblities (it's just as likely as ETUFOs.)

JS ...

You take things WAYYYY too seriously.
What I wrote was what others told me ... and I find it just as funny as you do.

I will understand if you don't believe this as you have no empirical proof that I have a sense of humor.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Val Trottan on 2003-03-20 12:13 ]</font>

Val, I was piggybacking, not fighting! I guess my rah-rahing sounds too similar to my pooh-poohing.

Yeah it does!
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
That's cool though. Less need to change suits.

I didn't mean it to be scientific. I'm just pointing out that if a ETUFO ever turned out to be a fact, we wouldn't be having these discussions about unsolved mysteries. Yes, the 'god in the gaps' argument fits that as well, but the scientific probability for a highy-advanced alien lifeform has to be higher than for a supernatural god.

I disagree. You can't hog the entire definition of "observation" to mean a "scientific observation". I think both those terms speak for themselves. An observation is simply an eyewitness account or data captured by an instrument... something you 'observe'. What do you mean by "scientific observation"?

Science can reject the probability of talking fish because we have fish to examine. They do not have the necessary organs, tissues, and bones to produce speech. You're right about our current rate of space exploration, and the circumstances are very unfortunate. But we should get there someday...


There is data in the form of observations. This data is investigated, and in most cases found to have a logical natural explanation. But there are many that remain unexplained. Tim Good has compiled hundreds on credible reports, mostly by the military and governments of the world, that are unexplained and/or the official explanation has logical holes. Top Secret, Above Top Secret, are a couple of these books and are the ones I have read. I would love to dig them out of the box they are hiding in so I can give more specific references. Maybe this weekend. Rendelsham is one that sticks out in my mind.

Great. I'll be sending one over.

Chum?!? That's what we use to attract stripers and blues! Might as well call me a 'smelly crustacean'!

And who knows, maybe someday we will prove it to be true. Until then, I give it a very fair chance, as do most of us non-scientists.

No, it's not the crux of the matter, and it is not why I believe it's possible. It would simply be an incredible opportunity for the human race to learn from an advanced intelligence. Learn about them, learn about ourselves, and learn some secrets of the universe. A "shortcut" for science. After all, I'm not going to be around long enough to learn all these things otherwise. I would find it fascinating to learn how they evolved, how they adapted to their environment, their history, their culture, what they think of rap music.... Just a lot of questions I would love to ask. I also think of this type of revelation as the 'anti-religion', and perhaps that's what this world needs more than anything.

"Not in the least. I just don't like people who refuse to believe that Jesus was in the paint stain but still fancy that ETUFOs could exist. If you're going to have an open mind, you better have an open mind, is all I'm saying. Why does ETUFO personal testimony get treated with kid gloves but Elvis sightings are laughed off?"

you seem to have double standards. you mean i cannot use racional thought to distinguish between what is apparently a weird pain stain and an UFO account? just because i believe there can be truth to the UFO phenomena i therefore need to believe jesus christ is appearing in paint stains?

"I think there's just as much evidence for Elvis being alive as there is that there are extraterrestrial craft crashing into Earth and abducting the occasional believer."

if you say so, i never looked into the matter. either way i thought we were discussing UFOs here.

"That's what I don't get. You want to be included whenever we denigrate the Zeta Reticulan crowd, but you say you have an open mind. That looks like a double standard to me. By what criteria do you dismiss their non-scientific evidence but accept your own non-scientific evidence as being possible? If we take your logic, don't we have to accept the possibility that Jesus is in the paint stain?"

jesus man, that was a joke! notice the smilie yellow image at the end?
i couldnt care less for Elvis or the paint stain for that matter, im interested in the possibility that UFOs can be real things.

"Evidence is also a dicey word to use because I only use it in the case of it being empirical."

good for you.
maybe someday you'll have to admit the empirical fact of the UFO phenomenon.

"Who cares about how heavy-weight a believer is? What I want is evidence that can be independently confirmed."

you and me both.

