Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Fila

The inherit bias regarding UFOs

Sceptics, scoffers and believers  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Are all UFO reports lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs?

  2. 2. Is it possible that advanced ET life exists?

  3. 3. Can an advanced ET race visit Earth secretly?



217 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Fila
Posted (edited)

I think I see the problem with UFOlogy. There are 2 teams.., scoffers and believers.

The problem is that both sides have made up their minds.., and don't feel the need to pursue it scientifically to prove their conclusion. This is what's wrong. Both sides claim to be 100% correct.

Scoffers will say all UFO reports are lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs of known objects.., and we should stop looking into it. There is anger towards people who look into it.

Believers know ETs are here.., and don't feel the need to prove it scientifically. Its up to humans to "wake-up" whatever that means.

I am what science calls a sceptic. I can look at both sides objectively.., and this can be shown in my posts. I would like everyone to take some time and look over their posts.., and see if they argue both sides.., or if they have an agenda.

What's needed are more "sceptics". Not sceptical of one theory (ETH).., but sceptical of information. That is what sceptic means. We can twist it around and say I am sceptical of UFO reports.., but that still means you would need to look at both sides. IF you only argue one side.., you are biased. Universities and science in general does not allow this. If you submit a paper arguing one side.., it will be thrown out.

This thread is not designed to start a war between the 2 sides.., more of an attempt to help people reflect on themselves to see their patterns.., eliminate 100% certainty in discussions.., and encourage unbiased scientific discourse.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Fila said:

I think I see the problem with UFOlogy. There are 2 teams.., scoffers and believers.

No there aren't.  But sometimes it seems there are two types of people in this world, those who think everything can be divided into two sides/black and white... and those who don't.  Me, I'm in the latter group and there are way more than fifty shades, imo...

Quote

The problem is that both sides have made up their minds..

Rubbish.  I'll change my mind if/when good evidence appears.  You know, that good evidence you keep talking about but when pushed, you refuse to nominate it or admit that all you have is anecdotes and stories..

Quote

, and don't feel the need to pursue it scientifically to prove their conclusion.

So we should not pursue the truth?  That's all that science does.......

Quote

This is what's wrong.

I disagree.

Quote

Both sides claim to be 100% correct.

I see lots of undecided folks or folks waiting patiently for evidence in the hope that one day ET might turn up.. so are you at a different forum?  The only thing that I think is 100% is this:

To date, no convincing evidence of extra-terrestrial visitation of earth has been presented.

Quote

Scoffers will say all UFO reports are lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs of known objects..

No, we dam well don't, and don't try to speak for us skeptics, nor use derogatory terms - that would be rather ad hominesque, don't you agree?  I scoff at such behavior....

Quote

 and we should stop looking into it.

What a disgusting and demeaning LIE.  In fact here is an example of me, analysing what is after all a pretty lame report...

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318198-green-ufo-video/?do=findComment&comment=6456653

I don't see you doing a lot of that...

Quote

There is anger towards people who look into it.

I don't see anger directed at me when I look into it - in fact most folks appreciate it when I bust a false claim wide open...

Anyway, I've heard enough.  As for your poll questions, the very first one does not cover all the options and the second and third are just plain silly (reasons available if anyone else asks), so imo you are trying to drive the agenda with your biases.

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

No there aren't.  But sometimes it seems there are two types of people in this world, those who think everything can be divided into two sides/black and white... and those who don't.  Me, I'm in the latter group and there are way more than fifty shades, imo...

Hello ChrLzs. Thank you for your response. I have only been on this site a short time.., but from my experience here, on other forums and in real life.., I have not found anyone who is unbiased in this whole thing. People have set opinions already.., even before looking at the data. I was actually hounded for coming here without forming a conclusion.., which was very strange.

Can you please show me an example of one user who looks into UFOs objectively? One who argues both sides? I honestly cannot find anyone. Then compare this to the majority of users.., and I think you will begin to see my point.

