They would all qualify as 'unknown objects in the room'. If we want to better understand what sort of unknown objects are in the room, it seems reasonable to begin by creating a descriptive typology of the room's contents.
Correct. The example is set up to show that the "most typical profile" of the objects in the room does not mean that all the objects in the room are the same phenomena. Similarly, with the amended example, that not all objects fitting the "most typical profile" are the same class of object.
In your own hypothetical example, we might begin by noting that the most common form observed in the room was 2 to 3 ft spheres. Then we could treat those as members of a class, the spherical objects. Perhaps upon additional investigation we might want to subdivide the class: perhaps some of the spheres are light and hollow, others heavy and solid.
Exactly. Until the point where we can get to confidently identify them.
What we can't do is frame things as you did and as you are probably correct in criticizing MR for arguably doing. We can't frame things terms of what they truly are (whether a single class of spherical aircraft or beach balls). We don't know what they are. All we know is how they appear, how they are reported. Our initial taxonomy will be in terms of that.
You misunderstand the way the example was set up: the example had nothing to do with the objects being unknown or not, only of analysing what can be inferred from "most typical profile". So your criticism of the framing of the example is fallacious, as you're comparing it to something it was not intended to do.
He's somebody who expresses views at variance with how our movement-"skeptics" demand that other people believe and behave. That's for sure. So predictably, he becomes a target for ad-hominem abuse.
No, he's become a target for those pointing out his non-science nonsense while happy to be promoted as a "famous scientist". One can only wonder what it is that makes him such a great theoretical physicist, yet happy to spew unscientific nonsense in his books aimed at the general populace. Oh, yeah, that's right: money and fame.
But more to the point, what kind of "wheelhouse", what kind of specialized expertise, would you suggest is necessary for expressing opinions on this subject? I can imagine that experience and skill in locating external objects from a maneuvering aircraft and accurately estimating their relative movements might be important. Which would leave us with Fravor and Graves, but exclude Joe Nickell and Mick West as being so far outside their wheelhouses to almost be embarrassing.
Anyone can express opinions. I have issue with unscientific opinions being expressed with the authority of "famous scientist", which only serves to convince people that the unscientific things he is saying are scientific.
That's ad hominem, Sarkus. But as long as we are going there, that's how the so-called "skeptical" movement appears to me. Michio has just as much right to express his opinions on the subject as the "skeptics" do. And (horrors!) somebody might find what he says valuable or even persuasive.
Of course everyone has the right to their opinion. But selling unscientific nonsense while selling it with the authority of "famous scientist" is a disturbing reminder of the pitfalls that
fame has, both on the individual and society as a whole. That's what my view of him is about, not the dogmatic skepticism you're trying to pin it on.
The difference between Michio and the "skeptics" is that he's just expressing his own opinions.
No, the difference is that he's expressing unscientific opinion with the authority of a "famous scientist", giving the impression to those that won't know any better that because he is a "famous scientist" that what he says - about something he's not an expert in - should be taken as being supported by science. He starts with the
a priori assumption that UAPs are extraterrestrial, taking the sensationalist approach. If he was serious why has he not written papers about it, proving, perhaps, that aliens exist, or that the UAPs are extraterrestrial? Because a paper will be read and judged by peers, perhaps? While a book such as his will not?
Whether you find them persuasive is up to you. The dogmatic aspect so obvious with the "skeptics" is absent. Michio isn't demanding that everyone else must agree with him, or risk being denounced as incapable of intelligent thought.
This has nothing to do with dogmatic skepticism. It has everything to do with an individual who really should know better. If his books actually went through the evidence in a scientific manner, if he stopped posting nonsense such as the burden of proof shifting, and he wrote a book that was actually scientific, then I'd have no problem with such a science book written by a "famous scientist". But he doesn't do that.
It's that note of (typically unjustified) intellectual authoritarianism that makes me dislike the "skeptics" so. Hence the phrase in the OP "dogmatic skepticism" seems to me to be entirely apt.
You're somehow taking a dislike I have of the way one scientist promotes himself and his otherwise unscientific nonsense, as an argument against dogmatic skepticism. Really?
