Once again, the claim has resurfaced that, during the 1950s and 60s, high-altitude CIA manned reconnaissance flights involving the U-2 and the later SR-71 were responsible for half of all UFO sightings.
 |
| The CIA's Lockheed U-2 spy plane |
This claim is now all over the internet, and treated in the usual uncritical manner.
CIA admits: All those UFO sightings in 1950s? 'It was us'
CIA: All Those 1950s UFO Sightings? 'It Was Us'
One thing this CIA UFO claim has accomplished: it has united UFO skeptics and proponents in proclaiming it untrue. We might agree on little else, except that this claim is nonsense.
The claim is contained in a report issued by the CIA, The CIA and the U2 Program, 1954-1974. The once-secret document was written back in 1998. In it (on PDF (not document) page 84-85),
"High-altitude testing of the U2 soon led to an unexpected side effect — a tremendous increase in reports of unidentified flying objects. In the mid-1950s, most commercial airliners flew at altitudes between 10,000 and 20,000 feet and military aircraft like the B47s and B57s operated at altitudes below 40,000 feet. Consequently, once U-2s started flying at altitudes above 60,000 feet, air-traffic controllers began receiving increasing numbers of UFO reports.”
Can that claim be substantiated? Nope.
Not only did the airline pilots report their sightings to air-traffic controllers, but they and ground-based observers also wrote letters to the Air Force unit at Wright Air Development Command in Dayton charged with investigating such phenomena. This, in turn, led to the Air Force’s Operation BLUE BOOK. Based at Wright-Patterson, the operation collected all reports of UFO sightings. Air Force investigators then attempted to explain such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena. BLUE BOOK investigators regularly called on the Agency’s Project Staff in Washington to check reported UFO sightings against U-2 flight logs. This enabled the investigators to eliminate the majority of the UFO reports, although they could not reveal to the letter writers the true cause of the UFO sightings. U-2 and later OXCART flights accounted for more than one-half of all UFO reports during the 1950s and 1960s.
Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS contacted Lt. Col. (Ret.) Robert Friend, who was the head of Blue Book from about 1958 to early 1963. If anyone should know about this, it is him. "Absolutely not true," he said.
Friend "found the whole idea laughable, and he knew Blue Book did not receive more reports from pilots and air traffic controllers after the U-2 began flying."
It may well be that a few UFO reports were caused by U-2 flights, but when Friend was asked by Rodeghier if he could recall even a single such case, he said, to his recollection, no. (Frankly, I can't think of one, either.)
"Once again, he chuckled about the idea of half of all UFO reports being caused by manned reconnaissance flights."
The U-2, with its 80 ft long by 6 ft wide (front to back) wingspan flew at 60-70,000 feet and at that altitude was essentially invisible during the day. It created no contrail because of the lack of moisture at that altitude. It was, after all, intended to be invisible! During the hour before sunrise and the hour following sunset it would be possible for an unpainted aircraft to reflect the sun enough to be visible, perhaps with a reddish glow resulting from the reddening of sunlight
Maccabee used the Richard Dolan press to issue a press release that was widely shared:
Maccabee is right about this. The Blue Book files are now public records, and anyone can verify when and where sightings were reported. The bottom line is: there is absolutely no correlation between the times and places of UFO reports, and U2 flights.
Back in August of 2013, Alejandro Rojas of Open Minds pointed out another problem in the CIA's claim about the U2 flights, which began in 1954: It says witnesses began to write letters to the Air Force, and “This, in turn, led to the Air Force’s Operation Blue Book.”
While it is most certain U-2 flights did lead to an increase in UFO reports [I would not even grant that - RS], this did not lead to the creation of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book. Project Blue Book was an official U.S. Air Force investigation of UFOs established in 1951, and was actually the third Air Force project to investigate UFO sightings. The first was Project Sign, set up in 1948, which then became Project Grudge in 1949, and finally Blue Book in 1951.
The CIA's claim that the U2 flights led to the creation of Project Blue Book is impossible, because Blue Book predates the U2 flights by several years. Other Air Force projects to investigate "flying saucer" sightings were created several years earlier still.
Why did the CIA make such an absurd claim? It's hard to say. Some see in this a sinister attempt at disinformation. I don't think that's the case, because if the CIA wanted to issue disinformation, it would have come up with a story that is not so transparently bogus as this. The footnote accompanying the "one-half" claim simply reads, "Information supplied by James Cunningham to [co-author] Donald E. Welzenbach." Who is James Cunningham? Under "Key Personnel" in Appendix B, we find:
In other words, a bureaucrat in the U-2 program. What does he know about the history of UFO reports, and UFO investigations? Nothing, it would seem, except for what he has made up. The world of UFOlogy is filled with Boasters who exaggerate (if not fabricate) events to make themselves seem important. The authors of the CIA report seem to have immortalized a groundless boast by a program bureaucrat, and turned it into one of those "facts" that practically everyone has heard, and practically everyone believes, but has no foundation in truth.James Cunningham, Jr. An ex-Marine Corps pilot, he became the administrative officer for the U-2 in April 1955. Cunningham handled the day-to-day management of the U-2 program and brought only the more complex problems to Richard Bissell's attention. Later he served as the Deputy Director of the Office of Special Activities and then Special Assistant to the Deputy Director for Science and Technology.
Healthy, uniform skepticism. Well done, sir.
ReplyDeleteWell said. I always thought the 'big flap' in the US was in 1952 anyway, long before any U-2 flights commenced.
ReplyDeleteAnd I suppose all those foreign UFO reports, from Europe, South America, Russia, etc are also due (i.e. in 50% of the cases) to these secret CIA aircraft. What a wonderful way to keep secrets - just fly your latest secret planes over other countries and cause umpteen thousands of UFO sightings. Maybe the Russians thought they had captured an ET when they shot down Gary Powers in May 1960!
We can sum up these authors' UFO ideas quite easily. They simply do not have a clue what they are talking about. UFOlogists certainly won't believe them, UFO skeptics won't believe them, and nobody has ever heard of them anyway.
This sort of garbage gives skepticism a bad name. But I seem to recall something along these lines was written before, some 15-20 years ago, by a CIA historian (Gerald Haines?). Perhaps these latest authors simply rehashed his original.
Curtis Peebles explains the "half" like this in "Shadow Flights: America's Secret Air War Against the Soviet Union", p.102 :
Delete---
The exact number of flying saucer sightings caused by U-2s is unknown. Many years later, Cunningham made an off-the-cuff comment: "Hell, they were half of them." This referred to the reports that Blue Book sent to the project staff as possible U-2 sightings rather than the more than 13,000 total sightings reported.
---
This interpretation reduces considerably the number of relevant sightings, maybe just a few. No idea if this is correct, since there is no confirmation by anyone.
It was Gerald K. Haines who first revealed that "According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States." in his article "CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90 : A Die-Hard Issue" (published in Studies In Intelligence Vol. 01 No. 1, 1997, unclassified edition)
DeletePeople use words like 'half' so easily, we shouldn't let it bother us.
ReplyDeleteBut let's be honest, Robert, it takes little more than a light in the sky to create a UFO report which can easily be followed, as history has shown, by a mass of them.
All this CIA admission is, to me, is another possibility which is at this stage more believable than visiting alien spacecraft, which is still seriously wanting for good evidence.
All the best,
Woody
"People use words like 'half' so easily"
DeleteYou've half got it, Woody! Speakers use "half" hyperbolically. And that's what Cunningham was probably doing in his conversation with Welzenbach in 1983. When he said "Hell, they were half of them," he was referring only to a small number of reports that BB investigators flagged for the CIA as "possible" U-2 sightings.
Then Welzenbach imaginatively or uncritically turned Cunningham's off-the cuff comment about a few reports into the "more than one-half of all UFO reports" absurd factoid in 1992. Then Haines repeated it and the media reported it as a CIA admission—a fact. But anyone who knows the subject knows that it's preposterous.
Welzenbach taped the conversation, and he is living. Someone should ask him for a copy of the tape and his recollections of how he manufactured this vacuous factoid.
And his "High-altitude testing of the U-2 soon led to an unexpected side effect—a tremendous increase in reports of unidentified flying objects (UFOs)" factoid is equally ridiculous since a few reports over two decades is hardly "tremendous."
Only in the rarified atmosphere of the CIA's ivory tower could one be oblivious to the obvious reality that the thousands of common "UFO" reports made over those two decades did not in any respect conform to the circumstances of "pilot reports UFO."
And another obvious problem with all of this "most UFO reports were spyplanes" nonsense is that, even though some U-2 and SR-71 flights certainly crossed the continental US, they flew out of a very few bases in the US, Europe and Japan, gained great altitude very quickly, and flew north to the Soviet Bloc and China. Who would see a relatively small high-speed aircraft operating at the edge of the stratosphere during most of its flight over the Pacific, Siberia, and Eastern Europe?
Those certainly were not "UFO" hotspots during those decades. And I think that the vast majority of "UFO" reports were made in populated areas of the US and were of the "ambiguous wandering lights" description—not "pilot reports UFO."
If Welzenbach had thought for even a moment, he would have realized that his two paragraphs (in an entire book) on U-2s as "UFOs" were complete rubbish. It's as if someone's misconceptions—a pet theory of the period's "UFO" hysteria after the fact—was suggested to Welzenbach and he merely repeated it. Back to Cunningham.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB434/
"The authors of the CIA report seem to have immortalized a groundless boast by a program bureaucrat, and turned it into one of those "facts" that practically everyone has heard, and practically everyone believes, but has no foundation in truth."
ReplyDeleteExactly, the definition of myth.
All true, but what about the upshot in UFO sightings when the B-1 bomber was being tested?
ReplyDeleteDo you care to cite any of those test flights that coincide with UFO reports?
DeleteOf course, strange yet unseen flying craft will cause some people to report their sightings. UFO's can be anything that is yet unidentifiable. Naturally, all sorts of exotic and strange phenomenon fit into this category too
DeleteUFO proponents don't care about the reports which can be explained - they care about the 5% which cannot be explained. Yet the pseudo-skeptics of this forum occupy their time by perpetuating the false narrative that all UFO reports are explainable, and the 5% is merely a group of reports characterized by insufficient information, which is total BS
@Mark
Delete> the pseudo-skeptics of this forum occupy their time by perpetuating the false narrative that all UFO reports are explainable
Name that pseudo-skeptic!
"unseen flying craft will cause some people to report their sightings."
Delete"unseen...cause...sightings" Is this a riddle, Batman?
"UFO's can be anything that is yet unidentifiable. Naturally, all sorts of exotic and strange phenomenon fit into this category too"
So a "UFO" is any "U." Nice. And "strange phenomenon" [sic] are "UFOs" too. How does a "U" become a "phenomenon?"
Consult a dictionary, Mark, you might learn to use the proper definitions of words--and the logic of language too--instead of the fundamentally absurd gibberish of the "UFO" subculture.
"UFO proponents...care about the 5% which cannot be explained"
What makes that 5% statistical residue any different from the 95% for you? Only misconception and credulous belief.