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Rubbish.  I'll change my mind if/when good evidence appears.  You know, that good evidence you keep talking about but when pushed, you refuse to nominate it or admit that all you have is anecdotes and stories..

The point is that you have made up your mind to begin with. Technically.., officially.., scientifically.., the phenomenon is unsolved. No one can form a conclusion. Coming into a subject with your own opinions is called bias. If a tobacco company did research on how healthy ciggies are.., then it would not be taken seriously.., and people would demand a 2nd opinion from someone who has no bias on the subject. 

As for the anecdotes and stories remark.., basically observations are the first step in most studies.., this is not a bad thing. Once we have observations.., we need to verify them. I.e. People see falling rocks.., but astronomers didn't. Therefore meteors didn't exist. Until a scientist can come in to confirm the observation.., all we are left are the initial claims to go from. This is not a bad thing. More of a 1st step.

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So we should not pursue the truth?  That's all that science does.......

I am confused to how you think this is what I meant. It is literally the exact opposite of my point. If you don't understand.., then it is going to take me a very long time to explain this to you. Please have another read.., and let me know if you'd like me to explain why its bad for people to set a conclusion and not look into it.

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I disagree.

One might suggest that bias, and the recognition of the pervasive nature of bias, is the foundation of “the scientific method” In that the various techniques of science are largely methods to root out and deal with our various biases. Thomas Kuhn’s work suggests you essentially have to wait for a generation of scientists to die off, when the next without the identical biases take over.

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I see lots of undecided folks or folks waiting patiently for evidence in the hope that one day ET might turn up.. so are you at a different forum?  The only thing that I think is 100% is this:

Waiting patiently. Yes.., it seems like we are reading different forums, lol. I will keep this quote in my pocket for future use. Thank you.

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

To date, no convincing evidence of extra-terrestrial visitation of earth has been presented.

Of course. But please remember your prior comments about UFO reports simply being stories. Remember that there is a lack of evidence.., but its not the witnesses fault. I have created a new thread asking how people can document UFO events.., perhaps you could help me out. How are these witnesses meant to prove UFOs are ET? How are they meant to prove they saw anything.., regardless of it being ET. How can I prove I saw ball lightning?

What types of evidence should they gather and how? Thank you.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318431-how-to-document-ufo-sightings/

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

No, we dam well don't, and don't try to speak for us skeptics, nor use derogatory terms - that would be rather ad hominesque, don't you agree?  I scoff at such behavior....

No, that is the definition of a scoffer imo. I can provide examples from this forum alone if you'd like., and you can provide examples to counter my claims. How's that? I am not speaking for you.., I am making an observation and presenting my findings.

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

What a disgusting and demeaning LIE.  In fact here is an example of me, analysing what is after all a pretty lame report...

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318198-green-ufo-video/?do=findComment&comment=6456653

I have disproven lame reports also. Again.., examples provided upon request if need be.

But.., this is different. Its when I have discussed more credible cases that cannot be quickly dismissed.., that scoffers actually get angry and tell me to stop looking into it. I can show many examples from day 1 of arrival where I have been yelled at, abused, and cohered into quitting. Examples gladly provided upon request.

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I don't see anger directed at me when I look into it - in fact most folks appreciate it when I bust a false claim wide open...

Anyway, I've heard enough.  As for your poll questions, the very first one does not cover all the options and the second and third are just plain silly (reasons available if anyone else asks), so imo you are trying to drive the agenda with your biases.

No anger directed at you for posting pro ETH material? Can you please show me examples of this? I am very interested.

The questions are valid and (for my own personal reasons) make a lot of sense. I cannot fully explain why until the poll is finished. I think this thread will get very interesting once we collect the data. I wanted to add 1 more question.., but was limited to 3.

Just out of interest.., how should I modify question 1?

Thank you for your time.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 hours ago, Fila said:

How can I prove I saw ball lightning?

Answer the question.

I'm sure some here would love to give you a long list of reasons you can't prove you saw ball lightning. I'm not sure you can either, I just don't carry a long list in my proverbial back pocket.

