UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

wegs:

I wonder though - if once you introduce (objective) evidence for something that was thought to be extraordinary, wouldn't it then be considered...ordinary?
Sure!

Science, for instance, is full of quite unexpected discoveries of things that were previously thought to be impossible or at least implausible.

Who would have thought, for example, that entire continents could move around over time, completely altering the global geography of the world's land? The idea of "continental drift" was scoffed at by many when it was first proposed. But separate lines of evidence accumulated to the point where it no longer became tenable to deny that continent drift happens. Today, all competent Earth scientists accept the theory of plate tectonics and, indeed, regard it as among the fundamental effects that have shaped Earth's geology, climate and biodiversity.

The idea of "x-ray vision" existed long before x rays were discovered and named as such. However, the notion that people would one day be able to see inside the human body without breaking the skin would have been laughed off by many educated people - right up to the accidental discovery of x-rays. What led scientists to accept the existence of x-rays was, as usual, the accumulating evidence for them. In principle, anybody can build a working x-ray machine, given suitable instructions and materials. So denying the reality of x-rays is no longer tenable.

These days, most of us accept the reality of plate tectonics and x-rays without batting an eyelid. Both of them seem like "ordinary" things - just part of our shared, accepted reality. But at one time, both were considered "extraordinary". In a sense, they still are, but we have all the evidence we need to accept that, extraordinary as these things might seem in the abstract, they are very real.

The idea of alien spaceships has been with us for centuries. It is the claim that, right now, alien spaceship are visiting Earth, that is extraordinary. The difference between alien spaceships and x-rays, though, is that it's easy to produce convincing evidence for x-rays (now). But nobody has managed to produce convincing evidence that any alien spaceships are actually real, yet.

Having lots of evidence doesn't necessarily convince everybody of the reality of a thing, of course. There are still plenty of climate change deniers and Young Earth creationists, even though there are mountains of evidence for anthropogenic climate change and mountains of evidence against Young Earth creationism. But climate change deniers and creationists aren't basing their beliefs on evidence. What they have in common is a refusal to look objectively at the available evidence.

Similarly, a lack or absence of reliable evidence doesn't necessarily convince everybody to withhold their belief that a thing is real (which is the prudent and logical thing to do). People believe lots of things without having good evidence, often for reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny, as we've seen time and again with Magical Realist's ardent UFO and other woo beliefs.
 
Last edited:
wegs:


Sure!

Science, for instance, is full of quite unexpected discoveries of things that were previously thought to be impossible or at least implausible.

Who would have thought, for example, that entire continents could move around over time, completely altering the global geography of the world's land? The idea of "continental drift" was scoffed at by many when it was first proposed. But separate lines of evidence accumulated to the point where it no longer became tenable to deny that continent drift happens. Today, all competent Earth scientists accept the theory of plate tectonics and, indeed, regard it as among the fundamental effects that have shaped Earth's geology, climate and biodiversity.

The idea of "x-ray vision" existed long before x rays were discovered and named as such. However, the notion that people would one day be able to see inside the human body without breaking the skin would have been laughed off by many educated people - right up to the accidental discovery of x-rays. What led scientists to accept the existence of x-rays was, as usual, the accumulating evidence for them. In principle, anybody can build a working x-ray machine, given suitable instructions and materials. So denying the reality of x-rays is no longer tenable.

These days, most of us accept the reality of plate tectonics and x-rays without batting an eyelid. Both of them seem like "ordinary" things - just part of our shared, accepted reality. But at one time, both were considered "extraordinary". In a sense, they still are, but we have all the evidence we need to accept that, extraordinary as these things might seem in the abstract, they are very real.

The idea of alien spaceships has been with us for centuries. It is the claim that, right now, alien spaceship are visiting Earth, that is extraordinary. The difference between alien spaceships and x-rays, though, is that it's easy to produce convincing evidence for x-rays (now). But nobody has managed to produce convincing evidence that any alien spaceships are actually real, yet.

Having lots of evidence doesn't necessarily convince everybody of the reality of a thing, of course. There are still plenty of climate change deniers and Young Earth creationists, even though there are mountains of evidence for anthropogenic climate change and mountains of evidence against Young Earth creationism. But climate change deniers and creationists aren't basing their beliefs on evidence. What they have in common is a refusal to look objectively at the available evidence.

