The Religion of UFOology

[Russ_Watters]

So I started another thread asking for quality (scientifically acceptable, conclusive) evidence that alien spacecraft are among us and was shocked by the candor of the initial response from a Believer: no such evidence exists. I don't want to immediately hijack my own thread by exploring that (the request in the other thread still stands), so I'm opening this thread to explore that. The questions are:


1. What is your criteria/definition/rules for evidence? Ie, how do you gauge evidence quality, what do you require for accepting evidence as true?
2. What standard of proof do you require before deciding you believe a particular sighting was in fact an alien spacecraft?
3. Why do you reject scientific standards of evidence/proof?

As the other thread, this is first targeted at Trapped because of the active conversations, but still open to other alien spacecraft advocates. I honestly want to know how they think. Trapped: You said in the other thread, "You don't seem to understand what "evidence" is." In the context of these threads, you are absolutely correct: I adhere strictly to scientific standards of evidence and I don't even know, much less understand, the standard you are using. It looks like religion to me.

 

[Trapped]

Simple questions, simple answers:


''1. What is your criteria/definition/rules for evidence? Ie, how do you gauge evidence quality, what do you require for accepting evidence as true?''

Evidence, is anything which may add to a growing body of proof. Evidence, can be anything from observational to physical. The quality of evidence can be based on how much detail can be obtained from a case.


''2. What standard of proof do you require before deciding you believe a particular sighting was in fact an alien spacecraft?''


Standard proof for me, is something like a piece of UFO debris, a microchip... something which undeniably is physical conclusive proof of an intelligence visiting us.

''3. Why do you reject scientific standards of evidence/proof? ''

I don't.

The scientific method takes into account all evidence and must take the evidence unbiased. If you make a theory and it ignores the body of evidence, then you are not conducting a true scientific investigation.

 

[billvon]

''2. What standard of proof do you require before deciding you believe a particular sighting was in fact an alien spacecraft?''

Standard proof for me, is something like a piece of UFO debris, a microchip... something which undeniably is physical conclusive proof of an intelligence visiting us.

?? You do realize we have microchips, right? A microchip would be pretty conclusive evidence that it was a terrestrial object.

Now, intelligent green goo that seems to pack petaflops per microgram of processong power? That would be suggestive of non-terrestrial origin - but again, nothing like that has ever been found.

 

[Trapped]

?? You do realize we have microchips, right?

Of course. I am talking about something really sophisticated.

 

[billvon]

Of course. I am talking about something really sophisticated.

What would you term "sophisticated?"

 

[Trapped]

What would you term "sophisticated?"

Can't you use your imagination? I'm only quoting what other scientists have said. In an interview with Kaku, Kaku has said

''and yes, we are looking for the smoking gun... some kind of microchip, piece of ship... anything which we can definitely say, that is from outer space!''

 

[billvon]

Can't you use your imagination?

Sure. Petaflop per microgram green goo. Again, microchips (i.e. small integrated circuits) would be evidence of terrestrial origin.

Imagine finding a torn paper page written in English describing space battles in a landfill. What would be the most likely explanation?

1) It is evidence of aliens visiting Earth and accidentally leaving behind information.
2) It is a page torn out of a terrestrial science fiction book.

The latter would be the most likely. Paper and English are evidence of terrestrial origin because that's what we use here. Microchips would be evidence of terrestrial origin because, again, that's what we use here.

 

[Trapped]

The latter would be the most likely. Paper and English are evidence of terrestrial origin because that's what we use here. Microchips would be evidence of terrestrial origin because, again, that's what we use here.

Actually there is law called Moore's Law in which you could determine how many years ahead a microchip is compared with our own technology.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Evidence, is anything which may add to a growing body of proof. Evidence, can be anything from observational to physical. The quality of evidence can be based on how much detail can be obtained from a case.

Fair enough, but:

I don't. [reject scientific standards]

The scientific method takes into account all evidence...