Apealling to a statistical residue is fallacious because nothing can be said about the residue except "unexplained." A statistical residue cannot be a thing; that's the reification fallacy. A negative "unexplained" cannot be a positive identity.
And if one selects a single case from the 5% to examine then it's no longer part of the unexplained residue, it's simply a report from which no conclusion can be drawn--it's just another inconsequential story like a million other "UFO" reports.
Are the best "UFO" reports part of the 5%? No! The 5% is the credulous believers' worthless red herring. And the "great 'unexplained' reports" exist only in fairy-tale land of long ago and faraway.
Show otherwise, Mark! Show us a great "unexplained" report.
"So a "UFO" is any "U." Nice. And "strange phenomenon" [sic] are "UFOs" too. How does a "U" become a "phenomenon?""
DeleteLet's not be deliberately difficult, Zoamchomsky. The most well known UFO sightings are often well known because they're also well documented. This means that researchers or witnesses are able to use the information available to deduce rational meaning from the experience. So despite the typical UFO report being centred around an object which is itself unidentifiable in its nature and origin, the circumstances of the encounter are an equally valuable part of the process from which real answers are taken.
Lets take, for example, the research of Robert Hastings. He claims to have personally probed the first hand accounts of nuclear weapons base officers culminating in 140 first hand accounts. It's important to note that there is a common, practically identical theme reappearing within the accounts provided to Hastings - "Glowing balls of light" which intrude upon military airspace, silently hovering above security personnel at close range for extended periods. The kicker; nuclear weapons are reported to "go offline" during each of these encounters. No witness has ever been able to identify the nature or origin of these 'massive balls of light'. But they have managed to document enough observational, audible, sensory and computational data from each encounter that researchers can now recognize a new report as either entirely unrelated or likely a reaccurance of an older report. Again, this is not because witnesses were able to identify the object. This Is because circumstances in and of the event lend themselves to be used as data which can and often do speak volumes about the object itself. So much so that diligent and truly skeptical researchers are able to form hypotheses to begin on a path to a conclusion, specific to the nature and origin of the object, whatever that conclusion may be. This is the scientific process.
So despite Zoamchomsky's pathetic attempt to dismiss all UFO reports as containing no useful data via the abuse of the term 'unidentified'. Once again, it has been demonstrated that the facts of the UFO phenomenon simply do not agree with the cynical disposition of pseudo-skeptical Bishops like Zoamchomsky and others
"What makes that 5% statistical residue any different from the 95% for you? Only misconception and credulous belief"
DeleteIncorrect. Refer to the comments above
"Apealling to a statistical residue is fallacious because nothing can be said about the residue except "unexplained." A statistical residue cannot be a thing; that's the reification fallacy. A negative "unexplained" cannot be a positive identity."
Zoamchomsky has boarded his very own BS roller coaster and gone for a ride with his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed!
'Statistical residue' is a BS phrase which in no way corresponds to any of the data made available from the best cases. It Is a self-perpetuating, self-glorifying tool of ignorance which grandstands an ontology for all pseudo-skeptics of the UFO phenomenon to exist in denial of a persistent but genuine real-world mystery.
"And if one selects a single case from the 5% to examine then it's no longer part of the unexplained residue, it's simply a report from which no conclusion can be drawn--it's just another inconsequential story like a million other "UFO" reports.
A hypothesis does not immediately require a definite conclusion to qualify as a legitimate scientific hypothesis. The statement quoted above is an irrelevant BS concept designed by Zoamchomsky to assist him in his fallacious crusade against real research into a subject he dismisses. Its just another technical play on words with no real application from Zoamchomsky.
"Are the best "UFO" reports part of the 5%? No! The 5% is the credulous believers' worthless red herring. And the "great 'unexplained' reports" exist only in fairy-tale land of long ago and faraway."
This statement is delusional and utterly misguided. It holds no relation to the data of the best cases. At best, it is a philosophy of denial - it hardly even qualifies as a theory. I refer to my first comment.
"Show otherwise, Mark! Show us a great "unexplained" report."
The belief that the UFO phenomenon represents nothing but fantasy is not a neutral position. It is a subjective argument atop a negative hypothesis. If any of the pseudo-skeptics prowling this forum want me to present evidence for any hypothesis, they'll first need to present the evidence to support their negative hypothesis. Either that, or they can admit to themselves and this forum that the cynical perspective they take on the UFO phenomenon is built on little more that a prejudicial belief system, which seeks not to find new truths but uphold the status quo on the subject of UFO's. In principle their philosophy relies on many of the same fallacies that proponents of Gnostic philosophy rely; they cannot see that their prerogatives are servient to a belief, a belief for which they have no proof.
This belief is, of course, the negative hypothesis: under no circumstances can there be any reality to the UFO phenomenon.
So, Mark, you would demand that we disprove a negative?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteProof of impossibility is a big ask, however, so is irrefutable proof of a positive hypothesis... It is simply a fact of this debate that cynics of the 'UFO reality' have captured the right to commit fallacy and denied it to the UFO proponents. So I intend on holding them to account - there will be no double standards.
DeleteThe pseudo-skeptics here have asserted the falsehood of the 'UFO reality' as a positive claim, this shifts the burden of proof from the 'UFO proponent' to the pseudo-skeptic asserting it's falsehood via a negative hypothesis
It's pretty simple, really. I am calling them to get to the heart of their interpretation to ensure we avoid fallacy and hypocrisy.
For example:
If a skeptic of the UFO phenomenon were to state: "I do not believe that X is true" This would be a neutral position absent of a claim and without the burden of proof. This is the position of a true skeptic, a true scientist
However, what we are faced with is the claim of a negative hypothesis from pseudo-skeptics arriving from a disposition, or a predetermined conclusion. I.e. "I believe that X is false"
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. That's science guys, if you don't like it then admit it. Do not falsely claim the benefit of scientific virtue.
As stated in my previous posts, I feel that I have clearly demonstrated that cynicism and Gnostic principles are masquerading as true skepticism throughout the debate on the UFO phenomenon. The aggressive denialists in Mr Sheaffer, Zoamchomsky and others practice very poor science, in that they continue to use negative hypotheses to refute positive claims, but they often do so without a shred of evidence to discount the positive claims. More often then not, they offer a vague but extraordinary theory as an alternative explanation to the positive claim, all the while ignoring the need for evidence to support their negative hypothesis. Aside from this, I can paraphrase Zoamchomsky many times over to show that he holds no secrets in admitting he believes that under no circumstances is there any truth to the UFO reality. Irrespective of whether he believes the evidence supports this hypothesis, the reality is it does not. If he can, in fact, prove such a hypothesis, he has certainly waited too long to present it to the world. We are, therefore, left no choice other than to point out the inescapable conclusion that pseudo-skepticism is a practice for many, as are the principles of a belief system in play.
You are not skeptics, you do not represent true science, you are by definition, priests.
As expected we have over a dozen amusing one-note paragraphs of raw-inspired philosophistry, "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy and ad hominem from Mark--but not one great "unexplained" report. He only mentions Robert Hastings, who wasn't even there for the 1967 Malmstrom non-event or has any relevant experience that we know.
DeleteMark, you're just another example of a credulous believer in the "UFO" myth who simply ignores veracious explanations. That's why we call it "ufoolery." It's all utterly inconsequential mass-media perpetuated noise--a delusion.
http://badufos.blogspot.com/2014/01/discovery-canadas-close-encounters-mars.html
Zoamchomsky, perhaps you're confused as to the intent of my last few posts. I'm not trying to argue the case for the 'UFO reality'. I am simply demonstrating, factually, the logical error and hypocrisy of your beliefs, theories, assertions and your character.
DeleteIf I am incorrect in anyway RE the hypocrisy and double standards, please paraphrase the section you disagree with and explain why. Otherwise accept that you and others are guilty of all and more of the logical fallacies I listed above
All of this serves to do nothing other than prove that you're not a skeptic - you are pseudo-skeptic pretender, who's own arrogant delusions exclude him from the kind of open minded research that is required of a real skeptic. It's all layed out for you and others.
Just for the heck of it-
DeleteSkeptic: "a person inclined to doubt all accepted opinions; a cynic."
Skepticism: "a skeptical attitude in relation to ideas...;doubting or critical disposition."
Quoted from the OED
B-1, B-2, whatever. Here's a link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1163909/Were-UFO-sightings-US-Air-Force-testing-secret-stealth-bomber.html
ReplyDeleteThe U-2 was flying at such a great height that few people could "see" it! However, many have mistaken the B-1, B-2, and F-117 aircraft for UFOs. I'm not sure about the F-135; I know that this vehicle can take off and land vertically; I'm not sure if it can hover quietly in a stealthy fashion--if it can, that could be the source of some UFO sightings.
DeleteMark McFarlane: "Lets take, for example, the research of Robert Hastings."
ReplyDeleteHastings is a mere collector of stories. Quite a few of his 140 sources are anonymous, so their stories are difficult to verify. Plus Hastings admits that his work is anecdotal by nature. Most of the stories fall short when looked at closely where the principals involved received information from unknown second and third hand sources. Makes it rather "convenient" don't you think?
Hastings has no doubt met more than his fair share of attention seeking story tellers. Not including the endless list of well meaning folk who have useless second and third hand info to offer up. It's Hastings priority to ensure he can separate the good from the bad, not mine. I merely judge his work once he presents it. Those facts aside, Hastings does appear to present at least two separate incidents, both equally well documented and both provided via first hand accounts that are, according to Hastings, verifiable.
DeleteSo it's hardly convenient to have to sort the genuine from the BS, Tim. You may find it surprising that genuinely curious people will never waste their time concerning themselves with the "information from unknown second and third hand sources". Who cares about the BS, Tim? Where does that get you? If you had any honest want to dissect Hastings work, the most well known and best established cases would surely be your preferred starting point?
But, no. As usual we see more of the same effort to discredit, minimalize and ignore. Though, I bet that's rather convenient for you, Tim?
Mark, I've spent a better part of 5 years dissecting Hastings' well known cases. My efforts have been available for anyone to review. Some like it, some don't...
ReplyDeleteSo with that said Mark, are you calling me "dishonest?" That's what I read from your reply...
We all have opinions, but I guess your's trumps all as you seem to be a vessel of vast knowledge that's hidden from the rest of the unwashed. That's rather a vain and narcissistic attitude to take. Nothing like egocentric thought processes to help foster "honest" debate.
Didn't mean to call you dishonest. After all, you do honestly believe in the conclusions of your work. I respect that.
DeleteI don't have any knowledge other than that which is available to most other people with use of the Internet. Where we differ is in what we choose to hold as realistic or unrealistic, likely or unlikely. That is it. None of us are discussing an encounter of our own, so we're left with the calculation of foreign judgment.