"Let's consider all ideas that humanity has ever had that had no scientific observations or evidence backing them up. Now let's see how many of them have eventually been confirmed by science."

ok. i confess. i dont put much faith in science.

just because PHDs and MDs and BSs spend their lifes filling their heads with "scientific" knowlledge it doesnt convince me that their science is the ultimate truth.

heres another shock. i used to be a skeptic also. i even have Carl Sagans books. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
i used to be an Atheist that would simply burst at the mention of God or soul or whatever. i once wrote a 200 page essay against religion called "Ad majorem Dei gloriam", which in english means "for the glory of god", where i tried to debunk religion. i would give this to anyone who spoke to me about God.

but then there happens something in your life and you begin to open up your mind to other possibilities.

so just to make things clearer, im not saying that i believe in God or in extraterrestrial visitation, its just that for me its a possibility. the point is, even if you have the whole of human science on your back it just takes a slight twist of perpective to make it all crumble down. i believe UFOs might just be that twist to humble down our inflated egos.

by the way, take a look at this link:
http://www.issc-taste.org/index.shtm

I believe in both [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Outcast, I quoted this section because I am interested in the answer. I'll repeat the question on JS's behalf:

By what criteria do you dismiss their non-scientific evidence but accept your own non-scientific evidence as being possible?

Your response didn't address the question.

(You don't have to mention Elvis if you don't want too, I don't care about Elvis either.) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]


The link didn't work when I tried it but http://www.issc-taste.org worked fine.

To summarize for people reading this thread: the site contains various people with science backgrounds giving anecdotal evidence about some psychic/near-death/ESP experience they personally had (most are psychologists/parapsychologists but there was at least one mathmetician/physicist). None of the stories involve any kind of experimentation or independent, objective data collection, its just anecdotes.

Why does the probability have to be higher? Note that an advanced civilization may exist somewhere in the universe, but why would there be anything like a high probability it would be nearby and driving spacecraft about?

Science is based around observations, and if they aren't done scientifically they are subject to subjectivity. That's why the definition gets hogged.

An emotion, then, would also qualify as an observation. "I felt a cold presence in the room" would have to be considered possible evidence for aliens. That's why we stick to science. You haven't really gotten back to me with a criteria, so I don't know what else to make of your "observations".

One that is repeatable, falsifiable, independently verified, and based on objective measurement.

No, fish could be talking through clever manipulation we haven't considered. Just because YOU don't understand the physics doesn't mean that fish can't talk.

See the problems with that argument? It's the same problems I have with the argument that because "we don't understand the technology" we cannot verify the ETUFO hypothesis.

Again, Hank. I'm ALWAYS talking in terms of science.

Always.

That's the point. The serendipity observations and bizarre occurrences are bound to occur everywhere, but you cannot base your science upon them until the sample size is complete. Since these observations are not systematic, there's no way to COMPARE the data. That's the big problem.

How can you give a fair chance to something that has such a mundane explanation? Does Ockham's Razor mean nothing to you?

You say it's not influencing you, but if I did a textual analysis on that last paragraph I'd say you contradict your first sentence. You certainly attach a lot of value to this idea, and that's the first sign of someone who is not going to be able to think objectively in regards to their idea.

Over on the straightdope board about six months ago there was a guy who was run out-of-town because he was simply convinced that his out-of-body near-death experience made him believe that science was wrong. You're beginning to sound like you are in a similar camp, Outcast. For you, the criteria is all in your own head, there is no objectivity available. Solipsism is suprisingly difficult to combat in any argument. You KNOW, of course, that you're right and I'm wrong. Your "open mind" is obviously the way one should look at the world.

I say that my criteria is to look at the world through science. It's not so much because I want to look at the world that way, but it's because I think that it's the only consistent way humanity has come up with to do so. Taking issue with this statement is certainly acceptable, only I was under the impression that this board was to be devoted to science and not to subjectivity.

Yeah, if you could answer my question, Outcast, that would be great. You seem to think it irrational to believe Jesus is in the paintstain, as do I. But I also believe it irrational to believe that UFOs are too big a problem to not be ETUFOs. You have an open mind about the latter but a closed mind about the former. See what I'm trying to get at? It seems you have some criteria separating the two and while it is obvious to you, it is a mystery to me.

