What evidence would work?

[Russ_Watters]

Very few are Krash661 ; very few are . Interested in this topic . Krash .

They read little or nothing at all . They have no idea and quite frankly ; it challenges their understanding of this Universe . Because we are in this bubble of Earth . Which gives a myopic perspective of this Universe .

But some of us know better .

You sure do! Congrats on your superiority!

 

[river]

you would think they would be energized by the challenge, but a lot of them take the ego deflation very hard when they find out not only how much they do not know, but how much they are not capable of understanding.

Agreed

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Very few are Krash661 ; very few are . Interested in this topic . Krash .

They read little or nothing at all . They have no idea and quite frankly ; it challenges their understanding of this Universe . Because we are in this bubble of Earth . Which gives a myopic perspective of this Universe .

But some of us know better .

You sure do! Congrats on your superiority!

Actually our perceived superiority by you and others ; is your fault .

 

[Russ_Watters]

Therein lies the problem. Whatever so-called paranormal phenomena may be real, assuming any are, they are almost certainly not reproducible on demand. And since no photograph, video, or other data can stand alone as scientific evidence, there is no way to properly test for such claims. So the problem is that science is limited. Even if something is real we may have no way to prove it.

You badly overstate the limitation because scientific phenomena are not required to be produced on demand. One-off events are analyzed in detail and accepted all the time by science. The 2015 Chelyabinsk meteor is a prime example. No potential alien spaceship incident has ever come anywhere close to that level of evidence - if one did, it would be accepted.

The other problem is that the standard for these types of claims are higher than for regular science. Evidence is not enough. It must be extraordinary evidence.

You're misunderstanding/misrepresenting the issue -- vastly downplaying the quality of scientific evidence (oddly, despite accurately describing one of the key problems with fring topic evidence). Scientific evidence is extraordinary. Monumental. Collossal. Thousands (millions?) of people have performed Michelson Morley Experiments to demonstrate one of the basic ideas in Special Relativity. Tens (hundreds?) of millions of people have looked at the moons of Jupiter through telescopes. The LHC collects terebytes of data per run.

When the Higgs Bozon was discovered, it was data on top of model on top of data on top of model for hundreds of years' worth of science that went into the discovery. That's extaordinary squared! And yet it is still tentative.

Meanwhile, modern experiments of all types verify theories to extreme levels of precision.

If the standards for evidence of UFOs [the seemingly inexplicable type] were that low[as sprites], it would be a done deal.

Nonsense. We all of course accept the existence of UFOs. They are, as the name says: just unknown things. Everyone accepts that unknown things exist. But if you're claiming positive identification of any, I'd be interested in seeing the details of your claim. I've never seen evidence as good as that I just found for sprites in 30 seconds of googleing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Translation: The standards for evidence of claims we don't want to believe are arbitrary.

Nonsense. Those of us described as "skeptics" try hard to hold consistent and meaningful standards of proof. It isn't our fault that the evidence on fringe subjects is crap. Heck, this isn't even about consistency. Magical Realist has a consistent standard too: he assumes every extraordinary claim is true unless proven otherwise(no standard for that). Sound reasonable to you?

Worse, it's a false claim about us "skeptics": As I point out to Magical Realist every few days, most of us do want to believe these claims. So sorry, but the bias only goes one way.

It's even worse than that, since the only things that the physicist can 'perceive' with his collider is what the physicist's theory tells him it's possible for the collider's detectors to detect. There's a huge interpretive component to what the physicist does, as raw data (huge sets of numbers or something) is converted into experimental results. So the whole experimental process is heavily dependent on preexisting theory. Arguably quite a bit of circularity sneaks in at that point.

Nonsense. The only way to prove an existing theory true/false is to test it, precisely. There's nothing at all biased/circular about that. You have that utterly backwards. The existing theory forms the framework on which the new data sits and that is part of what makes it so extraordinary. It's not a lack of an open mind, it's a prediction that has been verified. It's utterly extarordinary that they risked billions of dollars to get that data point and it successfully found what they were looking for.

The reason it needs to be hammered home that these fringe subjects need "extaordinary evidence" is because they utterly lack that mountain underneath them that all new scientific theories have. Want to discover the next big particle? Thousands of people have spent hundreds of years building a mountain for you to put one more rock on top of. Want to prove an alien spacecraft is real? You're basically building that mountain from scratch.

The ability of the physicists' techniques to detect unexpected things is probably going to be rather limited. Science is good at discovering things that it hypothesizes might possibly exist, things that it thinks that it knows how to look for and detect, but not so good at discovering totally unexpected things that don't conform to existing theory at all.