To be clear with you, Tim, I don't particularly believe any of these people. I generally distrust other people, and hold a particular distrust to nearly everyone inside the 'believer's' camp - there are so many crackpots out there that one must be thoroughly skeptical of even the most mundane stories. That being said, my judgment is that I feel as though there maybe some truth within this shlt-storm of a mystery. That's my personal judgment. But in no way am I predisposed to a conclusion either way.. I'm more than happy to see a case debunked, that is a win for humanity
Forgive me here, Tim, but I've never see you even consider that the UFO phenomenon could be representative of a real worldly phenomenon. You seem to project an objectivity of ideology on this subject, but I'm yet to see that demonstrated. You may argue that the evidence thus far hasn't led you towards that hypothesis, but I'll suggest that, perhaps, you're just full of shlt, like Zoamchomsky?
This is particularly amusing: "Zoamchomsky...holds no secrets in admitting he believes that under no circumstances is there any truth to the UFO reality."
ReplyDeleteOh, geez, I've been outed! So I'll admit: There is no "UFO" reality; there is no undiscovered "phenomenon." There never were any saucers, there aren't any REAL "UFOs" of any kind and there never were. What a load off my mind!
What will my NSA handlers think? I may lose my SR-71 and my parking space at Area 51. That would hurt!
I just confirmed via email my parking upgrade at Area 51.
DeleteSkeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.
DeleteAnd here we have none other than the holy man extraordinaire, Zoamchomsky:
"Oh, geez, I've been outed! So I'll admit: There is no "UFO" reality; there is no undiscovered "phenomenon." There never were any saucers, there aren't any REAL "UFOs" of any kind and there never were. What a load off my mind!"
It is literally inescapable; Zoamchomsky is a man who believes in something he cannot prove. He is passionate, defensive and will go to desperate lengths to reduce all proper debate to a marginal rhetoric of cynical denialism in order to protect his fundamental beliefs
The inquisition lol? Nope, it's just another old and cranky egotistical debunker, whose sole imperative has become the blind protection of a faith
The definition of "ufool" is repeating the same worthless rhetorical diversions and expecting different results. [g]
Delete"One who practices the method of suspended judgment...."
Sorry, Mark, that's "UFO" believer Bernie Haisch's "model agnostic" inspired definition of the "true skeptic" who practices "Principled skepticism." It might sound good but is lacking the fundamental sense of all skepticism--which is to question, to doubt! It's just an excuse to believe anything one wants to believe, however fantastic or nonsensical, that falsely postures itself as "skepticism."
Scientific skepticism's first principle is to doubt extraordinary claims--particularly claims of the so-called paranormal and the failed hypotheses of pseudosciences.
That's the Null hypothesis of the scientific method in practice. The scientific-realist world reasonably doubts extraordinary claims until doubt is removed and they are shown to be true.
So falsify the Null hypothesis, show that there are physical "UFOs" in the world, a real phenomenon--not just the same catalogue of ambiguous, insubstantial, utterly inconsequential--and repeatedly debunked--reports.
Redefining words to create a straw-man and attacking it, fallaciously assuming there is a physical phenomenon, a "UFO reality," and ignoring the fact that most if not all reports have been explained repeatedly, are the worthless exercises of ufools, Mark. That's all you, Haisch, Kean, and all credulous believers have got.
I need not redefine anything, Zoamchomsky. Meanings provided by a standard dictionary work perfectly well within my ontology
DeleteHowever, perhaps you could use a refresher? You're confusing 'doubt' with 'belief'. Yes, you are correct- skeptics 'doubt', they do not 'believe'. But here's the kicker; you yourself do not doubt - you categorically believe that there is no truth to a 'UFO reality'. This is a negative hypothesis. A negative hypothesis for which you have no proof. One may argue that proving a negative isn't reasonable, and I agree. This is why we are provided with the platform of skepticism. It allows us to target our doubt appropriate to our judgment of the evidence, without having to form conclusions- without having to become unscientific.
Your judgment of the evidence as a skeptic would see you doubt a 'UFO reality'
Your judgment of the evidence as a pseudo-skeptic would see you categorically believe that there is no truth to a 'UFO reality'
So again, you're falsy accusing me of creating a strawman to target my arguments, when in truth you have created your own little strawman, to hide behind.
"Scientific skepticism's first principle is to doubt extraordinary claims--particularly claims of the so-called paranormal and the failed hypotheses of pseudosciences"
DeleteYes, doubt. Not believe or disbelieve. Doubt. Are you getting the picture yet?
"That's the Null hypothesis of the scientific method in practice. The scientific-realist world reasonably doubts extraordinary claims until doubt is removed and they are shown to be true."
Yes, we doubt. Unfortunately, scientific realism requires patients and more often than not, the men who work their entire lives to reveal a truth are not the same men who have the fortune of finally revealing that truth. So there is misfortune in the absence of proof, but this shouldn't implore you to abandon fundamental skepticism. Your job a 'scientist' is to be an obedient servant to available knowledge- not assume the right to a virtue not yet supported by evidence. This would be hypocritical and unscientific, Zoamchomsky.
"Redefining words to create a straw-man and attacking it, fallaciously assuming there is a physical phenomenon, a "UFO reality," and ignoring the fact that most if not all reports have been explained repeatedly, are the worthless exercises of ufools, Mark. That's all you, Haisch, Kean, and all credulous believers have got."
You pretend that the evidence proves there is 'nothing' to the reports- this is one point of view. Haisch, Kean and others seem to believe that the evidence proves there is 'something' to the reports- this is another point of view
Anyone who claims to know the real truth about 'UFO's' is, in my view, being untruthful in the most fundamental way. I don't mean to say that they're lying through their teeth, I mean to say that they, perhaps, are lying to themselves and then expressing that lie once more
Enjoy your life of cynical denialism, Zoamchomsky, because it's all you have when you forfeit a scientific position on this issue
I would like Mark McFarlane to explain what he means with 'UFO reality'. In his posts this 'reality' is so vague and undefined, that any discussion is pointless.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Robert Hastings has not exactly impressed people: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-78952.html
UFO reality:
Delete1. A reality which includes the existence of arial and submerged phenomenon as reported throughout history- and one exhibits behaviours of apparently supernatural qualities
2. The 'UFO reality' does not intimate that any or all of the reported phenomenon are either material or immaterial in nature. The 'UFO reality' is a term which represents the spectrum of possibility reflected within the human imagination, and also the spectrum outside of human imagination
To paraphrase:
DeleteMight be real. Might not. Might be imaginary.
Vagueness raised to an art form.
The modern (ie Kenneth Arnold era) "flying saucer" was around seven years old by the time that the U2 first flew, and ten by the time that the U2 entered into service. Too late for the 1947 or 1952 flaps. Just sayin'
ReplyDeleteMark McFarlane (January 20, 2015 at 5:56 AM)
ReplyDeleteUFO reality:
1. A reality which includes the existence of arial and submerged phenomenon as reported throughout history- and one exhibits behaviours of apparently supernatural qualities
Do you mean something like misidentified aircrafts, misidentified satellite, rocket and booster reentries, misidentified satellites and moons, misidentified chinese lanterns, misidentified flock of birds, misidentified reflections, misidentified out-of-focus birds and insects?
Who is questioning that these do not happen?
Or maybe you mean something different? Please, be more clear and specific.
Mark McFarlane (January 20, 2015 at 5:56 AM)
2. The 'UFO reality' does not intimate that any or all of the reported phenomenon are either material or immaterial in nature. The 'UFO reality' is a term which represents the spectrum of possibility reflected within the human imagination, and also the spectrum outside of human imagination
So, everything and anything and their dogs under the label "UFO"?
Sorry, but this is so vague to be meaningless.
Can you be more specific about this "UFO reality" you are talking about?
What do you think is "real" in the UFO phenomenon?
"Do you mean something like misidentified aircrafts, misidentified satellite, rocket and booster reentries, misidentified satellites and moons, misidentified chinese lanterns, misidentified flock of birds, misidentified reflections, misidentified out-of-focus birds and insects?
DeleteWho is questioning that these do not happen?"
Well I will answer by saying that IF 'real UFO's' exist, then any such 'UFO reality' will not include any objects of misidentification.
"Or maybe you mean something different? Please, be more clear and specific."
I can't be specific because I have no idea. Other then to say that I feel that, maybe, UFO reports could be caused by something other than the conventional explanations offered up by skeptics. Whatever that may be, I'm not going to waste my time speculating, we're all aware of the most popular theories.
But I'm sure it's comfortable and reassuring knowing that all reports are at their core merely a collection of misidentified known phenomenon and confabulation, am I right?
"Mark McFarlane (January 20, 2015 at 5:56 AM)
2. The 'UFO reality' does not intimate that any or all of the reported phenomenon are either material or immaterial in nature. The 'UFO reality' is a term which represents the spectrum of possibility reflected within the human imagination, and also the spectrum outside of human imagination
So, everything and anything and their dogs under the label "UFO"?
Sorry, but this is so vague to be meaningless.
Can you be more specific about this "UFO reality" you are talking about?
What do you think is "real" in the UFO phenomenon?
Well let's not be ridiculous. The doctrine of scientific-realism directs us to use available knowledge to give balance and perspective when weighing up new ideas. To suggest that UFO reports are caused by "dogs" is a utterly foolish thing to write. And it is a perfect example of how deliberately difficult and malicious pseudo-skeptics become when trying to protect their beloved beliefs
All I can say is that the available knowledge of good science lays out a stage for which all UFO reports can be entertained as being non - conventional in origin. For example. We have The Fermi Paradox. The Incommensurability theorem. These two theories are based on hundreds of years of empirical evidence. As it happens, they also give credence to the ET hypothesis, as do so many other fields of science. Point being; the ET hypothesis is one of many hypotheses which may be the cause or causes of UFO reports
So although I may never conclusively know the true cause(s) of the reports, I will use scientific knowledge available to bring balance and perspective to my speculations, because this is how science is performed. I will not spend time on totally unsubstantiated and nonsensical ideas of spaghetti monsters
So to actually answer your question, my speculations are limited by the scope of reasonable theories already in existence- I don't limit myself to any single or few hypothesis, though, I do feel that some hypothesis are stronger than others I.e. The ET hypothesis
One hypothesis that I am also completely open to is that of conventional explanation. I have no issue with the entire 'mystery' being nothing more that misidentification and confabulation, in fact, to be honest it seems to me like the most probable explanation. But unlike you, Zoamchomsky or another faithful denialist fool, I'm open to consider all that the world has to offer
p. (January 20, 2015 at 11:59 PM):
Delete[1. A reality which includes the existence of arial and submerged phenomenon as reported throughout history- and one exhibits behaviours of apparently supernatural qualities]
"Do you mean something like misidentified aircrafts, misidentified satellite, rocket and booster reentries, misidentified satellites and moons, misidentified chinese lanterns, misidentified flock of birds, misidentified reflections, misidentified out-of-focus birds and insects?
Who is questioning that these do not happen?"
Mark McFarlane (January 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM):
Well I will answer by saying that IF 'real UFO's' exist, then any such 'UFO reality' will not include any objects of misidentification.
Sorry, but this is just the same as the "god-of-the-gaps" rubbish creationists use.
How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from mundane, but as yet unidentified causes?
