UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Magical Realist]

The reason the Scientific Method exists at all is directly because we do not perceive the world accurately.

Then the scientist performing that method cannot perceive the world accurately and is doomed to endless error. Accurate science assumes its accurate perception of the world and the accurate observation of experimental results. There is no way around this. Science is an empirical analysis of the world, and as such relies on the empirical perception of that world.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then the scientist performing that method cannot perceive the world accurately and is doomed to endless error.

No. Doomed to endless possible error.
As you said, most things we perceive are reliable.
Which is why we
- check a given set of results many, many times
- implement error-checking
- do the experiment multiple times, and check those results against the previous
- publish our results, so that independent teams can
- vet our methods and data and calculations
- repeat the experiments for themselves
- hold off on our snap judgements, until we are as certain as practical that we have ruled out any source of error (which can take years)
- be flexible so that, even after all that, we are humble enough to know that we still get stuff wrong and that it's a process.

And now you know why UFOlogy is not in-and-of-itself a science.

Accurate science assumes its accurate perception of the world

False. It assumes exactly the opposite.
Again. That's the entire point of the Scientific Method.

and the accurate observation of experimental results.

Experimental results are data. And we certainly double and triple check our data. And yes, we find errors. That is part of the process.


This is Science 101. I am astonished that you did not study these science basics in grade school.

Do you think perhaps it's time to admit that you're out of your depth?

 

[Magical Realist]

check a given set of results many, many times

If his perception is unreliable as you claim it is, then no amount of checking and rechecking his data will make any difference because his perception of his results is unreliable as well. He will forever be trapped in a rabbit hole like a blind man with no hope of accuracy or correction. There is no way around this. We've been over this before and you have learned nothing. Moving along now.

 

[DaveC426913]

If his perception is unreliable as you claim it is, then no amount of checking and rechecking his data will make any difference because his perception of his results are unreliable as well. He will forever be trapped in a rabbit hole like a blind man with no hope of accuracy or correction.

False. This is the nature of independent checking.

You speak as one who thinks the world is simple black-and-white. It's not.

No. We are never absolutely sure of anything in science. Mars probes fail. Theories need tweaking. Experimental data contains outliers. Occasionally.

There is no way around this.

In fact, there is. The basics of data and proof-reading and teamwork in science are taught in every elementary school.

The only one who thinks with a closed mind - that things are either black or white - perfection or chaos - is you.

Even today, we are still tweaking some of our most fundamental ideas of the world. That's humanity, baby.

We've been over this before and you have learned nothing. Moving along now.

Yes. Turn away. That's what you historically do, right MR?

Thing is, your personal beliefs do not stand up to the extant facts of the world - which are behind me. You could get a glimpse of those facts if you had the courage to crack open a book on the nature of perception. But you won't. Because that would risk you learning something new.

I think this is about where you call me a mean name and then plug your ears.

 

[wegs]

I agree that UFO reports really need to be addressed in a more systematic and less biased fashion.

But I'm not convinced that there's any single methodological procedure that would enable us to identify all UFO reports. It's too heterogeneous a class, data is too fragmentary and the etiology is unknown (so different methods might be more applicable depending on the direction investigation takes).

Perhaps one way to approach it is to start out by characterizing the reports:

1. Single observer or multiple?
2. Single or multiple modalities? instrumental as well as visual? radar, cameras, etc.
3. If the observation was perceived to be extraordinary, what seemed extraordinary about it? configuration? behavior?
4. Any lingering physical effects observed on the surrounding environment?
5. Did the observers have any specialized expertise relevant to the observation?
6. Does the database contain reports of separate events that are similar in some respect? does whatever it is seem to be happening more than once?

And whatever more we can think of.

Then give the sightings values by how many of these kind of boxes they check off. It should be easy to code that kind of stuff into a computer database at least as yes-no. A more sophisticated version might code different kinds of extraordinary behavior, particular modalities, similar cases in particular respects, etc.

Doing that wouldn't really bring us a whole lot closer to actually identifying whatever the cause was, but it would highlight smaller classes of particular cases whose files need to be pulled and scrutinized.

I've called the 'tic-tac' sighting perhaps the best UFO reports that I'm personally aware of. (For whatever that's worth, it was just an observation about myself but it received lots of passionate opposition here on this board.) They would seem to me to check off five of the six boxes. (Lacking only lingering physical effects.)

Do you believe that science has done its best with data it has been given related to UAP’s?