Scientists don't just accept "anything". They have standards of quality including quantifiability, verifiability and repeatability. Anecdotal, qualitative observation is not scientific evidence.

Standard proof for me, is something like a piece of UFO debris, a microchip... something which undeniably is physical conclusive proof of an intelligence visiting us.

Well that's just a lie: You've claimed several alien spacecraft sightings that didn't include such evidence.

From the other thread:

But it's difficult for me to even talk with a skeptic who doesn't even realize that the phenomenon is real.

You are demanding that I accept the premise that alien spacecraft are real as a condition of showing me the evidence that they are real. That's backwards and very unscientific.

So lets deal with the issue of eyewitness testimony:

Based on the flight recordings just before he went missing (which is evidence that could be used in a court of law), states we have an air craft which could not be identified.

Yes, indeed, eyewitness testimony is good enough for a court of law. This isn't a court of law: scientific standards are much tougher than that. These observations are not recorded (the observations themselves, not his perceptions of the observations) and they are not repeatable. So the pilot's statements are at best thin and must be interpreted through the lens of science and not just accepted at face value.

This man was an experienced pilot and you make him sound like a rookie.

Pilots are humans and subject to the same human failings as everyone else, false perceptions and disorientation among them. Indeed, pilots are made to be disoriented on purpose by moving flight simulators that make pilots think they are moving when they are not. And since no alien spacecraft sightings have been confirmed, pilots are not experienced at positively identifying them.

I'd understand the explanation of disorientation, if Valentich's sighting wasn't backed up with decades of evidence of UFO's.

This is the circular reasoning fallacy I pointed out in my first post in that thread. You're using the mountain of mediocre evidence as your proof that alien spacecraft are here, using it to prove Valentich's sighting was an alien spacecraft, then adding it to the mountain of mediocre evidence.

Point being, if that's not the best proof, you shouldn't have posted it, and you apparently do think that a mountain of mediocre evidence is a legitimate substitute for a little bit of quality evidence.

I have under my belt reports dating back to the early 1900's, even before then of UFO encounters. I have official military reports, interviews from generals, previously secret air force memorandums on the subject.

What have you got? What have you offered? You haven't offered any reasonable expanations, no body of ''proof'' against and little to no evidence it is our own crafts.

You want to be taken seriously, but you don't have even a depth of knowledge on sightings. Your thread was a joke before it started.

Again, this is you misunderstanding how scientific proof works: The entire burden of proof is on you.

 

[Russ_Watters]

From another thread:

Correction, we have evidence. We don't have proof.

Incorrect. Evidence and proof are essentially synonymous and certainly are in that context. Heck, the words are even used in each other's definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

 

[Trapped]

From another thread:

Incorrect. Evidence and proof are essentially synonymous and certainly are in that context. Heck, the words are even used in each other's definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

To have proof, you need evidence. If you have enough evidence, you have a proof.


They are not synonymous always.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Scientific evidence is the highest form of evidence. But we convict people of crimes every day without having the luxury of scientific evidence. We convict them based on the same sort of evidence that we have for UFO reports. So a willingness to consider the non-scientific evidence for ET is no more ludicrous than our justice system.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1. What is your criteria/definition/rules for evidence? Ie, how do you gauge evidence quality, what do you require for accepting evidence as true?
2. What standard of proof do you require before deciding you believe a particular sighting was in fact an alien spacecraft?
3. Why do you reject scientific standards of evidence/proof? [/b]

I'll throw my hat in the ring.

I never accept any evidence as fact. That's why it's called "evidence" and not "fact". If a particular report is well documented with strong supporting evidence, say for example in the cases of many military reports, then I assign high confidence to the alleged facts but not necessarily any related conclusions. The number of and the credibility of the witnesses, documentation of the alleged events, the circumstances, supporting evidence in the form of RADAR tracks, or video, or photographs, trace evidence, and any apparent anomalies associated with the report, are all taken into consideration.