And what happens if there is not enough information to reach a conclusion in case: are you going to label it "real UFO"?
p. (January 20, 2015 at 11:59 PM):
"Or maybe you mean something different? Please, be more clear and specific."
Mark McFarlane (January 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM):
I can't be specific because I have no idea. Other then to say that I feel that, maybe, UFO reports could be caused by something other than the conventional explanations offered up by skeptics. Whatever that may be, I'm not going to waste my time speculating, we're all aware of the most popular theories.
I don't want to hear about the "most popular theories". I don't want to guess what you are thinking. I want you to explain clearly and without ambiguity what you mean with "real UFOs".
If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, then you should put some effort into the discussion.
Mark McFarlane (January 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM):
But I'm sure it's comfortable and reassuring knowing that all reports are at their core merely a collection of misidentified known phenomenon and confabulation, am I right?
For somebody who doesn't actually contribute anything to further our understanding of this phenomenon, but lets other people do all the hard work, your condescending attitude is very inappropriate.
You blow a lot of hot air about "there might be something out here..." and then pat yourself on the back for being "open-minded", while in reality you are not doing any actual work to improve our knowledge about this phenomenon.
p. (January 20, 2015 at 11:59 PM):
Delete[2. The 'UFO reality' does not intimate that any or all of the reported phenomenon are either material or immaterial in nature. The 'UFO reality' is a term which represents the spectrum of possibility reflected within the human imagination, and also the spectrum outside of human imagination]
"So, everything and anything and their dogs under the label "UFO"?
Sorry, but this is so vague to be meaningless.
Can you be more specific about this "UFO reality" you are talking about?
What do you think is "real" in the UFO phenomenon?"
Mark McFarlane (January 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM):
Well let's not be ridiculous. The doctrine of scientific-realism directs us to use available knowledge to give balance and perspective when weighing up new ideas. To suggest that UFO reports are caused by "dogs" is a utterly foolish thing to write. And it is a perfect example of how deliberately difficult and malicious pseudo-skeptics become when trying to protect their beloved beliefs
Please, don't pretend to be an idiot and address the actual point I made.
Your second "explanation" includes everything imaginable and, apparently, unimaginable. So, it completely evades my question and shows you utter laziness.
Mark McFarlane (January 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM):
All I can say is that the available knowledge of good science lays out a stage for which all UFO reports can be entertained as being non - conventional in origin.
Really? All reports?
Even those, whose mundane cause has been identified?
Good science shows how unreliable witness reports can be. Are you taking this also into account?
Mark McFarlane (January 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM):
For example. We have The Fermi Paradox. The Incommensurability theorem. These two theories are based on hundreds of years of empirical evidence. As it happens, they also give credence to the ET hypothesis, as do so many other fields of science. Point being; the ET hypothesis is one of many hypotheses which may be the cause or causes of UFO reports
Stop blowing hot air like an amateur philosopher and answer my questions.
Mark McFarlane (January 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM):
So although I may never conclusively know the true cause(s) of the reports, I will use scientific knowledge available to bring balance and perspective to my speculations, because this is how science is performed. I will not spend time on totally unsubstantiated and nonsensical ideas of spaghetti monsters
You said above: "The 'UFO reality' is a term which represents the spectrum of possibility reflected within the human imagination, and also the spectrum outside of human imagination"
The flying spaghetti monster is reflected within the human imagination: why are you rejecting this particular hypothesis?
Mark McFarlane (January 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM):
So to actually answer your question, my speculations are limited by the scope of reasonable theories already in existence- I don't limit myself to any single or few hypothesis, though, I do feel that some hypothesis are stronger than others I.e. The ET hypothesis
So, you will remain vague and ambiguous to avoid being pinned down.
How is that any different from a newspaper astrologist or your average crackpot?
Mark McFarlane (January 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM):
One hypothesis that I am also completely open to is that of conventional explanation. I have no issue with the entire 'mystery' being nothing more that misidentification and confabulation, in fact, to be honest it seems to me like the most probable explanation. But unlike you, Zoamchomsky or another faithful denialist fool, I'm open to consider all that the world has to offer
When you are finished patting yourself on the back, you can actually answer my questions:
Can you be more specific about this "UFO reality" you are talking about?
What do you think is "real" in the UFO phenomenon?
"Can you be more specific about this "UFO reality" you are talking about?"
DeleteWhen I write 'UFO reality', I am not asserting a positive claim of a UFO reality, neither am I referring to any particular hypothesis. I am proposing a hypothetical 'UFO reality' which, for arguments sake, includes the hypotheses relating to the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence within the lore of the UFO phenomenon. If you so desire that I nominate a particular hypothesis for clarification - consider the ET hypothesis nominated
"What do you think is "real" in the UFO phenomenon? "
What do I suspect may be real? Or what do I believe is real? I don't believe in anything more than has been empirically proven. If you and I were to write a grand list of everything we believed in a factual sense, in my opinion, there would be little difference between the two. To answer my own question, for you: what do I suspect may be real? Well, of course, I suspect that, perhaps, the ET hypothesis (among other considered hypotheses) is a valid explanation for the UFO phenomenon. Can I prove this? No. Can I disprove it? No. What is important is that I believe that my position as a 'proponent' is supported by the available evidence, as it is my judgment of the evidence which guides me to suspect that a conclusion in favour of a positive claim, is probable. So the only thing that I think is real, Papageno, is the liklihood of finding resolution in this issue. And it is my opinion that the broad range of available evidence does not justify the kind of outright denialism that is offered to us by the opponents of this issue. I hope my position is clear; I don't believe in any one or any group of positive claims, neither am I predisposed to oppose any negative position, I'm merely of the judgement that the evidence seems to suggests that, perhaps, the ET hypothesis may be a valid explanation for the UFO phenomenon. So here I am presenting my interpretation of this issue
"Really? All reports?
Even those, whose mundane cause has been identified?"
Of course not. The reference to a hypothetical "UFO reality" precludes all reports which are explainable and identifiable as being mundane in nature/origin. Unfortunately, that statement drags us into the polarized debate of what qualifies as having been identified or explained and we are left with the same old terms of disagreement. Which leads us to your next two questions
"Good science shows how unreliable witness reports can be. Are you taking this also into account?"
ReplyDeleteDefinitely, I agree completely. But I feel as though you, and many others, are stretching this problem too far. It seems that you apply this to every case, and to such an exaggerated extent the witness reports are rendered Invalid, irrespective of the actual events which took place. Almost as if you feel that IF there is room for error, the correct procedure is to proceed as though error was made to the fullest extent. To me this is fallacious and inconsiderate of the various factors which play Into the entirety of the reports. For example. We often see that clear visual reports are made by more than one witness, from independent vantage points, while the sighting is also verified by other measurements, be they radar or other empirical means of data collection. Aside from this, there are two types of observation; interpretative and objective. An interpretative observation is made when a witness attempts to define the subject e.g. speculate as to the nature or origin of the subject. While objective observation is simply the regurgitation of visual memory in simple terms e.g. I saw a bright blue light which appeared above me, I suddenly felt heat on my head and heard humming in my ears, all the while my immediate environment became illuminated in the dark of night for a brief period which coincided with the appearance of the object. This lasted for 5 minutes, the object then moved away from me towards the horizon and disappeared behind the distant mountains in under a second. The objects absence coincided with the absence of light, sound etc etc.
The facts are that a lot of reports are written in these 'objective' terms. I accept that none of the anecdotal evidence is considered as holding truly objective value In a scientific sense, but we cannot discount the immense wealth of information contained within such a report. Notwithstanding the fact that there exists an entire history of UFO reports which mirror this hypothetical example, in its description and in its usable data.
Can you see how observational error is often found within the speculation of attempting interpretative observation? While an holistic, factual recount of sensory experience can yield a far more useful and data comparative report? I'm not saying that most witness reports allow for this type of recount, most do not. But some do, and unfortunately the negative hypothesis of 'witness error' cannot sensibly be applied to all witness reports, as you so ignorantly claim
"How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from mundane, but as yet unidentified causes?"
By considering each individual report on its merits, without the predetermined cynicism of debunkers and without the foolish gullibility of typical UFO believers. Not sure how else I can answer that question, mate.
"And what happens if there is not enough information to reach a conclusion in case: are you going to label it "real UFO"?"
I'll first need to decide for myself whether or not there is enough information available to reach a conclusion. But, of course, If we can agree there is insufficient information on which to draw a conclusion, naturally I won't be labeling anything.
p.: "Can you be more specific about this "UFO reality" you are talking about?"
ReplyDeleteMark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM):
When I write 'UFO reality', I am not asserting a positive claim of a UFO reality, neither am I referring to any particular hypothesis. I am proposing a hypothetical 'UFO reality' which, for arguments sake, includes the hypotheses relating to the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence within the lore of the UFO phenomenon. If you so desire that I nominate a particular hypothesis for clarification - consider the ET hypothesis nominated
I already addressed this: you are espousing the "ufo-of-the-gaps" hogwash, that creationists use.
That is why I asked you these questions:
- How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from mundane, but as yet unidentified causes?
- And what happens if there is not enough information to reach a conclusion in case: are you going to label it "real UFO"?
- The flying spaghetti monster is reflected within the human imagination: why are you rejecting this particular hypothesis?
What are your criteria to choose the ET hypothesis above all other hypotheses, including the flying spaghetti monster, pink unicorns and Santa Clause? After all, none of these has any evidence in support of their existence.
And no, UFO reports whose cause has not been identified are not evidence for any of these, because these hypotheses are supposed to explain those very same UFO reports. That would be circular reasoning (" 'Real' UFOs are caused by ETs. " " ETs exist because there are 'real' UFOs. "; or, " Why are you burning her? Because she is a witch. " " How do you know she is a witch? Because we are burning her. " ).
p.: "What do you think is "real" in the UFO phenomenon? "
ReplyDeleteMark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM):
What do I suspect may be real? Or what do I believe is real? I don't believe in anything more than has been empirically proven. If you and I were to write a grand list of everything we believed in a factual sense, in my opinion, there would be little difference between the two. To answer my own question, for you: what do I suspect may be real? Well, of course, I suspect that, perhaps, the ET hypothesis (among other considered hypotheses) is a valid explanation for the UFO phenomenon. Can I prove this? No. Can I disprove it? No.
Why do you think it is a valid explanation?
For which UFO reports do you think it is a valid explanation?
What specific properties do these ETs have, that make them a valid explanation for such UFO reports, as opposed to other hypotheses?
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM):
What is important is that I believe that my position as a 'proponent' is supported by the available evidence, as it is my judgment of the evidence which guides me to suspect that a conclusion in favour of a positive claim, is probable. So the only thing that I think is real, Papageno, is the liklihood of finding resolution in this issue. And it is my opinion that the broad range of available evidence does not justify the kind of outright denialism that is offered to us by the opponents of this issue.
What specific evidence supports the ET hypothesis and how does it support it, instead of other hypotheses?
What facts or evidence are denied by "opponents" of this issue? What are these "opponents" opposing to?
