wegs:
So, what is the point of this sub-forum? The scientific method doesn’t work for these discussions, in the sense that we can’t measure or test anything. There is not much evidence other than eyewitness accounts and footage, that may or may not be verifiable.
So, a thread is created to discuss UAP sightings, and potential explanations are frowned on? Only if there’s objective evidence to discuss, the discussion shouldn’t continue?
I don’t get it. When the site administrator created a sub-forum to discuss UFO’s and ghosts, what was the vision behind that? Science can’t solve the problem of UAP’s. Not yet, anyway.
Thanks for the questions. There's a lot to unpack in what you wrote.
This sub-forum exists by popular demand, essentially. Prior to setting up the "On the Fringe" category of subforums, the UFO discussion was mostly lumped in with the rest of the Pseudoscience. One problem, however, was that occasionally some legitimate discussion would find its way into the Astronomy forum or the Physics forum or whatever. It seems to me that, given that this is a popular topic for debate, it makes sense to have a place for it. But ultimately, as I said, this sub-forum exists because our members suggested we should have it, and voted to have it created.
Sciforums' tag line has been, from the start, "intelligent community". So much of the public discussion of UFOs - especially in the United States - is of the wide-eyed fantastical sort of gullible belief that we see from Magical Realist. Here at sciforums, we have some intelligent and educated people who are trained in the methods of science, and some other intelligent and educated people who have learned how to think critically about claims even though they do not have formal qualifications in science. We are therefore in a good position to provide a different perspective on the whole UFO flap and to provide an educational service to the wider community.
Personally, I think it is good for people with widely differing opinions to talk to each other now and then, if for no other reason than to learn how and what the other half thinks. Conversations and debates can and do change minds. But closed bubbles tend to prevent one side from hearing the other side's reasons for holding their positions. There are a
lot of closed bubbles on the internet (and, indeed, in the wider community). Sciforums is not a closed bubble.
I find it a little strange that, after all our discussions on this topic, you still claim that "the scientific method doesn't work" when it comes to discussions of UFOs, and that we "can't measure or test anything". This thread you're reading right now is full of "tests" of claims. Test no. 1 for any claim is whether there is actually sufficient evidence to support the claim. If there isn't good evidence to show that a claim is true, there's no reason we should believe it. This is a simple statement, but many people do not live their lives this way. They believe all kinds of things for what are, in the end, bad reasons.
I don't think it is too much to ask of a person who claims to have met aliens, say, to ask them to provide a decent photograph or seven of said aliens, along with a sample of their super-advanced alien technology perhaps, or some nice clear video footage of their alien spaceship flitting around. But all of this seems too big an ask for the UFO believer crowd. One has to wonder why. What's so difficult, if these aliens and their spacecraft really are as ubiquitous as they would have us all believe?
You complain that "potential explanations are frowned upon". The truth is that skeptics "frown upon" explanations for which there is little to no evidence. Claiming that a race of super-advanced aquatic aliens builds tic-tac spacecraft at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean is a potential explanation for US navy sightings of flying tic-tacs. But it is an explanation with zero evidentiary support. Where are the ocean-floor radar scans showing the alien cities under the sea? Where are the photos of the aliens themselves? Where are the waste products and by-products of the alien manufacturing industries? Where are the clear communications from these aliens with the advanced human technological society that shares this small planet with these undersea aliens?
Another potential explanation for tic-tac sightings is that there's a supernatural God who calls herself Thelma, who has a tribe of subservient pixies who love to create mischief by fooling clumsy human beings into seeing faked tic-tac images in the sky. There's zero evidentiary support for this potential explanation, either. So, on that basis, it's pretty much on an even footing with the aquatic alien hypothesis, when it comes to providing an explanation for tic-tac sightings.
Of course, the pendulum could easily swing towards one explanation or another. A captured pixie, for instance, could greatly improve the plausibility of the pixie hypothesis.
We all know that random UFO sightings, eyewitness reports and grainy/blurry footage aren’t going to serve as “evidence,” so why have this sub-forum except to discuss the possibilities that could exist?
All of the things you mention can serve as "evidence". But evidence of what, exactly? Alien spaceships? Okay, then the next question is: how convincing is this evidence? Are
you convinced that super-advanced aquatic aliens exist, based on a few blurry videos of tic-tacs? Why should those convince anybody of
that? Okay, so a small handful of Navy pilots say they think they saw a spaceship. Are you convinced that's what they saw, yet?
Should their stories convince you
of that? Or do you think there ought to be something more "compelling" (as Magical Realist would say)?
I’m not suggesting to accept that space aliens exist for example, without tangible proof, but we should be able to discuss why others believe them to exist.
Those are two separate discussions, actually.
The question of whether space aliens exist or do not exist is just (just!) one of establishing some facts (i.e. "tangible proof", as you put it). The default position ought to be that nothing is to be considered real until there is convincing evidence for its reality.
The question of why some people believe aliens exist is an inquiry into how and why people form their beliefs. If people believe aliens exist without any convincing evidence, then clearly their beliefs are not evidence-based beliefs. So, we can certainly have an interesting discussion about why some people choose to beleive some things even without evidence. But it's a different discussion.
Not every UFO claimant is “crazy,” or seeking attention.
I agree. But that doesn't mean that the non-crazy, non-attention seeking ones have seen alien spacecraft, any more than the crazy attention-seekers.
I’m glad NASA doesn’t think so, and it’s willing to invest its energy into creating a study team to explore “what we don’t know” related to UAP’s.
I would be interested to learn the proportion of NASA's budget and resources that is being allocated to this. It doesn't seem to me to be the most useful way to spend NASA's money, given the utter lack of positive indications of aliens over the past 70 years. (On the other hand, don't get me wrong. I am all for allocating some funds to SETI, even though it is possible that it will come up with a blank.)
If this site’s section exists, it was for the purpose of discussion.
We're having a discussion, aren't we?
Science doesn’t yet answer the question of UAP’s so should we shut down this sub-forum?
I think there is some value to be had in keeping this forum. As long as true believers keep coming here convinced that aliens are visiting us, there's room for some public education, I think.