"Yeah, if you could answer my question, Outcast, that would be great. You seem to think it irrational to believe Jesus is in the paintstain, as do I. But I also believe it irrational to believe that UFOs are too big a problem to not be ETUFOs. You have an open mind about the latter but a closed mind about the former. See what I'm trying to get at? It seems you have some criteria separating the two and while it is obvious to you, it is a mystery to me."

ok, i'll anwser this.
in my point of view i fail to see why would jesus christ appear in a paint stain when according to christians he would be abble to present a much better magic show. why would he present himself in such an ambiguous way?

using Occam's razor (i know skeptics like that) and upon observation of the paint stain (or paint stains) i could conclude that because the human eye has the tendency to find familiar shapes out of random patterns and because people can some times be victims of self sujestion, the paint stain is being mistaken for the apparition of jesus christ.

also i could be seeing Mickey Mouse instead of jesus christ, would that mean it was the apparition of Mickey Mouse?

well, thats basically my criteria. this wont come as a surprise for you, the first time i read Zeta Talk i believed there could be something there. it made sense in a number of ways.

later i found the articles about ZT in the badastronomy website. needless to say i discarded ZT because of the sheer logic of BA.

so you see, im not a pretense open minded.
i tend to apply logic into my quest for truth. unfortunetly im not as good a mathematitian or astronomy knowlledgable as you people around here (that why i valid your input on issues), and because of that i have to relly only on what makes sense to me and my own personal experience.

"Over on the straightdope board about six months ago there was a guy who was run out-of-town because he was simply convinced that his out-of-body near-death experience made him believe that science was wrong."

why not? have you ever had an OBE?
i bet you believe its a trick of the brain. some quemical juices out of control there...

you have as much a right to believe that OBE experiencers are delluded as them to think that human science as much to learn about the Universe.

there are some scientists exploring this issue though, and they came to some interesting conclusions.

"I say that my criteria is to look at the world through science. It's not so much because I want to look at the world that way, but it's because I think that it's the only consistent way humanity has come up with to do so. Taking issue with this statement is certainly acceptable, only I was under the impression that this board was to be devoted to science and not to subjectivity."

well, i dont take issue with the fact that you want to look at the world through science. i take issue when people shield themselfs behind science to deny other possibilities.

"To summarize for people reading this thread: the site contains various people with science backgrounds giving anecdotal evidence about some psychic/near-death/ESP experience they personally had (most are psychologists/parapsychologists but there was at least one mathmetician/physicist). None of the stories involve any kind of experimentation or independent, objective data collection, its just anecdotes."

thank you for such a quick and unbiased summary. after all, you seem to think noone here needs independent and objective observation.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Outcast on 2003-03-21 04:15 ]</font>

Outcast wrote:
you mean i cannot use racional thought to distinguish between what is apparently a weird pain stain and an UFO account? just because i believe there can be truth to the UFO phenomena i therefore need to believe jesus christ is appearing in paint stains?

Of course you can use rational thought to discount someone’s claim of seeing Jesus (or Mickey or Elvis) in a paint stain. But, so can others use the same rational thought to discount the claims of ETUFO sightings.

One big difference, though, is that seeing Jesus’ face in a paint stain is more a matter of faith than of science; seeing ETUFOs should be the exact opposite, meaning rational thought should be even more applicable.

maybe someday you'll have to admit the empirical fact of the UFO phenomenon.

If you have any “empirical fact” to present that supports ETUFOs, please do so.

just because PHDs and MDs and BSs spend their lifes filling their heads with "scientific" knowlledge it doesnt convince me that their science is the ultimate truth.

I have known quite a few PhDs, MDs (MSs?) and BSs. None of them worthy of the degree would ever seriously claim that their science is the “ultimate truth.” No one who has decided to make science or engineering their field would ever make that claim. Only those who seek to discredit science make such a claim, usually derogatorily.

using Occam's razor (i know skeptics like that) and upon observation of the paint stain (or paint stains) i could conclude that because the human eye has the tendency to find familiar shapes out of random patterns and because people can some times be victims of self sujestion, the paint stain is being mistaken for the apparition of jesus christ.

And you must realize that the same line of reason can be followed for ETUFOs. The human eye tends to see distinct shapes in random patterns, the human mind is susceptible to suggestion, people can be mistaken.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] The scientific method is the exact opposite of what you describe. Science is not used to ‘shield’ itself from other possibilities, it is a method for exploring our world. You know, hypothesis followed by experimentation/data collection followed by analysis.