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM):
I hope my position is clear; I don't believe in any one or any group of positive claims, neither am I predisposed to oppose any negative position, I'm merely of the judgement that the evidence seems to suggests that, perhaps, the ET hypothesis may be a valid explanation for the UFO phenomenon. So here I am presenting my interpretation of this issue
But to accept the ET hypothesis as a valid explanation for (which?) UFO reports, specific properties of them must be established beforehand and shown to fit the facts (not the interpretations) behind the reports.
Otherwise "ET" is just another way of saying "No clue".
------------------------------------------
p.: "Really? All reports?
Even those, whose mundane cause has been identified?"
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM):
Of course not. The reference to a hypothetical "UFO reality" precludes all reports which are explainable and identifiable as being mundane in nature/origin. Unfortunately, that statement drags us into the polarized debate of what qualifies as having been identified or explained and we are left with the same old terms of disagreement. Which leads us to your next two questions
The "polarization" is purely the result of UFO believers unwillingness to face the facts and their desire to cling to their fantasies.
There is no debate about it between scientists, because scientists are willing to accept "I don't know" as a possible outcome of an investigation and keep doing research.
p.: "Good science shows how unreliable witness reports can be. Are you taking this also into account?"
ReplyDeleteMark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
Definitely, I agree completely. But I feel as though you, and many others, are stretching this problem too far. It seems that you apply this to every case, and to such an exaggerated extent the witness reports are rendered Invalid, irrespective of the actual events which took place. Almost as if you feel that IF there is room for error, the correct procedure is to proceed as though error was made to the fullest extent. To me this is fallacious and inconsiderate of the various factors which play Into the entirety of the reports.
Please, spare us the usual caricature of the evil and close-minded debunker.
UFO reports are examined on a case-by-case basis and the unreliability of eye-witness accounts is not exaggerated.
How do you know how far the problem with eye-witness accounts goes?
UFO believers want you to accept that every unexplained UFO report has the same and extraordinary cause, irrespective of the actual events. Now that is an exaggeration. They want you to believe a mundane cause is immediately identifiable, when there many, many examples of the opposite.
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
For example. We often see that clear visual reports are made by more than one witness, from independent vantage points, while the sighting is also verified by other measurements, be they radar or other empirical means of data collection. Aside from this, there are two types of observation; interpretative and objective. An interpretative observation is made when a witness attempts to define the subject e.g. speculate as to the nature or origin of the subject. While objective observation is simply the regurgitation of visual memory in simple terms e.g. I saw a bright blue light which appeared above me, I suddenly felt heat on my head and heard humming in my ears, all the while my immediate environment became illuminated in the dark of night for a brief period which coincided with the appearance of the object. This lasted for 5 minutes, the object then moved away from me towards the horizon and disappeared behind the distant mountains in under a second. The objects absence coincided with the absence of light, sound etc etc.
What makes you think that the interpretation is a conscious process?
What makes you think that visual or other memories are accurate and objective recordings?
What makes you think that distance estimates of unknown objects are accurate?
What makes you think that all feelings of heat and hearing humming noise are only the result of external causes?
What makes you think that different types of data must have a common cause?
All the critical work in examining UFO reports is not being done by UFO believers. They just accept eye-witness accounts at face value and then stop at that.
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
ReplyDeleteThe facts are that a lot of reports are written in these 'objective' terms.
Please, point us to these "objective" reports! I would love to see some, as opposed to the usual drivel advertised by UFO believers.
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
I accept that none of the anecdotal evidence is considered as holding truly objective value In a scientific sense, but we cannot discount the immense wealth of information contained within such a report.
Quantity does not imply quality!
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
Notwithstanding the fact that there exists an entire history of UFO reports which mirror this hypothetical example, in its description and in its usable data.
A lot of rubbish is still rubbish.
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
Can you see how observational error is often found within the speculation of attempting interpretative observation? While an holistic, factual recount of sensory experience can yield a far more useful and data comparative report?
Please, point us to the scientific research in support of this.
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
I'm not saying that most witness reports allow for this type of recount, most do not. But some do, and unfortunately the negative hypothesis of 'witness error' cannot sensibly be applied to all witness reports, as you so ignorantly claim
I'm afraid you are not as informed as you think you are.
------------------------------------------
p.: "How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from mundane, but as yet unidentified causes?"
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
By considering each individual report on its merits, without the predetermined cynicism of debunkers and without the foolish gullibility of typical UFO believers. Not sure how else I can answer that question, mate.
That's the problem: you cannot answer it.
You cannot provide criteria to distinguish the two, because you cannot attribute specific properties to your preferred extraordinary cause.
And because your preferred hypothesis does not have specific properties, it is nothing more than the fallacious "ET-of-the-gaps" (non)explanation.
------------------------------------------
p.: "And what happens if there is not enough information to reach a conclusion in case: are you going to label it "real UFO"?"
Mark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
I'll first need to decide for myself whether or not there is enough information available to reach a conclusion. But, of course, If we can agree there is insufficient information on which to draw a conclusion, naturally I won't be labeling anything.
You will have to amend your "definition" of "real UFO".
Every time a UFO believer comes up with the "ET hypothesis", I am reminded of the following exchange:
ReplyDeleteLister: Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys, it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall, it's aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was aliens as well.
Rimmer: Well we didn't use it all, Lister. Who did?
Lister: Rimmer, ALIENS used our bog roll?
Rimmer: Just cause they're aliens doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and alien-esque, like it comes out of the top of their heads or something.
p.: "How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from mundane, but as yet unidentified causes?"
DeleteMark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
By considering each individual report on its merits, without the predetermined cynicism of debunkers and without the foolish gullibility of typical UFO believers. Not sure how else I can answer that question, mate.
Papageno (January 28, 2015 at 6:46 AM)
That's the problem: you cannot answer it.
You cannot provide criteria to distinguish the two, because you cannot attribute specific properties to your preferred extraordinary cause.
And because your preferred hypothesis does not have specific properties, it is nothing more than the fallacious "ET-of-the-gaps" (non)explanation.
You misconstrue and refuse all alternative interpretations to your own, in turn, forming a strawman and adapting it to the fallacies you believe are common among UFO believers. I'll demonstrate this for you:
Your question is, in fact, answerable. So let's not jump to ignorant, self-serving conclusions. You also falsely claim that my favored hypothesis has no specific properties. I'll clarify.
You ask: How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from mundane, but as yet unidentified causes?
Answer: How the fk can one classify a UFO as "mundane" if it as yet unidentified?
You see, this is the cheap BS I'm accusing you of; you create informal fallacy within your mind and then project it with a false sense of virtue- as if the epistemology of thoroughly considered proponents like Stanton Freidman, and the like, is itself founded on fallacy. You are incredibly arrogant.
What you should have asked is: How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from alleged UFO's with as yet unidentified causes?
Answer: A proponent would first need to refer to the history of specific UFO cases which hold within them evidence (anecdotal or circumstantial) of actual observation of what appear to be real objects of supernatural performance (nature and origin unknown). Then compare the detail of these experiences with the newly alleged report of a UFO in order to find correlation and a potential relationship between the reported phenomenon. Because that's how science works!
It is the textbook course-of-action of disbelieving denialists (debunkers) to refuse the basic fact that useful data has been a central feature of the best cases over the past 60 odd years. Despite the endless reports made under very reliable circumstances, you continue to pretend that there exists no case which can be considered reliable - it's just desperate. And we will discuss the cases.
"- And what happens if there is not enough information to reach a conclusion in case: are you going to label it "real UFO"?"
DeleteThis is a very complicated thing to answer. Let me answer this hypothetically: If two separate groups of people witness what they can certainly identify as a physical craft of some kind with supernatural capabilities. They still cannot know the true nature or origin of the craft because there is an inherent element of unknowable information- It is impossible to reach an empirical conclusion under these circumstances because the nature of the encounter does not lend itself to the favour of sufficient analysis. However, despite a conclusion being unachievable, there remains, nonetheless, a significant amount of reliable data- It is this data which is used to form hypotheses, Papageno.
As much as you desperately require every 'extraordinary claim' to fall into line with your simplistic, black and white categorization of true or false, reliable or unreliable interpretations, the reality is just the opposite- a conclusion being unachievable doesn't preclude the formation of a robust and considerate hypothesis, as is aptly demonstrated by the above hypothetical scenario.
"- The flying spaghetti monster is reflected within the human imagination: why are you rejecting this particular hypothesis?"
There is zero evidence to support that particular hypothesis, of course...
"What are your criteria to choose the ET hypothesis above all other hypotheses, including the flying spaghetti monster, pink unicorns and Santa Clause? After all, none of these has any evidence in support of their existence."
My criteria? I'll refer you to my other answers for more info, though my criteria is the evidence contained in each report, correlated against the myriad of previous reports which appear to relate in style, quality and detail. If it doesn't look, or act like a 'non - conventional' UFO, then it is, perhaps, most likely a conventional UFO. At least until the time that an explanation arises. (laughs) I thought that would be self evident. Spaghetti monsters don't glow in the dark silently overhead!
"And no, UFO reports whose cause has not been identified are not evidence for any of these, because these hypotheses are supposed to explain those very same UFO reports. That would be circular reasoning."
DeleteOh how wrong you are. Again, relying on fallacy. The problem you face as an 'opponent' to the ET Hypothesis or even the UFO phenomenon at large is that you do not understand it's properties well enough to appreciate it as a subject - it need not rely on circular reasoning, here's why:
Proponents of the UFO phenomenon are not asserting proof of a conclusion, at least, I am not. We are floating a hypothesis or hypotheses which, while they refer to specific reports, they're not case specific. The ET hypothesis, for example, is essentially a hypothesis which is attempting to correlate the patterns and quality of information found across a vast body of witness reports. It does not need to leverage off the extraordinary claims of one or more small group of reports, it is answerable to over 60 years of data, and therefore, not at the whim of the desperate negative claims made in technical error by the guess work of pseudo-skeptical denialists. In order to nullify the ET hypothesis, or any other non - conventional hypotheses, one must discount or explain the inexplicable patterns, the reemergence of which over time adds to the weight of evidence and strength of the hypothesis. Scientifically and methodically the ET hypothesis does not require any of its individual cases to have found resolution or have concluded in order for each case to contribute as evidence towards the hypothesis, because there is raw but usable data is each report, in essence, it need not rely on circular reasoning. Sorry, Papageno, but that's just another Strawman on your part.
p.: "How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from mundane, but as yet unidentified causes?"
DeleteMark McFarlane (January 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM):
By considering each individual report on its merits, without the predetermined cynicism of debunkers and without the foolish gullibility of typical UFO believers. Not sure how else I can answer that question, mate.
p. (January 28, 2015 at 6:46 AM):
"That's the problem: you cannot answer it.
You cannot provide criteria to distinguish the two, because you cannot attribute specific properties to your preferred extraordinary cause.
And because your preferred hypothesis does not have specific properties, it is nothing more than the fallacious "ET-of-the-gaps" (non)explanation."