I just don’t want to see science attempt to explain away UAP sightings without a rigorous attempt at finding an answer. Even if that answer is “unidentifiable.” To me, that’s the essence of science - and UAP enthusiasts need to accept that answer. Those who want to entertain the idea that some of these sightings are other worldly, should allow science to do its thing, even if it bursts their collective bubble. If they want to know the truth themselves, that is.

 

[wegs]

I think the procedure would just be the scientific method as would be the case with most anything else.

Is it testable (hypothesis), is it repeatable by others, etc? The problem, IMO, isn't the procedure. It's just that the evidence never holds up. It goes from unidentified to "well maybe it's from another world".

It isn't going to hold up for anyone other than those who just want it to be, without the scientific method. Most people would like nothing more than to see signs of intelligent life from another planet so it shouldn't be a hard sale if it actually exists.

I wish I could give this post 100 likes; well said.

It’s the evidence that has been lacking. If something is real, it will have evidence to prove that point. Labeling the tic tac object as “unexplainable” was the right approach, without insulting anyone at all. If someone is curious about other life visiting us from another planet, they should be pleased that science is not dismissing things it doesn’t understand. (I used to think earlier in this thread that skeptics were just perpetual debunkers, but turns out, most just want to know the truth.)

I kind of like not knowing if intelligent life exists elsewhere…although finding out if there is wouldn’t frighten me. I just would like evidence to definitively point to it if there is.

 

[Seattle]

I wish I could give this post 100 likes; well said.

It’s the evidence that has been lacking. If something is real, it will have evidence to prove that point. Labeling the tic tac object as “unexplainable” was the right approach, without insulting anyone at all. If someone is curious about other life visiting us from another planet, they should be pleased that science is not dismissing things it doesn’t understand. (I used to think earlier in this thread that skeptics were just perpetual debunkers, but turns out, most just want to know the truth.)

I kind of like not knowing if intelligent life exists elsewhere…although finding out if there is wouldn’t frighten me. I just would like evidence to definitively point to it if there is.

Yeah, I would definitely like to know that there was life elsewhere and what it looked like. If they destroyed Earth, I might not like it quite as well but it would be great to learn that there was definitely life elsewhere and what it was like.

Statistically there are arguments for it both being likely and unlikely. Not knowing does make it interesting as well.

 

[Michael 345]

Few of us rely on the scientific method to get thru our day. Instead we rely on our senses which overwhelmingly report accurately everything we encounter in our experience. If this were not so, the scientific method would not be possible. It pretty much assumes the direct observability of reality.

Going through the day and documenting everything I see is good to get a snapshot of my reality

The difference between my sightings of reality and any sightings of a UFO is all of my reality sightings can be repeated next day with a mass of instruments to backup my version of reality

Or to find out if I was mistaken in any part

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, I would definitely like to know that there was life elsewhere and what it looked like.

As would we all.

Especially the skeptics.

Believers naturally will pursue things that align with their beliefs, so it's no surprise to find believers in a UFO discussion.
But skeptics really want it to be true too, though the evidence can't get over that hurdle.
Skeptics are here, in a thread on UFOs, despite the lack of evidence.

That takes discipline and personal commitment.


It's similar to the argument about Supreme Beings and atheists.

Believers in a Supreme Being have a simple, external reason to be good: SB is watching.
But atheists do not have a watcher; they have only their own internal sense of good.
So, despite a watcher, atheists aspire to be good people.
And that takes discipline and personal commitment.

(That's the definition of 'character': how you comport yourself when nobody is watching.)

 

[Magical Realist]

Going through the day and documenting everything I see is good to get a snapshot of my reality

The difference between my sightings of reality and any sightings of a UFO is all of my reality sightings can be repeated next day with a mass of instruments to backup my version of reality

Or to find out if I was mistaken in any part

But you don't have to repeat all the events of your past life to know they happened. You and others were a direct eyewitness of them, and that suffices as evidence that they happened. Only a nutcase would record the events of everyday and repeat them to make sure they were real.

 

[wegs]

But you don't have to repeat all the events of your past life to know they happened. You were a direct eyewitness of them, and that suffices as evidence that they happened.

But only for him; if he expected us to believe everything he tells us about his life, we could take his word for it, but it would be helpful to see some ''evidence.'' Like applying to a particular job, for example. One could state on a resume that they graduated from Harvard, but proof would be required. Not too many areas of life where our word is good enough.

So, with regards to Farmer Fuhr who allegedly witnessed multiple flying saucers when he was out in the field one day - while that is a strange and potentially extraordinary experience, without something more substantial that just his word, should we believe him?

What we believe is one thing, but if we're trying to get others to believe it, that's another. The same can be said of faith based beliefs, and really anything else that subjectively, we feel a certain way about, but can't expect others to, just based on ''our word.''

