Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I remember you complaining about us for "living in the mystery". Now it's because we believe too much? There's just no pleasing some folks I guess.
Last edited:
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
I remember you complaining about us for "living in the mystery". Now it's because we believe too much? There's just no pleasing some folks I guess.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes. Both those things. They both run counter to good science, which is ostensibly why we all joined this science forum. If believing in mysteries is a thing you enjoy, you might consider a religion forum.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
"We are bathing in mystery and confusion on many subjects, and I think that will always be our destiny. The universe will always be much richer than our ability to understand it."--Carl Sagan
“The most beautiful thing that we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.”-- Einstein
Last edited:
Sarkus:
1. Nowhere did I claim that anything was "perfectly replicable". I think you're confusing my posts with somebody else's. I don't want to claim that the Mt Shasta report is "perfectly replicable". If I had wanted to do that, I would have done it. But I didn't.
2. I did not "alter what was reported".
3. The only straw man here is yours.
4. The question I am asking is: what is the best-candidate explanation for this UAP report, based on an analysis of the evidence that is available to us? What question are you asking?
5. Maybe you ought to go back and try again, this time without the misrepresentation and snarkiness.
6. High confidence follows from a rational result. Welcome to Science 101.
7. Please stop doing this version of you. It's tiresome.
1. Nowhere did I claim that anything was "perfectly replicable". I think you're confusing my posts with somebody else's. I don't want to claim that the Mt Shasta report is "perfectly replicable". If I had wanted to do that, I would have done it. But I didn't.
2. I did not "alter what was reported".
3. The only straw man here is yours.
4. The question I am asking is: what is the best-candidate explanation for this UAP report, based on an analysis of the evidence that is available to us? What question are you asking?
5. Maybe you ought to go back and try again, this time without the misrepresentation and snarkiness.
6. High confidence follows from a rational result. Welcome to Science 101.
7. Please stop doing this version of you. It's tiresome.
Last edited:
Last edited:
wegs:
We certainly know quite a bit about stars and planets and other celestial objects, for instance. We also know about lots of other things that are seen in the skies, like birds and clouds and various types of meteorological phenomena.
We're hardly operating in a vacuum of knowledge, here.
On the other hand, operating at the limits of knowledge is what science is for. It's what it does better than any other investigative method. Why would we not apply it for investigating UAPs? What alternative method would you suggest?
It makes sense to grab the lowest hanging fruit first, does it not? Check out the obvious candidates first (like that the UAP was a mistaken sighting of Mars). If the evidence rules that out as a probable explanation, move on to the next hypothesis. Eventually, you'll either run of sufficient evidence that would enable you to distinguish between the mundane and the woo, in which case the provisional answer (pending the arrival of new evidence) is "we still don't know what it was", or you'll find sufficient evidence to establish that it was most likely a mundane thing or the woo. Whatever the outcome, the scientific method is going to help you get there.
You're making the assumption that we're dealing with "things that are completely unknown to us". Why?
We certainly know quite a bit about stars and planets and other celestial objects, for instance. We also know about lots of other things that are seen in the skies, like birds and clouds and various types of meteorological phenomena.
We're hardly operating in a vacuum of knowledge, here.
On the other hand, operating at the limits of knowledge is what science is for. It's what it does better than any other investigative method. Why would we not apply it for investigating UAPs? What alternative method would you suggest?
Sherlock Holmes said something that goes a bit like this: once you have eliminated all the most likely explanations, then one of the ones that is left must be the truth, no matter how unlikely it seems.
It makes sense to grab the lowest hanging fruit first, does it not? Check out the obvious candidates first (like that the UAP was a mistaken sighting of Mars). If the evidence rules that out as a probable explanation, move on to the next hypothesis. Eventually, you'll either run of sufficient evidence that would enable you to distinguish between the mundane and the woo, in which case the provisional answer (pending the arrival of new evidence) is "we still don't know what it was", or you'll find sufficient evidence to establish that it was most likely a mundane thing or the woo. Whatever the outcome, the scientific method is going to help you get there.
It is frustrating that UAP encounters tend to be non-reproducible. But then again, the whole of history is the same. Nevertheless, we can use scientific methods to determine the most likely history, up to a point. That's more or less what good historians do, although they might not call it the scientific method.
Of course. Magical Realist is still here, bringing more woo on a regular basis. Nobody is being censored for their wild beliefs.
How much leeway do you want? What kind of leeway do you want? Tell me what you mean.
If you start arguing against the points that were specifically addressing that the conclusion does not "perfectly replicate" the reported observations, is it really that surprising that you're assumed to be implicitly supporting that claim? If I am mistaken that you were supporting the claim of "perfectly replicable" then, okay, your points were simply irrelevant to the post you're replying to. I (wrongly, it seems) assumed you were at least being relevant, but I really couldn't care less which it is: you being wrong and your rebuttals being irrelevant, or your points simply being irrelevant. Sure, let's stick with the latter.
Not the words per se, but your subsequent "analysis" (e.g. post #7992) suggests you have taken things opposite to what was reported:
To wit: he wrote: "As they got closer to the first one..." and your analysis says: "The witness does not give details about the relative spacing between the objects he reports..." - yet by specifically saying that the apparent relative distance got shorter (that is what is meant by "closer") it is quite clear that he does give detail.
You further say: "This is consistent with the witness's (lack of) a statement about the spacing." So you have clearly altered, even if just in your head, what it is that he has said, and referenced (the lack) twice. Whether a deliberate divergence on your part or accidental, I'm not going to speculate other than to note that you do have a history with incorrectly summarising other people's positions.
