UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Really?

The bar is set very low for this stuff, if you ask me.

I agree that it looks like birds.

 

Yazata:

Of course not. It only becomes a false sighting if somebody starts claiming it is something that it isn't.

No. It is not justifiable to make an a priori estimate of that probability as "most likely" when the circumstances are unusual. There's no relevant data on which you can base your probability estimate.

Right! But they should certainly keep in mind the possibility that JWST might be malfunctioning, or operating in some unexpected way.

Nobody should be immediately jumping to conclusions when a UAP is sighted, either. However, as you are aware, lots of people do. I might also add that believers in the woo are more prone to immediately jumping to conclusions than skeptics, in my experience, an observation that is amply supported by the content of this very thread.

Who is dismissing the data with a sneer?

To assume that the instrumentation was working correctly and perceptions were accurate is to jump to conclusions, which is something that you just said people shouldn't do, just above. Why are you happy to give them a pass on this, then?

Yes.

It is plausible. I have explained why, in some detail.

 

And I guess we need to do this ... (ho hum...)

Yazata:

I see. You're feeling sorry for poor little Magical Realist again, so you're taking offence on his behalf. Do you think he's capable of standing up for himself, or do we need to make special allowances for his limited capacities? Should he get to hide behind mummy's coat tails when things get a bit difficult for him because of what he says?

Alternatively (or in addition), you feel personally offended because you feel that the criticisms I levelled at Magical Realist apply in some measure to you, by proxy. They weren't intended that way; they were a reply to what he wrote - i.e. a reply to everything that came after "Absolutely agree". I replied to what you wrote separately, and addressed that reply specifically to you.

If you feel that my criticisms of Magical Realist are transferable in some way to things you have written, you might or might not be correct. It could be worth thinking about what it is in your own position that you don't want criticised, and why you want that part of your stance given special protection.

Why reply to him about points I put to you? Don't I deserve the courtesy of a direct reply?

Magical Realist:

You have thoroughly earned the contempt I have for you, Magical Realist. Understand that it is not an all-encompassing contempt. Specifically, it is contempt for how you conduct yourself in discussions about all the woo that you seem to require. Out of the context of the gullible nonsense you suck in, you're probably a perfectly affable and normal-enough person, for all I know. But in this context you're mostly a fool, a troll, and at times a bit of both.

Your generalisations about my insatiable needs and lack of mercy are incorrect and obviously tainted by sour grapes. Your attempt at life coaching seems disingenuous, not to mention insulting. Besides, you appear to have no relevant qualifications which would lead me to value your advice in that regard.

Your implication that many of my posts are left unanswered is also incorrect, at least as it applies to posts where I would reasonably expect an answer.

Sarkus:

Nice to see you once again jumping to defend your good mate Magical Realist against the evil depredations of myself. What a knight in shining armour you are!

I'd call my comment matter of fact, not aggressive. Each to his own.

I was not and am not fretting. I was wondering why Yazata, having made a point of replying Magical Realist, did not reply to my post. I asked a question, which was parenthetical and therefore which might potentially be taken as rhetorical, if one is reading carefully enough.

Your response begs the question of why you are so obviously fretting over this, though. Well?

As you can see, your speculations were incorrect. Why did you feel the need to inject them into the thread?

You could have fooled me. Most of your posts seem to be about me.

 

Sarkus:

You still want to talk about me? Okay. But we'll also talk about you. I'm sure you won't mind.

Yes. My bad for writing "Magical Realist" there rather than "Yazata". I was replying to three people in that one post, so I had three names in my head. But you're a forgiving guy, so I'm sure you'll find it in your big heart to forgive this small slip of mine.

Thanks, Sarkus. Gee, I'm glad I can count on you to help me work out who's who. What would I do without you?

My sarcasm was supposed to suggest to you that jumping in to answer for somebody who ought to be able to answer quite adequately for himself is to be frowned upon. Why did you feel you needed to inject yourself into the discussion at that point?

Suppose, hypothetically, you were to post a message to somebody, addressing them by name, and they were to respond to somebody else about your post rather than to you. Suppose that this person were to continually act as if you were invisible.

Tell me, Sarkus: would you regard that sort of thing as passive aggressive behaviour?
I hear that passive aggressive behaviour is not always recognised, especially by the person doing it.

I hear that passive aggressive behaviour is not always recognised, especially by the person doing it. Calling somebody out for supposed aggression could be passive aggressive behaviour under the right circumstances. Don't you think?

I don't recall asking for your advice.

No. You're completely off the rails. It seems you haven't even bothered to get your timeline straight on who posted what when in this instance. Your behaviour in aggressively calling me out suggests to me that you are rather full of yourself.

Passive aggressive, again?

Your little act isn't going too well, Sarkus. If your attitude really was "Sure, each to their own", you wouldn't have jumped in on this. But here you are. And you're still going at it.