2 hours ago, Fila said:

What types of evidence should they gather and how? Thank you.

You should have pictures on your phone of Aliens. How is this not obvious? Oh, wait, you were really talking about ball lightning... um dang... evidence... guess your just out of luck on that one!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins
8 hours ago, Fila said:

I think I see the problem with UFOlogy. There are 2 teams.., scoffers and believers.

The problem is that both sides have made up their minds.., and don't feel the need to pursue it scientifically to prove their conclusion. This is what's wrong. Both sides claim to be 100% correct.

Scoffers will say all UFO reports are lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs of known objects.., and we should stop looking into it. There is anger towards people who look into it.

Believers know ETs are here.., and don't feel the need to prove it scientifically. Its up to humans to "wake-up" whatever that means.

I am what science calls a sceptic. I can look at both sides objectively.., and this can be shown in my posts. I would like everyone to take some time and look over their posts.., and see if they argue both sides.., or if they have an agenda.

What's needed are more "sceptics". Not sceptical of one theory (ETH).., but sceptical of information. That is what sceptic means. We can twist it around and say I am sceptical of UFO reports.., but that still means you would need to look at both sides. IF you only argue one side.., you are biased. Universities and science in general does not allow this. If you submit a paper arguing one side.., it will be thrown out.

This thread is not designed to start a war between the 2 sides.., more of an attempt to help people reflect on themselves to see their patterns.., eliminate 100% certainty in discussions.., and encourage unbiased scientific discourse.

Quote

Scoffers will say all UFO reports are lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs of known objects.., and we should stop looking into it. There is anger towards people who look into it.

It's not all hoax and lies and yes mis ID's occur on a common occurrence. It's people that do not know what they are looking at and automatically assume its alien in nature when in fact it's not.  All one has to do is take a look at the history especially over the last say 10 years or so...The rampant hoax sites that have popped up on the web is one example. Ufology has destroyed it's own reputation just by way of all the hoax and lies that have been put forth by those out to make a buck.

Sure UFO's exist. Are they all aliens from another planet? No. And even the ones that are suspect cannot be proven to be visitors from another galaxy. You mentioned two teams believers and scoffers....In terms of believers there are two camps here....Firstly the New Age Ufologists..these folks often use religious themes and terms and claim to get messages for ET's or use telepathy, channeling or dreams or some other subjective experience. One good example of this group is the Unarius Educational Foundation in El Cajon California.

Then there is the Science Fiction crowd. These folks claim that the reality of ET visitations or ET's or some beings from another dimension or some other far out world are based on the weight of UFO sightings, photos and videos, some alleged trace cases, abductions and UFO crashes. This type of believers generally offer proof but most of the time their evidence falls way short of the evidence required to support some of their extraordinary claims.

Could write more but I have to go to work.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
Posted (edited)

How can photos or videos confirm or deny proof of aliens/UFO's nowadays? Any video can be faked. Any picture can be faked.

There is no longer any point in presenting still or moving images as evidence of existence or otherwise. The debate has been reduced to an unresolvable discussion based on pretty much nothing!

Edited by acute
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

This has to be one of the worst thought out polls and OPs in a long time.

Q1 mixes too many ideas to be worth answering. It might be better to spread that out and also accept that there are other possibilities.

Do people lie about sightings? Yes - definitely

Are some sightings hoaxes? Yes - think secure team 10

Are some sighting misidentifications? Yes - definitively think Kean

Are some sightings Earth technologies? Yes - think PL

Are some sightings ETs - no evidence for that

Then we get to the OP

Quote

I think I see the problem with UFOlogy. There are 2 teams.., scoffers and believers.

This is what is known as a false dichotomy. It is a common informal fallacy used by those that want to mislead people. It is especially ridiculous to use it at UM since there are few if any scoffers. There are plenty of skeptics and there are also plenty of gullible people. The skeptics simply ask for someone to show that UFOs are in part alien craft. So far no evidence. The gullible would like to assign ET to just about everything.