I've been studying this issue for about thirty years and I have yet to draw any conclusions. And that is the difference between my position and many so-called skeptics. I haven't made up my mind about anything. As much as there IS a UFO religion, there is an anti-UFO religion.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Scientific evidence is the highest form of evidence. But we convict people of crimes every day without having the luxury of scientific evidence. We convict them based on the same sort of evidence that we have for UFO reports. So a willingness to consider the non-scientific evidence for ET is no more ludicrous than our justice system.

That would follow if that one flaw made courts and alien spacecraft advocates identical in their thinking, but it doesn't. Courts are at least logical.

I never accept any evidence as fact. That's why it's called "evidence" and not "fact".

Oy. All evidence is fact unless it is fabricated (then it is fabricated fact). What matters is being able to tell what part of a witness's testimony actually is evidence/fact and what is speculation on the part of the witness. For example, if someone says:

"At night, I saw a distant point of light."

The statement contains three facts and one piece of speculation.
Facts:
1. It was night.
2. I saw a light.
3. It appeared pointlike to my eyes.

Speculation: it was distant. This part of the statement is neither fact nor evidence, it is just speculation about something that the observer can't know.

This is probably the key thing that is missing in the logic of alien spacecraft advocates: they just plain don't understand how you prove something logically/with evidence.

I've been studying this issue for about thirty years and I have yet to draw any conclusions. And that is the difference between my position and many so-called skeptics. I haven't made up my mind about anything. As much as there IS a UFO religion, there is an anti-UFO religion.

This is a misnomer as well. Keeping an open mind does not eliminate the burden of proof or default conclusion that something is not accepted to exist until proven. And that applies in courts and science as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Your response is purely subjective and not a logical response. I was speaking to the logic of considering evidence.

 

[siledre]

I really can't say that science or anyone has proven to me aliens exist, so they have some questionable photos and a lot of people saying they've seen them, well, all I have to do is remember how many times in the past that other people have said things to gain attention and what they were saying turned out to be false, they just wanted in on the popularity of it. too many people are wanting something to happen so bad the mind manufacturers what they need.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Your response is purely subjective and not a logical response. I was speaking to the logic of considering evidence.

I may have edited to add more explanation after you wrote that but in any case, logic is the only thing I'm discussing in that post!

But if you mean subjective in that some alien spacecraft advocates are more logical than others, that's trivially true, but here we are talking to the people here in this forum and you've been kind enough to demonstrate on which side you fall.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That would follow if that one flaw made courts and alien spacecraft advocates identical in their thinking, but it doesn't. Courts are at least logical.

Oy. All evidence is fact unless it is fabricated (then it is fabricated fact).

When testimony is submitted as evidence in a court of law, it is not considered fact. It is what one person claims to be fact. Your position assumes we know the truth of a statement when we can't.

What matters is being able to tell what part of a witness's testimony actually is evidence/fact and what is speculation on the part of the witness. For example, if someone says:

"At night, I saw a distant point of light."

The statement contains three facts and one piece of speculation.
Facts:
1. It was night.
2. I saw a light.
3. It appeared pointlike to my eyes.

Speculation: it was distant. This part of the statement is neither fact nor evidence, it is just speculation about something that the observer can't know.

That is also true. But that doesn't automatically make their claim factual. For example, perhaps they were hallucinating.

This is probably the key thing that is missing in the logic of alien spacecraft advocates: they just plain don't understand how you prove something logically/with evidence.

This is a misnomer as well. Keeping an open mind does not eliminate the burden of proof or default conclusion that something is not accepted to exist until proven. And that applies in courts and science as well.

I stated no misnomer. I stated the difference between my position and many so called skeptics. I make the logical assumption that we have not been visited. But I am also willing to consider the facts without bias. I understand the difference between an assumption, and a fact. Typical "Skeptics" tend to make a conclusion out of an assumption.