Indeed. What of it?

I'm not fussed about whether it is taken as rhetorical. If I had wanted it to be clear, I would have made it clear. It was a parenthetical comment, like I said.

Regarding fretting, please re-acquaint yourself with my previous reply to you, where you might recall your concern was addressed.

This schoolyard display is, again, mostly about you, now. How long are you planning to keep going?

Sure. Each to their own, as they say.

Why are you still fretting about it, then?

Clearly, I am the focus of much of your attention. Perhaps you should expand your horizons a little and consider the possibility that my power to make this site all about anything is, in practice, limited. Maybe you should consider the possibility that, in part, sciforums is what you make it all about, too. Not to mention all of the other people who post here.

Would you like a site that's all about me, Sarkus? Of late, you've been acting like an obsessive fan, crying out for his idol to notice him.

You should consider practising what you preach. Set an example for us all!

That's churlish (and childish) of you, seeing as you know that what you just said isn't true. This latest unfortunate display from you is another blemish on your own "record", I hope you realise.

Not only should it be irrelevant. It is.

Don't be silly. This derailment is, now, almost entirely on you. I doubt Yazata will want to join your schoolyard bully gang. Magical Realist might want to whinge some more, I suppose. But you are free to take the high road at any time.

 

Yazata:

When you say "assumption" in the context of what you called the "problem of priors", it is important to distinguish weak assumptions from strong ones.

For instance, one person might decide that the "prior probability" that any given UAP encounter will turn out to be an alien craft is 1%, while another might decide that the same prior probability is 25%, say. (Sombody like Magical Realist might decide that the prior probability is about 80% in these cases.)

You might call the 1% guy a hardened skeptic with a closed mind. I might call the 25% guy a naively hopeful optimist with an open mind. I might call the 80% guy a gullible fool.

The important thing, which you are aware of, is that all of these people are making assumptions. The problem of priors then becomes one of trying to sort out whose priors are more defensible.

Now, as you said, new evidence will always shift the needle one way or the other. Every case that turns out to be an alien spaceship should make the estimate of the "prior probability" lower for subsequent investigations. And every case that turns our to be mundane should make the estimate of prior probability for subsequent investigations higher.

So, what can we say about UAP priors in 2022? Well, we've had 70 years of more or less systematically documented UAP reports in the US now. Not a single one has been confirmed to be an alien craft. But many thousands have been confirmed as mundane.

This means that it is plausible to postulate something like this: the "skeptical community" might have started as 25% guys back in the America of the 1950s. But repeated examination of cases, analysed with good 'ol Bayesian methods, have, in the 70 years since then, shifted the "prior" from 25% down to something like 1% or lower.

Most people aren't dedicated Bayesians, of course, so not everybody thinks rigorously like you do. The 80% guy might never shift his "prior" from that 80% initial estimate, no matter how many cases turn out to be mundane.

To summarise, here's the TL;DR version of the above:

It might be plausible to suggest that at one time, decades ago, the "average" UFO skeptic was might have been more likely to assume that a given UFO case would turn out to be paranormal or "non-mundane" than the "average" skeptic of today. But the accumulated experience of decades of investigating these things has shifted the needle - as it should if we're doing this properly - so that, these days, UFO skeptics have a more informed (and hence improved) estimate of the likely "prior" probability of aliens.
​

Correct.

If you're a good Bayesian, you will surely agree that if the UFO "prior" is sitting at 1% or less (you choose if it's 0.1% or 0.00001%, if you prefer), then there comes a point where it is a fair generalisation to say that anybody who believes in alien visitation is probably stupid or ignorant, or both.

For the True Believers, however, there is a get-out-of-jail-free card. They can stop messing around with probabilities and start digging up some proof (i.e. excellent, unimpeachable evidence) for their claims. Then, they won't need to say "I believe there's an 80% chance the UAP I saw was the woo". They will be able to say "Look at this alien spaceship I've collected, guys! It's obviously the woo, just like I said it was!"

Unless you believe (and can demonstrate why) the skeptics are not doing their Bayesian calculations correctly, that would be a reasonable demand. Would it not?

It sounds like you'd prefer to have Magical Realist's thumb on the scales. Why?

 

wegs:

See my previous post. The fact is: no UAP report has ever been confirmed as an alien craft, while many thousands of reports have been confirmed to be mundane (i.e. there is conclusive evidence the UFO was mundane - at least to a "beyond reasonable doubt" level).

How is this not a reference point?

The "tic tac" evidence is a lot stronger than, say, the evidence in the blurry video recently posted to this thread. There is no argument that some UFO cases are better evidenced than others. But the fact that even in the tic-tac case - one of the best evidenced cases we know of - the evidence is quite unconvincing, insofar as it points towards alien craft or other woo.

 

Still not ready to stop, yet? Do you want to talk some more about you and me, Sarkus?