Thanks to our current understanding of physics . . . etc. science has explored the possibilities of ETs and in some aspects continues to do so (ex. SETI). Here is the general science mechanism for ET issues:

Hypothesis: ETs may exist
Experiment/Data Collection: lack of reasonable mechanism for interstellar travel, lack of physical evidence, numerous ET claims shown to have natural explanations, alleged alien behaviour is illogical, attempts at discovery through monitoring outer space (telescopes, radar, Seti, satellites) has produced no results . . .etc.
Analysis: ETs do not exist (from here a scientist may attempt further data collection or abandon the hypothesis)

The critical part that separates science from religion is the willingness to abandon the hypothesis in the event that the data does not support it. Religious people cannot, by the very nature of faith, abandon their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. Science has hypothesized about ETs, explored the issue, and generally concluded that ETs are unfounded. That is why mainstream science requires extraordinary evidence to support ET existence – the current evidence is too weak (for reasons we’ve discussed in previous posts). It does not mean that science ‘shields’ itself from other possibilities.

As you said yourself on page 5 of this thread (emphasis mine):

One might conclude that you are shielding yourself from other possibilities – that ETs are not flying around us. There is nothing wrong with believing in ETs due to a ‘gut feeling’, such instincts are part of what makes us human, and please feel free to continue to believe in ETs as I am not trying to convert you to a no-ETs cause, just recognize that your ET stance is a belief, little more. Skeptics need more than that.

I've seen half a dozen "UFO"s. I think most amateur astronomers see many things they are not sure what they were.

The difference is we aren't afraid to say "I don't know what it was" instead of making the fantastic logical leap to "Aliens from another planet"

I've seen geese with glowing stomachs. If they were flying higher, and it was darker, so I couldn't see they were geese (and they weren't honking), I would have seen a V formation of glowing spheres. Yet this exact explanation for the Lubbock Lights is often sighted as to what ludicrous extremes the establishment goes to try to discredit UFO buffs. "glowing bird stomachs, come on!!!"

Lets deal with known natural occurances before we leap to aliens.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

"There is nothing wrong with believing in ETs due to a ‘gut feeling’, such instincts are part of what makes us human,"

gut feeling could describe my stance on the UFO phenomenon.

"and please feel free to continue to believe in ETs as I am not trying to convert you to a no-ETs cause,"

well, i dont know if those things are ET. my idea is that, even if they are ET, they come from our own solar system. thank you for accepting my position on this, im not trying to convert anyone into believing UFOs either [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

"just recognize that your ET stance is a belief, little more. Skeptics need more than that."

as i said, i look at the world from a different perpective. its my own personal opinion that the gods of ancient and modern UFO sightings are related. thats why i will not discard the possibility of UFOs so easily.

well, maybe its not a scientific perpective but history is not scientific either and it goes into books and is generaly accepted. so thats what i try to do, put the whole of this human mess into perpective.

Well I'm not a historian but if this forum is any indication, Sumerian history is still a hotly debated topic amongst historians and translators. Anyway I will leave such matters to historians, its not really an astronomy topic anyway.

If you get a chance you should read some books on philosophy and/or scientific philosophy. Many disciplines such as psychology struggle with scientific vs non-scientific evidence constantly (my old university offered both B.A. and B.Sc degrees in Psychology) so there should be a lot of writings on collecting and analyzing evidence that is in the 'gray-area' of whether it is scientific or not. It might be of use to your ETUFO studies.

Would you say, Outcast, that this opinion is similar to a religion? If not, I'd like to know the distinction.

Is this based on a gut feeling again, or do you have some evidence for it? This would seem to have obvious observational consequences for astronomy.

I actually may have to agree with you on this one. There is a seeming need in humanity to connect to something "larger" than oneself. Many people in the early to mid part of the twentieth century idealized science and technology. Sputnik really through a lot of the American public for a loop and allowed the UFO phenomenon to blossom (the paranoia about the Russians and what they were doing probably helped). In any case, the "larger universe connection" seems to have caught a lot of folks fancy.

Of course, this isn't so much a reason as it is an excuse. It makes sense in your mind because it explains two disparate topics, but to the "non-believer" there's no reason to assume these two topics have to be linked by physical manifestations. They could all be in the mind, if you see what I'm saying.

History can be done scientifically, and it's the scientific parts that are generally the most believable. There is, in fact, a general motivation in history towards getting to empirical evidence of the past. While personal testimony plays a role in shaping human consciousness about the historiographical process, our views of the past are necessarily linked with hard evidence as well. Evidence that can be evaluated scientifically.

For example, if you were to tell me that there existed a history that said the Holocaust never happened, for example, I could show you the physical evidence. Likewise, if you were to tell me that there is a planet X that acted the way Sitchin wants planet X to act, I could point to physical evidence showing you why that wasn't the case.