Nonsense to the point where I must call BS: provide an example of something missed by science due to some sort of bias/blind spot that was later proven by other means and is now generally accepted.

In reality, science is better than any other form of investigation at turning on a dime if the result doesn't turn out as expected. Science is plenty adaptable. That's one of the best things about it.

The other day, Plazma posted an interesting news item about 'Planet 9' being captured from another passing star early in the Sun's history. Of course Planet 9 is purely hypothetical and its actual existence has not yet been verified. Its hypothetical mass and orbital parameters were deduced by implication from various oddities in the orbits of various Kuiper belt objects. And this new item is even more speculative, apparently a speculative hypothesis piled upon a speculative hypothesis. But it's science and somebody published it.

Your own description belies your point:
1. It's acknowledged to be speculative.
2. It's based on real data and previously verified science.

That's the mountain. The next rock on top of the mountain is always going to be speculative (otherwise, the mountain could never grow!), but there is already an extraordinary mountain underneath the new speculative idea.

Right. I suggested that in an earlier post and was insulted for saying it. Nevertheless, I damnably persist in thinking that it's true. [regarding extraordinary claims]

When you insult people, they will insult you back. So a suggestion: if you want to be treated better, treat us better.

But hey, put your money where your mouth is: this thread is for discussing what evidence would work. Why don't you put forth a standard of evidence/proof you think is reasonable rather than just attacking people who hold scientific standards?

 

[Russ_Watters]

to whom though..
[snip]
for the umpteenth time now-- according to whom though?

Us! How is that so hard to understand?

-- what is the deciding element? and also how has any of this NOT HAVE BEEN PROVEN ?

I'm sorry, but that is too garbled to be able to respond to it.

it is not shocking at all-- what is shocking is that everyone is saying that there is no proof/evidence, when in fact there is an abundance of

Few people say there is "no" proof/evidence - most of us say there is no quality proof/evidence. As you yourself have told us that you are privy to secret government evidence that is not in the public domain, it should not be shocking that the rest of us don't feel these things are as proven as you think they are.

your opinion is just fine, but i have no clue as to why this would be " it is too bad"-- (shakes head)

I say "it is too bad" because you have us at a disadvantage on the discussion -- you know [apparently] know things we don't have access to. It is too bad because if we all had access to the same information then maybe we could all draw the same conclusions! Instead we argue based on [apparently] different facts!

what would be the significance if you did ? (shrugs)

None, really other than that these discussions might go differently. Yes, I rather suspect that your indifference to us is likely about the same as ours is toward you.

 

[DaveC426913]

what about their(professional pilots and astronuats) testimonials that involve alien vehicles or alien data?-- or what about all of the worldly government officials coming-out, stating what they know ?-- why are they not believed on that?

edit--
what about all of the leaked government documents?

Yup. It's all very interesting. But it remains unexplained.

 

[paddoboy]

Yup. It's all very interesting. But it remains unexplained.

Totally!...But just as certain is the fact that most all of us [even little old me] do believe we are not alone, and would dearly love for some ET contact be made before we [well at least I ] kick the bucket.

 

[paddoboy]

The only evidence that works ; is from the fifties and early sixtes.

I keep telling myself that your statements cannot get any stupider, but every time you post again, you prove me wrong.

 

[paddoboy]

Science is good at discovering things that it hypothesizes might possibly exist, things that it thinks that it knows how to look for and detect, but not so good at discovering totally unexpected things that don't conform to existing theory at all.

Whatever science does and achieve, is streets ahead of your usual negativity.
Unexpected things...Serendipity?
Let's see.....How's about the accidental discovery of the CMBR by Penzias and Wilson, or the relic heat from the BB?
How about a fella called William Roentgen and X-Rays?
Or Alexander Fleming and Penicillin?
Or Viagra!

 

[paddoboy]

But if the subject is something 'paranormal', eyewitness reports are suddenly no longer sufficient. Photos are suddenly no longer sufficient. Reports from multiple people are no longer sufficient. One wonders what, if anything, would be. The standard has obviously been re-set much higher. I think that the reason this is so is that the "skeptics" don't believe in the existence of whatever it is. Its existence is incoherent with their preexisting mental picture of what the universe is and how it behaves.

Many scientists were also sceptic about BH's and their Newtonian counterpart Dark Stars in 1879 when hypothesised by John Michell.
But we had to wait until the sixties and the discovery of Cygnus X-1.