Mark McFarlane (January 29, 2015 at 4:05 AM)
You misconstrue and refuse all alternative interpretations to your own, in turn, forming a strawman and adapting it to the fallacies you believe are common among UFO believers. I'll demonstrate this for you:
Your question is, in fact, answerable. So let's not jump to ignorant, self-serving conclusions. You also falsely claim that my favored hypothesis has no specific properties. I'll clarify.
How many posts have you written so far?
Why don't you write clearly from the beginning?
If your favored hypothesis has specific properties, why do you define "real UFOs" as 'not identified as the result of mundane, but misidentified causes'? Why haven't you listed these properties already?
You ask: How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from mundane, but as yet unidentified causes?
Answer: How the fk can one classify a UFO as "mundane" if it as yet unidentified?
How can you classify one as "real", if you cannot identify it?
Please, explain us in detail how you distinguish the ET hypothesis from the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Clause.
I would like you to list and explain the criteria that anybody could use to do so.
You see, this is the cheap BS I'm accusing you of; you create informal fallacy within your mind and then project it with a false sense of virtue- as if the epistemology of thoroughly considered proponents like Stanton Freidman, and the like, is itself founded on fallacy. You are incredibly arrogant.
What you should have asked is: How do we distinguish "real UFOs" from alleged UFO's with as yet unidentified causes?
You don't get to pick the questions I ask.
Answer the questions I actually asked, not the ones you wish I had asked.
Answer: A proponent would first need to refer to the history of specific UFO cases which hold within them evidence (anecdotal or circumstantial) of actual observation of what appear to be real objects of supernatural performance (nature and origin unknown). Then compare the detail of these experiences with the newly alleged report of a UFO in order to find correlation and a potential relationship between the reported phenomenon. Because that's how science works!
Nope. That's not how it works. That's how creationists and crackpots work: start from the preferred conclusion and work backwards until the circle is closed.
And what happened to "considering each individual report on its merits"? Now we have to "refer" to the history of specific UFO cases?
It is the textbook course-of-action of disbelieving denialists (debunkers) to refuse the basic fact that useful data has been a central feature of the best cases over the past 60 odd years. Despite the endless reports made under very reliable circumstances, you continue to pretend that there exists no case which can be considered reliable - it's just desperate. And we will discuss the cases.
Science has shown how unreliable eye-witness accounts can be, and how the UFO looks follows the trends in popular culture.
Can we take this history also into account?
p.: "- And what happens if there is not enough information to reach a conclusion in case: are you going to label it "real UFO"?"
DeleteMark McFarlane (January 29, 2015 at 4:20 AM):
This is a very complicated thing to answer. Let me answer this hypothetically: If two separate groups of people witness what they can certainly identify as a physical craft of some kind with supernatural capabilities.
Don't you see? You have already conflated observation and interpretation.
What you are supposed to do at this point, is to ask: How do they know it was a physical craft? How do they know its capabilities?
Instead, you are taking their accounts at face value, despite knowing that eye-witness accounts can be very, very inaccurate, no matter how certain and sincere they are.
You are just like any run-of-the-mill, gullible UFO believer, who does not actually examine critically the UFO reports.
They still cannot know the true nature or origin of the craft because there is an inherent element of unknowable information- It is impossible to reach an empirical conclusion under these circumstances because the nature of the encounter does not lend itself to the favour of sufficient analysis. However, despite a conclusion being unachievable, there remains, nonetheless, a significant amount of reliable data- It is this data which is used to form hypotheses, Papageno.
And what "data" would that be? That the eye-witnesses are sure they saw craft?
How does that rule out misperceptions and misidentifications?
After all, policemen and pilots have been sure that crafts under intelligent control was chasing them; only, later it turned out it was planets like Venus or Jupiter.
You are quibbling over "true nature or origin of the craft", when you haven't even established that there was a craft in the first place.
As much as you desperately require every 'extraordinary claim' to fall into line with your simplistic, black and white categorization of true or false, reliable or unreliable interpretations, the reality is just the opposite- a conclusion being unachievable doesn't preclude the formation of a robust and considerate hypothesis, as is aptly demonstrated by the above hypothetical scenario.
The only thing you demonstrated, is that you have no clue whatsoever how to examine critically eye-witness account in order to extract information that can be corroborated.
If I followed you "method", I could make a case that your witnesses saw Santa's sledge. Now, prove it wasn't Santa's sledge.
p.: "- The flying spaghetti monster is reflected within the human imagination: why are you rejecting this particular hypothesis?"
DeleteMark McFarlane (January 29, 2015 at 4:20 AM):
There is zero evidence to support that particular hypothesis, of course...
Which is, coincidentally, exactly the same amount of evidence in favour of your pET hypothesis.
So, what criteria have you used to choose one of the other? Please, be specific and detailed.
p.: "What are your criteria to choose the ET hypothesis above all other hypotheses, including the flying spaghetti monster, pink unicorns and Santa Clause? After all, none of these has any evidence in support of their existence."
Mark McFarlane (January 29, 2015 at 4:20 AM):
My criteria? I'll refer you to my other answers for more info, though my criteria is the evidence contained in each report, correlated against the myriad of previous reports which appear to relate in style, quality and detail.
You mean, like all the detailed reports from different parts of the world, from different times, of Santa Clause as a fat man in a red and white outfit, riding a sledge pulled by flying reindeers, bringing presents on Christmas eve?
If it doesn't look, or act like a 'non - conventional' UFO, then it is, perhaps, most likely a conventional UFO. At least until the time that an explanation arises. (laughs) I thought that would be self evident. Spaghetti monsters don't glow in the dark silently overhead!
How do you know they don't? And don't you know that one of Santa's flying reindeers has a glowing nose and they don't have an engine making noise?
p.: "And no, UFO reports whose cause has not been identified are not evidence for any of these, because these hypotheses are supposed to explain those very same UFO reports. That would be circular reasoning."
DeleteMark McFarlane (January 29, 2015 at 4:21 AM):
Oh how wrong you are. Again, relying on fallacy. The problem you face as an 'opponent' to the ET Hypothesis or even the UFO phenomenon at large is that you do not understand it's properties well enough to appreciate it as a subject - it need not rely on circular reasoning, here's why:
I am not an opponent to the ET hypothesis or the UFO phenomenon.
I simply point out that the UFO believers are proving they case as well as they think they are.
I am supporter of the scientific method.
Proponents of the UFO phenomenon are not asserting proof of a conclusion, at least, I am not. We are floating a hypothesis or hypotheses which, while they refer to specific reports, they're not case specific. The ET hypothesis, for example, is essentially a hypothesis which is attempting to correlate the patterns and quality of information found across a vast body of witness reports.
But there is no quality, because you and UFO believers are not examining the reports critically.
You are just gullibly accepting the reports at face value and then you speculate. There's nothing scientific or rigorous about this.
It does not need to leverage off the extraordinary claims of one or more small group of reports, it is answerable to over 60 years of data, and therefore, not at the whim of the desperate negative claims made in technical error by the guess work of pseudo-skeptical denialists.
Sixty years of no visible improvement of the evidence.
UFO believers have just as much evidence now as they had sixty years ago: none.
There has been no improvement in the quality of pictures, despite the technological advances. The only thing that has changed is the "look" of UFO, and that is correlated as following the trend in popular culture.
Why aren't there better and better pictures of Arnold UFOs or of 1950s saucers? Why didn't they observe saucers well before the 1940s?
In order to nullify the ET hypothesis, or any other non - conventional hypotheses, one must discount or explain the inexplicable patterns, the reemergence of which over time adds to the weight of evidence and strength of the hypothesis.
Can you prove that these patterns are the result of common, extraordinary cause, and not the result of common misperceptions and misidentifications of a variety of mundane causes?
Scientifically and methodically the ET hypothesis does not require any of its individual cases to have found resolution or have concluded in order for each case to contribute as evidence towards the hypothesis, because there is raw but usable data is each report, in essence, it need not rely on circular reasoning. Sorry, Papageno, but that's just another Strawman on your part.
Ah yes, the "look at the big picture" and "connect the dots" excuse....
What happens if most of your "dots" turn out to be crumbs on the paper?
There is a way to settle this argument. It has been tried before though I can't name the specific occasion.
ReplyDeleteThe skeptic challenges the UFO believer (i.e. the one who says there is a residue of truly unexplained, and likely ET craft, sightings) to name his top ten, or maybe even top five, cases which he (i.e. the believer) places in the 'best unknown' category.
The skeptic then shows, if he can, that perfectly valid possible, or even probable explanations exist for all ten. If the believer accepts most of the answers he cannot then fall back on the "yes, but I could have picked hundreds of others" argument. If the 'top ten' are his choice of the best UFO cases then the debate is over - finished. The skeptic has won. The 'hundreds of others' were clearly inferior to the believer's original ten! If the believer declines this perfectly reasonable challenge the debate is also over - again the skeptic has won, at least in most people's eyes. If the skeptic, having been presented with ten top cases, cannot solve any of them, most would concede that the believer has won.
It won't be conclusive of course, but it will certainly provide plenty of food for thought. Try it sometime. But preferably not on this blog.
cda (January 28, 2015 at 12:16 PM):
DeleteThe skeptic then shows, if he can, that perfectly valid possible, or even probable explanations exist for all ten.
No. That is shifting the burden of proof to the skeptics.
If the UFO believer thinks that the ET hypothesis is the best explanation, then it is up to him/her to show that that specific hypothesis is indeed the best explanation.
The UFO believer does not get to choose the ET hypothesis as default explanation, if other explanations are not convincing to him/her.
It is easy for the UFO believer to present cases where there is not enough information to reach a conclusion, and so they can easily stack the deck against the skeptics.
What you are proposing is just a show for a gullible audience, not an actual way to resolve the "debate" (which exist only because UFO believer are not interested in facts).
A really “Real UFO” (An Example):
ReplyDeleteMrs. Rorschach buys a large bouquet of balloons for her niece’s birthday.
While transporting the unwieldily cluster of white birthday balloons to her car, her curious 5-year old son George tries to snatch the balloons.
Unfortunately, Mrs. Rorschach accidentally lets go of the helium-filled balloons that she just spent $14.99 at the Party City store. The Bouquet of Birthday Balloons gets airborne quickly and gains altitude in the clear blue sky.
In his car seat, George gets a lecture for his bad behavior.
Little does Mrs. Rorschach know that her long gone balloons will soon will become part of UFO lore.
The “BBB” (Bouquet of Birthday Balloons) floats with the prevailing breeze towards a large metropolitan area.
City folks, some on their lunch break, see Mrs. Rorschach’s BBB floating by.
People point at the floating glimmering object and some take video with their smart phones.
Most people agree it’s a UFO. Mrs. Rorschach’s $14.99 BBB is now a unidentified flying object.
A news reporter interviews a witness, an open-minded fellow, identifying himself as Mark McSmartypants, “I know what I saw, it’s most likely extraterrestrial. It came right over my head and flashed a bright light at me. I passed out. When I woke up I was lying in a back alley and my pants were on backwards!”
The TV news report the story (“UFO Seen Downtown”) for the 6 ‘o’clock edition and describes the UFO as a “shimmering white blob flying slowly and silently” above the city’s skyline.