Similarly, a lack or absence of reliable evidence doesn't necessarily convince everybody to withhold their belief that a thing is real (which is the prudent and logical thing to do). People believe lots of things without having good evidence, often for reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny, as we've seen time and again with Magical Realist's ardent UFO and other woo beliefs.
I understand where you're coming from, James - but do you find that skeptics sometimes conflate ''improbable'' or ''most likely never to happen'' with ''extraordinary?'' In other words, everything that sounds extraordinary most likely is improbable (to a skeptic)?

Space aliens could fit into the improbability category, but if they did exist, it'd be ''extraordinary.'' We can agree on that point. But, if say the tic tac object is that of some type of advanced military weapon or aircraft, that doesn't seem so far-fetched, yet we could consider it to be extraordinary, as well. I don't think this is a matter of semantics, rather it could explain why skeptics and UFO enthusiasts struggle to meet halfway.
 
The news said some guy and his son caught a very rare blue lobster. An improbable one in millions event. But still quite extraordinary! We shouldn't use probabilities to predict what will happen to us. We might miss out on the extraordinary when it brushes by us.

I4Mdker.jpg
 
Last edited:
The news said some guy and his son caught a very rare blue lobster. An improbable one in millions event. But still quite extraordinary! We shouldn't use probabilities to predict what will happen to us. We might miss out on the extraordinary when it brushes by us.

I4Mdker.jpg
How would using probabilities have prevented this fisherman from catching this crab? :)

We know the probability is low that you will win the lottery this year (you have to play of course) but someone will win this year. It's good to know just how bad your chances are, don't you think? You can still play if it has entertainment value for you (or not).

A blue crab is unusual. A red head is less common than a brunette. A super nova is even more rare but they do happen. Aliens on Earth isn't just "rare", it hasn't happened yet. :)
 
Because, until something has been confirmed, it hasn't officially happened.

Except maybe for the millions even trillions of events that have occurred on our planet over the ages without being confirmed by anyone.
 
Last edited:
Except maybe for the millions even trillions of events that have occurred on our planet over the ages without being confirmed by anyone.
Then without being confirmed they (whatever events they might have been) never happened

No evidence, didn't happen

:)
 
Wrong. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
We seem to be wandering off the plot a little.

Aliens haven't visited Earth as far as we know. The reason we're fairly confident of this is because there is no hard evidence of them existing - let alone visiting - now or in the past.


Some interpretations of data/phenomena will invoke 'aliens' as a possible explanation - but that is not in-itself evidence of aliens.

By comparison, any of that same data/phenomena can just as easily interpreted by invoking "God did it" as an equally possible explanation - but likewise, that is not in-itself "evidence of God".
 
Last edited:
Life on this planet should tell us that life elsewhere in the universe could be quite possible. Maybe even intelligent life. Space is so old though, and maybe aliens have arrived here and left, long before human life. If anything is possible, that could be possible.

One would think though that there'd be some type of tangible evidence ''left behind'' if that were the case and there seems to be zilch.
 
Except maybe for the millions even trillions of events that have occurred on our planet over the ages without being confirmed by anyone.
Millions and trillions of leprechauns. Millions and trillions of unicorns.

(I forget - do you believe in leprechauns and unicorns?)
 
Millions and trillions of leprechauns. Millions and trillions of unicorns.

(I forget - do you believe in leprechauns and unicorns?)

Neither...I was referring to natural occurrences like geology and meteorology and climatology and animal events like evolution and migration and extinction..
 
Last edited:
Aliens haven't visited Earth as far as we know. The reason we're fairly confident of this is because there is no hard evidence of them existing - let alone visiting - now or in the past.

There are many things that have occurred thruout history for which there is no hard evidence. The importance of eyewitnesses rises in proportion to the "tracelessness" of the historical event. UFO's may just be that sort of phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
There are many things that have occurred thruout history for which there is no hard evidence. The importance of eyewitnesses rises in proportion to the "tracelessness" of the historical event. UFO's may just be that sort of phenomenon.
UFO's = traceless event? OK, I agree.
 
The map is not the territory. These physical events happened whether we had evidence for them or not. Reality is strange that way ya know?

That's true. As they say, science is science whether you believe in it or not. Leprechauns aren't real even if you do believe in them, ya know?

Physical events happened whether we had evidence for them or not but we don't know about them if there was no evidence.
 
Back
Top