Again, although you chose to dismiss it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
When paranormal/supernatural events start happening for whole cities and crowds to see, then they'll be considered...not just to impressionable isolated individuals.....
When the many thousands of claimed Alien visitations decide to make it official, and cease the unlikely continued flittering in and flittering out again escapades, then we'll look at it.
And finally again, I would most dearly love to be shown to be wrong with regards to Alien visitations...I believe ETI exists at many levels throughout the Universe we inhabit based on universe extent and numbers...but just like the visitations, no good hard convincing evidence....show me a physical non Earthly artifact...show me some Alien faece, show me a body of Alien origin.

 

[Yazata]

It's even worse than that, since the only things that the physicist can 'perceive' with his collider is what the physicist's theory tells him it's possible for the collider's detectors to detect. There's a huge interpretive component to what the physicist does, as raw data (huge sets of numbers or something) is converted into experimental results. So the whole experimental process is heavily dependent on preexisting theory. Arguably quite a bit of circularity sneaks in at that point.

Nonsense. The only way to prove an existing theory true/false is to test it, precisely. There's nothing at all biased/circular about that.

Here's a large particle collector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider. It's a hugely complex piece of engineering that's great for detecting particles that behave as particles are expected to behave. But probably less useful for detecting particles that don't behave that way, let alone for detecting things that aren't particles at all. It's clearly a very specialized instrument for detecting the kinds of things it was designed to detect.

http://home.cern/about/experiments/atlas

They say themselves that it produces a huge flood of raw data. In order to become experimental results, that raw data has to be interpreted. To help 'digest' that data, they tell us that the detector has a "trigger system" that tells it what to record and what to ignore. "Complex data acquisition and computing systems are then used to analyze the collision events recorded." My point is that a tremendous amount of theory has inevitably gone into designing all those 'triggers' and 'data acquisition systems', the algorithms for subsequent data analysis and for separating signals from noise, and the actual detectors themselves. That's based on what the detector is expected to detect, on how those things are expected to behave, and on what is believed beforehand to be the best way to squeeze information out of all of it.

I don't intend that as a criticism. I'm just pointing out that this thing is in effect a microscope, with an extremely narrow and specialized focus.

 

[paddoboy]

Here's a large particle collector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider. It's a hugely complex piece of engineering that's great for detecting particles that behave as particles are expected to behave. But probably less useful for detecting particles that don't behave that way, let alone for detecting things that aren't particles at all. It's clearly a very specialized instrument for detecting the kinds of things it was designed to detect.

It's an Instrument made to see what the Universe was made of at the tiniests of fractions of a second post BB.

They say themselves that it produces a huge flood of raw data. In order to become experimental results, that raw data has to be interpreted. To help 'digest' that data, they tell us that the detector has a "trigger system" that tells it what to record and what to ignore. "Complex data acquisition and computing systems are then used to analyze the collision events recorded." My point is that a tremendous amount of theory has inevitably gone into designing all those 'triggers' and 'data acquisition systems', the algorithms for subsequent data analysis and for separating signals from noise, and the actual detectors themselves. That's based on what the detector is expected to detect, on how those things are expected to behave, and on what is believed beforehand to be the best way to squeeze information out of all of it.

The LHC has many experiemnts running, and each has a specific job, based on what you say, and certainly what the experienced professionals could expect.....
ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, LHCb, LHCf, FELIX, FP420, HV-QF, MOEDAL, TOTEM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Large_Hadron_Collider_experiments

I don't intend that as a criticism. I'm just pointing out that this thing is in effect a microscope, with an extremely narrow and specialized focus.

Except we do have many experiments that can be and are undertaken, to allow for most contingencies, and while as the name suggests, the LHC is for colliding Hadrons together, other machines around the world to other aspects of particle physics, such as the RHIC [Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider]

 

[paddoboy]

I don't intend that as a criticism. I'm just pointing out that this thing is in effect a microscope, with an extremely narrow and specialized focus.

Also of course invalidating the "narrow work premise" of the LHC you have supposed, is the search for the nature of DM, and specifically WIMP's as cold DM, and possible gravitinos as warm DM, along with the asymmetry or otherwise of matter/anti matter.......