A television UFO expert is consulted. He states, “It was NOT a balloon. The object did not have the characteristics of a balloon, so we can rule that out.” (His UFO credentials: He once worked as an USAF junior file clerk (part-time) that reported to an senior file clerk who reported to a junior assistant who reported to a senior assistant who reported to a secretary who reported to the
Director of UFO Reporting 30 years ago.)
A week later the UFO story gets entered in the Wikipedia’s UFO Notable Cases section - “UFO/Backward Pants incident”.
A year later, the UFO once a Bouquet of Birthday Balloons, gets listed as “One of the Greatest UFO Sightings of All-Time” because it was seen by hundreds of people and with photographic evidence.
And Mrs. Rorschach’s niece never got her Bouquet of Birthday Balloons on her special day.
Get specific. The only UFO reports which are genuinely under contention are those which contain sufficient evidence to engage genuine research
DeleteIf you're under the impression that Stanton Friedman and the like spend their time arguing the case for misidentified balloons, your understanding of this issue is, to say the least, completely misguided.
But please carry on with your great satirical explanations, they're most insightful!
"If you're under the impression that Stanton Friedman and the like spend their time arguing the case for misidentified balloons...."
DeleteNo, it's actually much worse: STF and others waste their time promoting the impossible flying-saucer fantasy, the demonstrably false idea that Earth is being visited by ET.
http://tinyurl.com/opazctw
"The skeptic challenges the UFO believer (i.e. the one who says there is a residue of truly unexplained, and likely ET craft, sightings) to name his top ten, or maybe even top five, cases which he (i.e. the believer) places in the 'best unknown' category."
ReplyDeletecda:
I'm at issue as to how to deal with this disaster of a post- In this event, its not a 'believer V's a skeptic' - it is one judgment of the evidence verses another. I am impartial to outcomes so I'm hardly a UFO believer, and Papageno's disposition for cynicism hardly qualifies him as a skeptic. But please, continue with your denialist oriented terms of definition, they really do help to clear the air
"The skeptic then shows, if he can, that perfectly valid possible, or even probable explanations exist for all ten. If the believer accepts most of the answers he cannot then fall back on the "yes, but I could have picked hundreds of others" argument. If the 'top ten' are his choice of the best UFO cases then the debate is over - finished. The skeptic has won. The 'hundreds of others' were clearly inferior to the believer's original ten! "
This is fallacious in so many ways. Essentially you've said; if a skeptic can nominate a negative hypothesis which may possibly explain a report, then the proponent of that report must accept that the negative hypothesis is the only explanation, or the best explanation... It makes little sense
The problem with 'debunking', in my view, is that it requires us to accept what are in some cases extraordinary negative hypotheses, without sufficient evidence to support to validate them. For example: Sheaffers 'fly in the sky' hypothesis. He attempts to debunk a report put forward by Leslie Kean where he claims that a fly moving within close range of the camera lense is, in fact, what Kean believes to be a UFO. Now, where is his evidence for this hypothesis? He has none. Other than to say that "it certainly looks like a fly"
Now I agree that it could possibly be a fly, but then again, I have no idea and I'm definitely not about to convince myself that it is a UFO simply because "it looks like one". So the difference between typical 'debunkers' and myself is that I will not convince myself of something without sufficient evidence to justify that belief
So when you ask a proponent of the UFO phenomenon to accept a negative hypothesis offered up by a debunker, I say, show me the evidence!
Mark McFarlane (January 28, 2015 at 9:21 PM):
DeleteThe problem with 'debunking', in my view, is that it requires us to accept what are in some cases extraordinary negative hypotheses, without sufficient evidence to support to validate them.
What a broad generalization....
I thought we were supposed to look at this on a case-by-case basis.
After all, you complain that I seem to "apply this to every case, and to such an exaggerated extent the witness reports are rendered Invalid, irrespective of the actual events which took place."
It is clear that you are not as impartial as you think.
Mark McFarlane (January 28, 2015 at 9:21 PM):
For example: Sheaffers 'fly in the sky' hypothesis. He attempts to debunk a report put forward by Leslie Kean where he claims that a fly moving within close range of the camera lense is, in fact, what Kean believes to be a UFO. Now, where is his evidence for this hypothesis? He has none. Other than to say that "it certainly looks like a fly"
How about we compare the two hypotheses?
1. Flying bug
- We know bugs exist.
- We know some bugs can fly.
- We know if an object is too close to the camera, then it is out of focus and therefore blurred.
- We know if an object is moving, then its image can be motion blurred.
- We know that in the area where these images and videos were recorded, there are flying bugs.
- We have confirmed examples of out-of-focus and motion-blurred images of flying bugs taken in other circumstances.
- We can replicate the "UFO" images in controlled conditions.
- Usually in the case of the "UFO" images, whoever recorded the images/videos did not see the "UFO" while looking in the same direction and at the same time of the recorded "UFO"; this points to an object close to the camera and not far way.
2. ET craft (Kean's hyptohesis)
- We have no confirmation of the existence of ET life.
- If it exists, we have no confirmation of ET life on Earth.
- If ETs are on Earth, we have no confirmation of ETs using vehicles to fly around in our atmosphere.
- If ETs are flying around in vehicles, we have no specific information about their properties.
Now, if we put these two hypotheses on a scale, in which direction will it tip, pointing to the most likely explanation?
What bar must be cleared, what further evidence has to be shown, before Mark McFarlane - the "open-minded" and "impartial" armchair philosopher of science, will consider one explanation more likely than the other?
You are committing the fallacy of thinking that the evidence of both "sides" is of the same quality and level. In reality, the factual evidence is one-sided.
Your agnosticism is not the result of a careful consideration and weighing of evidence and information from all sides, but from an utter ignorance of the real world.
You have demonstrated no skill and no willingness to examine evidence and information critically, but you believe you are in the position of condescendingly pontificate about other people arguments.
Yes, there is a way to settle this, and that's for someone to falsify the Null hypothesis for "UFO" reports--show us a real "UFO" of any kind. Only then will there be a "UFO" phenomenon worthy of investigation. But since that hasn't happened in over a century and tens of thousands of insubstantial and utterly inconsequential "UFO" reports, it's most unlikely that will ever occur.
ReplyDeleteSo the idea of real "UFOs" remains in the negative by default--the Null hypothesis--Not Shown! And the reason people believe in a space-age fairy tale--a mass media-manufactured myth and delusion--is best explained by the PSH. Of course stating the facts is not going to stop ordinary credulous people from believing in the "UFO" myth. People can believe foolish things.
And neither will it stop irrational "UFO" cranks from believing what they cannot show while feigning agnosticism--ignoring the facts of the world and the rules of evidence. And it's not going to stop them from blaming those who do for their own failures, or from blathering endlessly about ghosts haunting the stratosphere while they exemplify every fallacious rhetorical device of the Internet Woo-Woo Credo. Every time they speak, such people expose the fact that they are not interested in science, the facts of the world or reason, they're only interested in indicting the Scientific method. We call such people the Time-Wasters because that's all they do.
Let's not misrepresent my position. I disagree with Kean's hypothesis in that instance. 'The Fly hypothesis' of course the most likely. The questions you ask and the points you raise generally I agree with on face value. But I completely disagree that they relate to the UFO phenomenon the way which you attempt to apply them - that's what I'm trying to communicate, not a disagreement of empirical facts, but a difference of Interpretation.
DeleteThe 'real world' common sense approach to debunking (I.e. the fly hypothesis) often breaks down in light of the substantiated claims of the best cases, as there is no way to account for the corroboration and documentation found within the best cases, and what we see is the 'real world' catalogue of known explanations fall through our fingers like the reality we thought we were describing. There is simply no way to account for the best cases without first admitting that witnesses may be deliberately fabricating their experiences- which is a perfectly natural and rational conclusion to draw. So just admit this! Don't uphold a grand false narrative of scientific resilience
'Debunkers' believe; IF error, misidentification or confabulation can possibly occur, one should then assume that it must have occurred to the fullest extent - this works to underpin the hyper-cynical criticisms they consign to unusual or non - conventional witness accounts. They do, however, seem to believe that this approach is scientific in that it leaves no room for error, when it reality it stifles scientific research. All it serves to do is reject, deny and inhibit the establishment of any sensible and reasonable hypotheses who's explanation is non - conventional in nature. Further to this issue, they will propose the most improbable and frankly unrealistic hypotheses just to avoid a potential hypothesis involving 'something real'. Isnt it strange, they flatly refuse to even entertain a hypothesis of non - conventional phenomenon? Is this not how new discoveries are made; via the construction of concepts which are empirically non - conventional? The 'debunkers' natural position is a contradiction in terms and their assumed virtue of scientific reason is just a superficial layer of intellectual justification for a deeper system of beliefs, which is protective and presumptive in nature.
I'm not going to continue arguing because I'm completely wasting my time with this - as I'm certain you guys believe the opposite about me. Not unlike most other pseudo-skeptical 'debunkers' you two have a predisposed conclusion that you wish to apply to every case, irrespective of where the evidence guides us. In fact, we cannot even agree on the basic premise of what qualifies as evidence, moreover, the default, predestined fixation of all debunkers is to enforce the notion that there simply is no evidence to invoke 'something real'. To paraphrase Zoamchomsky "there never were any real UFO's and never will be". This differs from the hardline assumption of skepticism, which holds; one should doubt the liklihood of all extraordinary hypothesis but be open to all outcomes. Is it not clear how corrupt you both are? Stop pretending you have all the answers to all the mysteries of the world, it's lame and untruthful
DeleteAnd here I agree that witness testimony is unreliable and will always be anecdotal and subjective. However, this doesn't categorically undermine all witness reports there on in. It is merely an extra consideration which applies to various degrees under various circumstances and it is not a blanket concept to be a abused by self proclaimed 'debunkers'. For example: if a group of witnesses claim to see 'anomalous phenomenon', a 'debunker' will immediately assume, invariably, that every witness experienced nothing more than a period of utter sensory failure. What a coincidence it is, in every report, common in detail, throughout the history of anomalous phenomenon witnesses have suffered an absolutely inexplicable episode of sensory failure! Such is the claim of 'debunkers' and such is the hypocrisy of cynical denialism- appealing to an extraordinary, negative hypothesis of its own, with merely a vague statement of scientific ambiguity to support it: "it is a scientific fact that witnesses can be wrong"
One may label this as ad hominem, but that label doesn't excuse the behaviour of pseudo-skeptical hypocrisy, self-serving credulity and the blatant misrepresentation of what are mostly clear and detailed reports of first hand experiences- experiences which defy all conventional explanation.
If you want to discuss individual cases, I'm happy to do that. But I'm not doing this anymore. Particularly when Zoamchomsky gives birth to philosophical prisons of denialist logic ("falsify the Null hypothesis") which ensures that no further debate can take place. That truly is a hallmark behaviour of someone who open to all outcomes!