 

[Magical Realist]

But only for him; if he expected us to believe everything he tells us about his life, we could take his word for it, but it would be helpful to see some ''evidence.''

Normally we would take his word for it. There's no reason to assume someone is lying about their own life experiences. Unless they have a known motive to lie. There's science, and then there's normal everyday life. Science demands repeatability. But nearly all events that happen are unrepeatable, particularly the extraordinary ones. And somehow we don't question them because we have no reason to. When I first heard of 911, a guy at work told me about it. I believed him, and then later it was all confirmed on video. But even that was not questioned, because of the total lack of his motive to lie about something like that. Most ufo sightings are the same way. No motive to lie. Unless you're a nutcase.

 

[wegs]

Normally we would take his word for it. There's no reason to assume someone is lying about their own life experiences. Unless he has a known motive to lie.

I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt like you do. And there's nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's nice to believe that people are inherently good at heart, and have no reasons to lie. But, when it comes to people claiming they've seen UFO's and/or aliens, etc...it shouldn't be offensive to them if random strangers hearing those stories, want something a bit more concrete than their personal account.

The only thing though is...can something so extraordinary be measured in an ordinary way? Science deals in the ordinary. Well, extraordinary meaning something no one has ever seen or experienced before, for the sake of this discussion. There are many scientific discoveries that are pretty remarkable, and yet not really what we're talking about in this thread.

 

[Magical Realist]

We live in an age of almost omnipresent recordability. The evidence for the extraordinary is best when it is captured on video as well as seen by multiple eyewitnesses. But somehow even videos aren't enough for skeptics. Even that evidence is dismissed as a camera glitch or a bird or a weather balloon per Mick West. I doubt if any evidence would ever satisfy them/him. They're always moving the goalposts in accord with the motto "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." That in itself implies repeatability, and you're not going to get that with extraordinary events like ufos.

 

[DaveC426913]

But you don't have to repeat all the events of your past life to know they happened. You and others were a direct eyewitness of them, and that suffices as evidence that they happened. Only a nutcase would record the events of everyday and repeat them to make sure they were real.

You are still confusing everyday life with scientific analysis.

Yes, when we are scientifically analyzing a person's life - say a historically influential person - for posterity, you can bet we don't simply take their word for what happened. Facts are verified with independent accounts, and with known facts about events.

And there are discrepancies. If a dignitary says they were at the Prague Summit in 1983, yet the Prague Summit was in 1984, then we go with fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

Even that evidence is dismissed as a camera glitch or a bird or a weather balloon.

If it could be a camera glitch, or could be a weather balloon, then you can't conclude that it's something extra-ordinary - let alone a "piloted craft".

And yet you try to. That's on you. That's your error.

And it's a damning one for your credibility.

 

[Michael 345]

that evidence is dismissed as a camera glitch or a bird or a weather balloon.

Because that evidence has been shown to be able to be reproduced by a camera glitch or a bird or a weather balloon

 

[DaveC426913]

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." That in itself implies repeatability, and you're not going to get that with extraordinary events like ufos.

Let it be known - here and for posterity - that Magical Realist finally acknowledges that UFOs do not meet the criteria for scientific analysis.

 

[Seattle]

When someone says something extraordinary, I think it only makes sense that we would need more than that the "witness" isn't known to lie and has no reason to lie.

Why are most of these "witnessed" events not on radar? Everything else in our airspace is tracked on radar. How is it that just one person is the only one (usually) who sees these things?

Why has no one ever shot Bigfoot?

 

[wegs]

We live in an age of almost omnipresent recordability. The evidence for the extraordinary is best when it is captured on video as well as seen by multiple eyewitnesses. But somehow even videos aren't enough for skeptics. Even that evidence is dismissed as a camera glitch or a bird or a weather balloon. I doubt if any evidence would ever satisfy them. They're always moving the goalposts in accord with the motto "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." That in itself implies repeatability, and you're not going to get that with extraordinary events like ufos.

Reading this, and it makes sense to me, science doesn't have all the answers, especially when it comes to love, music, art...life isn't just about measurements and equations. Spirituality, faith, meditation, yoga, etc... experiences that bring about a sense of wellness for many (not all) people, can't be measured...can't be repeated through controlled conditions to see if everyone will ''feel'' that same way.

If someone claims to have seen flying saucers in their backyard and they seem credible and sane...it would be good to give that story some assessment, and not discard it. The scientific approach however, won't be able to produce much with just an eye witness report. If I lived in the middle of nowhere near acres of cornfields, I'd just set up a surveillance camera outside, and see what happens. lol