You do specifically address this, though, as you go on:
Here you specifically alter, even in just your head, what is quite clear he said. You then use your altered wording to support your case: i.e. you have altered what he reported to suit your conclusion. Is your conclusion based on what he said? No, it is based on what you seemingly want him to say, what fits the conclusion you want to reach.
This is quite clear, James R.
Demonstrably not: you argued against a post that said the conclusion of Mars/stars does not perfectly replicate the reported observations, and in that context, whether you support that claim or not, you did so with points that don't address that issue. I.e. your post is irrelevant to the point you argued against.
Need I go on? Or are you going to own your mistake, James R. Accept that you respond irrelevantly to the point that was being made, and move on?
So you're not interested in what it actually is? Okay.
I'd like to know with a high degree of confidence what it actually is. I'm confident that it isn't non-mundane. But not because of what is/is not reported but because my bar to conclude that is rather high, and this report is too vague to ever achieve that. In terms of knowing what it is with that degree of confidence, no, we're not "solved".
There is no misrepresentation from me, James R. You were being irrelevant to the post you were replying to. That's clear and obvious, implicit by your own admission. Own that and move on.
I'll happily own the snarkiness, though, as it's not going to change.
Yet if you misunderstand what the rational result actually is, your confidence will be misplaced. You have altered (demonstrably so) the reported observation to suit your conclusion. The sheer amount of wooliness that you have had to tried to cut through should, rationally, mean that any specific conclusion is similarly woolly / open to doubt. So while the rational conclusion is "high confidence", the rational conclusion from the info given is only that the observation might probably be Mars/stars. And by all means have a high confidence that it might probably be that. Do not confuse a high confidence in a reasonable probability of X with a high confidence that it is X.
You mean holding you to account for the garbage you too often write? No, I'll keep doing this version, thanks. If it's getting tiresome for you then by all means cut out the garbage.
I’ll reply later to the rest of your post, James, but thought I’d answer your question on leeway. Perhaps allowing for a greater margin of error or not getting upset if MR doesn’t agree with you, is what I mean by “leeway.” You’re arguing with science in mind, and obviously, that’s fine because this is a science forum after all, but your expectation of MR (just using him as an example) is that he will eventually stop trusting eye witness reports and convert to your way of thinking. Your way of thinking isn’t wrong at all, because your approach is in defense of science. And that makes sense.
That said, I don’t think MR opposes science (in general), but on this topic, his mind is open to more possibilities than science can (yet) provide answers.
So, by leeway, you shouldn’t ban anyone who thinks outside of the scientific parameters, when it comes to UAP’s. Unless of course, the ban is due to another type of forum violation.
And this doesn’t mean this section of the site should be a “free for all,” but the general heading (“monsters” included) doesn’t give the impression that it’s to be taken too seriously, like other sections of SF. Debate is to be expected here, but ad homs and bans? Seems excessive considering the topic.
Anyway, that’s what I meant.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You are the one claiming to know the time and the date and the year of the sighting. I'm asking you how you know this. If you are going to be evasive and accusatory, I will assume you don't really know this. Simple as that.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No problem. It simply means you've drawn attention to the fact that the incident is of even lower quality than you thought. We don't even know whether this incident occurred in the second millennium or the third!
Heck, the Bible has more accurate accounting than this incident...
I don't suppose you'll be apologizing for wasting everyone's time ...
But if it still fascinates you, you can't rule out that it was a night where Mars - or another planet - along with some bright stars - can be seen over Mt. Shasta. Until you can rule that out, it remains highly plausible and certainly fits the incident report well.
Moving forward: for the sake of thread progress, consider stepping up your game, quality-wise. Avoid incidents - indeed, avoid websites - where they can't be bothered to list years - let alone dates - in the reports they post.
Let's move on.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL So there is no knowledge of the time and day and year of the sighting. You and James' credibility as objective investigators just dropped to zero. There's absolutely no reason to think the eyewitness saw the stars and planet much less mistook them for strobing lights. It doesn't fit the account and assumes as usual the incompetence of the eyewitness based on nothing more than an unevidenced and forgone conclusion.
No..it's not my job to rule out your unevidenced claim. You need to support your claim with evidence. This is still a science forum afterall.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And thanks to you we can now add to it the incompetence of the source you chose to peruse and bring here.
Bringing that crappy stuff here reflects upon your competence too.
Hypothesis supported with facts, here. Please keep up with the thread so as not to waste readers' time.
1. A hypothesis is not a claim. 'Plausible' =/= 'is'. Brush up on your discussion skills.
2. Disagreeing with a hypothesis is OK. Don't overreach.
3. Lying about a hypothesis not being supported by evidence is not OK.
Stop lying. Stop trolling.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You have no evidence that this was the time and date of the sighting. You basically just pulled it out of your ass. Once again an unevidenced claim.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You have no evidence it wasn't. Therefore you can't rule Mars out based on dates.
The takeaway is that the site is crap. Don't rely on it or that crap will stick to you.
Moving on.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I may at times appear to be antiscience, but really I'm not. I oppose scientism, which is the veneration of science and the scientific method as some sort of ultimate epistemological truth. It is not. Alot of our experience is not subject to the analysis of science. There are even aspects of reality that exceed reduction to the physical properties science deals in. Consciousness and the mind are that sort of phenomenon. The paranormal and uaps and other fortean anomalies are I suspect that sort of phenomenon too. The universe in its very being is inherently incredible, and some things just have to be experienced firsthand to be believed.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
There ya go. You're a skeptic at heart.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
There ya go. You're a skeptic at heart.
I'm not certain enough to be a skeptic. I am basically an agnostic. A mystic. "I don't know" is the closest I get to a belief.