 

[krash661]

for the umpteenth time now, the whole argument is, only, simply: " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. " (shakes head)
secluded, low level, anthropocentric thinking and nothing more.. (shakes head)

 

[Sarkus]

for the umpteenth time now, the whole argument is, only, simply: " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. " (shakes head)
secluded, low level, anthropocentric thinking and nothing more.. (shakes head)

You can keep repeating this ad infinitum if it pleases you but by doing so you'll simply be continuing your lack of grasping of what people are telling you. Or is it that you are deliberately misunderstanding them? Hmmm.
Noone has said, or argued, what you seem to think they do. Yet you claim to be intelligent (that's assuming your government only employ intelligent people as tier one scientists as you claim to be... unless you're the tea-boy?). Hmmm. Paradox it is. Or you're simply trolling, perhaps.
In fact, in this entire thread, you have said... nothing of worth. Nor do you seem to care that nobody believes you, yet you can not offer us anything other than your say so that you are privy to... what exactly? Oh, that's right... you can't say.
If you weren't so entertaining I can imagine people would find you insufferable.
My nephew, when he was 10, went through a similar stage. He claimed to be a secret agent working on secret things, yet when we asked what it was he could only say it was secret. Endearing in a 10-year old (fortunately it was just a phase until the next one kicked in). Entertaining that someone can do it in as ironic a fashion as you.
One day it might get tiresome, but that day hasn't been reached yet. So carry on, I say! Entertain the crowd with...what's the word?.. oh, yes, with your shenanigans!

 

[krash661]

You can keep repeating this ad infinitum if it pleases you but by doing so you'll simply be continuing your lack of grasping of what people are telling you. Or is it that you are deliberately misunderstanding them? Hmmm.
Noone has said, or argued, what you seem to think they do. Yet you claim to be intelligent (that's assuming your government only employ intelligent people as tier one scientists as you claim to be... unless you're the tea-boy?). Hmmm. Paradox it is. Or you're simply trolling, perhaps.
In fact, in this entire thread, you have said... nothing of worth. Nor do you seem to care that nobody believes you, yet you can not offer us anything other than your say so that you are privy to... what exactly? Oh, that's right... you can't say.
If you weren't so entertaining I can imagine people would find you insufferable.
My nephew, when he was 10, went through a similar stage. He claimed to be a secret agent working on secret things, yet when we asked what it was he could only say it was secret. Endearing in a 10-year old (fortunately it was just a phase until the next one kicked in). Entertaining that someone can do it in as ironic a fashion as you.
One day it might get tiresome, but that day hasn't been reached yet. So carry on, I say! Entertain the crowd with...what's the word?.. oh, yes, with your shenanigans!

I find it odd that you do not believe the interview itself, but you believe all the names and info regarding the interview. Other than that I have already told you that I have no interest in your hypocritical, pathetic, low-level minded,want-to-be intellect shenanigans.

lack of grasping of what people are telling you

except what "everyone else"(including yourself) is not grasping is that all they have ever said from the beginning of this topic is, simply, only, " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. " the fact that everyone sidesteps my questions with a manipulation spin speaks volumes.

 

[Sarkus]

except what "everyone else"(including yourself) is not grasping is that all they have ever said from the beginning of this topic is, simply, only, " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist,"

Please provide one example of that from this thread?

and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "

And please provide one example of that where the person means that it is not evidence per se rather than it merely not being convincing evidence to them, or evidence that leads them to rationally conclude in what it is claimed to be?

the fact that everyone sidesteps my questions with a manipulation spin speaks volumes.

Noone would sidestep your questions if they were relevant and actually related to what people said rather than what you merely want them to have said. Go figure.
But as said: amusing.

 

[paddoboy]

for the umpteenth time now, the whole argument is, only, simply: " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. " (shakes head)
secluded, low level, anthropocentric thinking and nothing more.. (shakes head)

No low level, anthropocentric thinking in my direction at all. I have said many times that we are no more then star stuff and ETI is imo, near certain to exist, somewhere, sometime, and at levels that may very well exceed human technology, based on the near infinite extent of the Universe and near infinite content of galaxies, stars and planets: The point though that needs remembering is that other than those numerical figures, no direct evidence exists for ET and no extraordinary evidence exists that shows the Earth has ever been visited by Aliens.
For the umpteenth and one time, Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and always will.
It's nice though [well sort of] to see you popping in in recent times to support MR so fervently.....Never let a mate down I say!

 

[krash661]

Please provide one example of that from this thread?
And please provide one example of that where the person means that it is not evidence per se rather than it merely not being convincing evidence to them, or evidence that leads them to rationally conclude in what it is claimed to be?
Noone would sidestep your questions if they were relevant and actually related to what people said rather than what you merely want them to have said. Go figure.
But as said: amusing.

the fact that everyone sidesteps my questions with a manipulation spin speaks volumes.

 

[krash661]

I have said many times

MY god, you are a joke--every one wishes that you would shut your mouth for once. in other words, no one cares what you say.
(shrugs)