Mark McFarlane (February 2, 2015 at 3:54 AM):
DeleteLet's not misrepresent my position. I disagree with Kean's hypothesis in that instance. 'The Fly hypothesis' of course the most likely.
Let me remind you what you said:
Mark McFarlane (January 28, 2015 at 9:21 PM):
The problem with 'debunking', in my view, is that it requires us to accept what are in some cases extraordinary negative hypotheses, without sufficient evidence to support to validate them. For example: Sheaffers 'fly in the sky' hypothesis. He attempts to debunk a report put forward by Leslie Kean where he claims that a fly moving within close range of the camera lense is, in fact, what Kean believes to be a UFO. Now, where is his evidence for this hypothesis? He has none. Other than to say that "it certainly looks like a fly"
Now I agree that it could possibly be a fly, but then again, I have no idea and I'm definitely not about to convince myself that it is a UFO simply because "it looks like one". So the difference between typical 'debunkers' and myself is that I will not convince myself of something without sufficient evidence to justify that belief
So when you ask a proponent of the UFO phenomenon to accept a negative hypothesis offered up by a debunker, I say, show me the evidence!
I didn't misrepresent anything.
First you put both hypotheses on the same level and then you put the burden of proof only on the debunker.
You asked for evidence only in support of the "fly hypothesis", not of the "ET hypothesis". You didn't even present accurately the arguments for the "fly hypothesis".
This obvious double standard shows that you are not as impartial as you claim to be.
The questions you ask and the points you raise generally I agree with on face value. But I completely disagree that they relate to the UFO phenomenon the way which you attempt to apply them - that's what I'm trying to communicate, not a disagreement of empirical facts, but a difference of Interpretation.
Whether somebody actually witnessed an extraterrestrial craft or a flying bug, Venus, or some other 'mundane' event, is certainly not a matter of interpretation.
You are again assuming that the evidence and the arguments for the ET hypothesis are of the same quality and strength as for other hypotheses. But that is very far from reality and you don't even seem to realize that.
Mark McFarlane (February 2, 2015 at 3:54 AM):
DeleteThe 'real world' common sense approach to debunking (I.e. the fly hypothesis) often breaks down in light of the substantiated claims of the best cases, as there is no way to account for the corroboration and documentation found within the best cases, and what we see is the 'real world' catalogue of known explanations fall through our fingers like the reality we thought we were describing.
You keep talking about these "substantiated claims", about corroboration and documentation, but you still have not provided any examples of such cases.
All we got from you was a hypothetical UFO report, where you demonstrated a complete and utter lack of critical examination of witness statements (and yet, the "debunker" must show you the evidence...); and mentions of Hastings (a clown who doesn't know how to critically examine witness statements) and Kean (another clown who thinks that flying bugs are swarms ET spaceships...).
Your "take-eyewitness-accounts-at-face-value" approach breaks hilariously down when you examine solved UFO cases.
Your "real-UFO-of-the-gaps" approach is laughable, when you realize that you can put Santa Clause in the place of your pETs and still "explain" a UFO report: you just have to come up with enough magical and ad hoc properties to fit the "observations".
Of course, you tried to avoid that line of reasoning because it is too embarrassing.
There is simply no way to account for the best cases without first admitting that witnesses may be deliberately fabricating their experiences-which is a perfectly natural and rational conclusion to draw. So just admit this! Don't uphold a grand false narrative of scientific resilience
Really? You really had to fall for the usual trick of UFO believers?
Despite what UFO believers want you to believe, a person can be mistaken without lying. People (even policemen, pilots, and military) can be mistaken, despite being completely sincere and utterly convinced. There is no need for deliberate fabrication, when perceptions and memory are not perfect recorders of events.
Strength of conviction and honesty are not measures for factual accuracy. But apparently you are not open-minded enough to accept this reality.
Mark McFarlane (February 2, 2015 at 3:54 AM):
Delete'Debunkers' believe; IF error, misidentification or confabulation can possibly occur, one should then assume that it must have occurred to the fullest extent - this works to underpin the hyper-cynical criticisms they consign to unusual or non - conventional witness accounts. They do, however, seem to believe that this approach is scientific in that it leaves no room for error, when it reality it stifles scientific research.
Please, spare us the usual strawmen of UFO believers.
You clearly have no idea of how scientific research is conducted. The same research showing how inaccurate witness reports can be.
If you look at the UFO reports that have found an explanation (not the ones pushed by UFO believers as "best cases"), you will see how likely errors, misidentifications and confabulations can happen.
If UFO believers put some effort into studying the UFO reports that have been solved, they would realize how weak their "best cases" are.
All it serves to do is reject, deny and inhibit the establishment of any sensible and reasonable hypotheses who's explanation is non - conventional in nature.
As long as the existence of ET life is not proven, the ET hypothesis has the same strength as the Santa Clause hypothesis.
Despite your promise, you utterly failed to provide of specific properties of "ETs" that makes the ET hypothesis such a good explanation for many UFO reports, in your eyes. And the reason you didn't provide such a list, is because you cannot specify any properties of non-existing beings.
By ignoring the fact that eye-witness accounts are not necessarily accurate, you reject, deny and inhibit the establishment of any sensible and reasonable hypotheses whose explanation is conventional in nature.
You are clearly not interested in finding an explanation for UFO reports. Just like any other UFO believer, you just want to keep the show going.
Further to this issue, they will propose the most improbable and frankly unrealistic hypotheses just to avoid a potential hypothesis involving 'something real'.
You mean, like the out-of-focus flies, which we know actually exist, as opposed to ET spaceships, for which existence we still have no evidence?
You still have not explained what "something real" is. (Remember? Magical-ET-of-the-gaps...)
Isnt it strange, they flatly refuse to even entertain a hypothesis of non - conventional phenomenon? Is this not how new discoveries are made; via the construction of concepts which are empirically non - conventional?
No. New discoveries are made by providing actual evidence and testing hypotheses with well-defined and specific properties, not by appealing to the magical properties of vague and undefined ET-of-the-gaps.
The 'debunkers' natural position is a contradiction in terms and their assumed virtue of scientific reason is just a superficial layer of intellectual justification for a deeper system of beliefs, which is protective and presumptive in nature.
This coming from an "impartial agnostic" who swallowed completely the propaganda of UFO believers...
Mark McFarlane (February 2, 2015 at 3:57 AM):
DeleteI'm not going to continue arguing because I'm completely wasting my time with this - as I'm certain you guys believe the opposite about me. Not unlike most other pseudo-skeptical 'debunkers' you two have a predisposed conclusion that you wish to apply to every case, irrespective of where the evidence guides us.
Unfortunately, by taking UFO witness reports at face value, you have shown that you don't how to deal with evidence.
And by then turning around to demand evidence from "debunkers", you have shown that you apply a double standard in favour of the "ET hypothesis".
So, you complaints about "predisposed conclusion" simply sound like the pot calling the kettle black.
In fact, we cannot even agree on the basic premise of what qualifies as evidence, moreover, the default, predestined fixation of all debunkers is to enforce the notion that there simply is no evidence to invoke 'something real'.
You want to take UFO witness reports at face value, when experience and research shows that witness reports can be wildly inaccurate.
Instead of examining critically the witness reports, you want to speculate about the magic properties of your precious "ET-of-the-gaps": you clearly are not interested in evidence.
As long as you cannot define what "something real" is and how we distinguish "it" from unidentified, but mundane causes without resorting to circular reasoning and believing any tall tale that suits you, you have no evidence that "something real" is behind UFO reports.
To paraphrase Zoamchomsky "there never were any real UFO's and never will be". This differs from the hardline assumption of skepticism, which holds; one should doubt the liklihood of all extraordinary hypothesis but be open to all outcomes. Is it not clear how corrupt you both are? Stop pretending you have all the answers to all the mysteries of the world, it's lame and untruthful
Please, stop putting words in my mouth.
Where did I say that I have all the answers?
Besides, you are not open to all outcomes and doubtful of all "extraordinary hypotheses", as proven by the double standard you apply to different hypotheses.
Mark McFarlane (February 2, 2015 at 3:57 AM):
DeleteAnd here I agree that witness testimony is unreliable and will always be anecdotal and subjective. However, this doesn't categorically undermine all witness reports there on in. It is merely an extra consideration which applies to various degrees under various circumstances and it is not a blanket concept to be a abused by self proclaimed 'debunkers'.
Of course, broad generalizations are only to be used when complaining against "bad debunkers"...
Or when you have to avoid problems with individual reports by pointing at the "bigger picture" and "inexplicable patterns"...
For example: if a group of witnesses claim to see 'anomalous phenomenon', a 'debunker' will immediately assume, invariably, that every witness experienced nothing more than a period of utter sensory failure.
It is "lame and untruthful" to put words into other people's mouth...
Why don't you examine critically what debunkers have to say? Or are you afraid of jeopardizing your predisposed conclusion?
What a coincidence it is, in every report, common in detail, throughout the history of anomalous phenomenon witnesses have suffered an absolutely inexplicable episode of sensory failure! Such is the claim of 'debunkers' and such is the hypocrisy of cynical denialism- appealing to an extraordinary, negative hypothesis of its own, with merely a vague statement of scientific ambiguity to support it: "it is a scientific fact that witnesses can be wrong"
Please, stop building strawmen and study some UFO reports that have been solved. Look, for example, at how often people mistake a planet for a UFO chasing them.
There is nothing ambiguous about the inaccuracy of witnesses.
Mark McFarlane (February 2, 2015 at 3:57 AM):
One may label this as ad hominem, but that label doesn't excuse the behaviour of pseudo-skeptical hypocrisy, self-serving credulity and the blatant misrepresentation of what are mostly clear and detailed reports of first hand experiences- experiences which defy all conventional explanation.
Please stop projecting on other people your own behaviour.
Your approach cannot distinguish between your pEt hypothesis and my Santa Clause hypothesis.
Only because you cannot explain some witness accounts, it doesn't mean that nobody can do it. Indeed, your personal ignorance and lack of imagination doesn't reflect the variety of misperceptions and misidentifications established in solved UFO reports.
Mark McFarlane (February 2, 2015 at 3:57 AM):
If you want to discuss individual cases, I'm happy to do that.
So, now we are back to individual cases, instead of "history of UFO reports" and "inexplicable patterns"...
But I'm not doing this anymore. Particularly when Zoamchomsky gives birth to philosophical prisons of denialist logic ("falsify the Null hypothesis") which ensures that no further debate can take place. That truly is a hallmark behaviour of someone who open to all outcomes!
You are the one who rejects the possibility that your precious "first-hand experiences" might just be misperceptions and misidentifications of mundane phenomena. You are the who applies a double standard in favour of your pET hypothesis, but cannot provide criteria or evidence for why we should accept it over other hypotheses.
Mark
ReplyDeleteThe time has come for you to list, say, your three 'best individual cases'. Then debunkers such as Zoam can challenge them and maybe explain them.
There are 3 problems that I see:
1. You probably won't accept his explanations.
2. Others may get involved and arguments may go on forever.
3. Robert may well interrupt and say it is beyond the scope of his blog.
Above all, beware before you choose your cases.