There are also the foolish that can't seem to get their facts right. They them bluster on about nonsense because they can't get their facts right. They might claim that the Phoenix Lights reports were consistently reported when statements by witnesses were very different from witness to witness. They get the loony idea that the FLIR video was at 1x when in fact it was a 1.5 degree narrow view. Regardless of how often it is pointed out that they are dead wrong they blunder on foolishly with their glaring mistakes.

The problem with UFOology is that there is no evidence. That's the real problem.

There are people that pretend they are skeptics when they clearly are not. A skeptic examines the evidence to make a decision. They also need to understand the evidence that is out there. When the Phoenix lights witnesses differ in the number of lights, the arrangement of lights, the color of the lights, the altitude of the lights, the speed of the lights, whether or not there was sound, and so forth a skeptic does not say that the reports were consistent. A skeptic does not say that most reports were what was a CGI image in a newspaper. A skeptic is willing to reevaluate their position when shown that they are clearly wrong.

Scoffers - really no one here

Believers - sure there are some here

Skeptics - plenty

Faux-Skeptics - definitely one

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawkin
7 hours ago, acute said:

How can photos or videos confirm or deny proof of aliens/UFO's nowadays? Any video can be faked. Any picture can be faked.

There is no longer any point in presenting still or moving images as evidence of existence or otherwise. The debate has been reduced to an unresolvable discussion based on pretty much nothing!

It's true that photos and video can be faked these days with photoshop and CGI. But even if someone did actually capture a real ET on video or still image of good quality, a lot of people will think it's fraud. Take for example this alligator in this video. A lot of people thought it was fake or animal-tronics because it walked very awkward not knowing that gators naturally walk this way across dry land. Since we don't know the behavior patterns of an ET, we can only speculate.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins
9 hours ago, acute said:

How can photos or videos confirm or deny proof of aliens/UFO's nowadays? Any video can be faked. Any picture can be faked.

There is no longer any point in presenting still or moving images as evidence of existence or otherwise. The debate has been reduced to an unresolvable discussion based on pretty much nothing!

Quote

How can photos or videos confirm or deny proof of aliens/UFO's nowadays?

They can't usually under scrutiny most fail....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

And just to clarify something... photos and videos have NEVER been and never will be proof in their own right.  Nowadays it is both easier to fake, and easier to bust fakery, so it all balances out.  It has ALWAYS been the lack of supporting information, hard evidence and corroboration that has meant the UFO=ET hypothesis fails dismally.  If all they do is zoom about unidentifiably, then even if they are doing it, they might as well not exist as they have no effect on reality.

I'm sure there are some other life forms out there, but.. intelligent? spacefaring? able to reach us, let alone find us?  Not so far.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

And just to clarify something... photos and videos have NEVER been and never will be proof in their own right.  Nowadays it is both easier to fake, and easier to bust fakery, so it all balances out.  It has ALWAYS been the lack of supporting information, hard evidence and corroboration that has meant the UFO=ET hypothesis fails dismally.

I may need to start a new thread about this. This seems like a catch 22 or a paradox of some kind.
We demand proof from UFO witnesses.., yet images are not proof and barely considered evidence. So.., what "proof" can they gather.., and how?
How can a hypothesis fail.., simply because "proof" is hard to attain? Einsteins theory about space/time was not dismissed because we didn't have the tech to check back in the day. Now we have atomic clocks and he was correct. Achilles and the tortoise paradox was proven wrong after we invented calculus.., so until we have to tools to disprove a theory conclusively.., it is not busted.

ChrLzs.., can you please visit this thread and leave a comment. Please. I have asked before.., yet you ignore and keep making blanket statements saying its impossible.., then use this as a reason they are not real sightings. Thank you.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318431-how-to-document-ufo-sightings/

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

I'm sure there are some other life forms out there, but.. intelligent? spacefaring? able to reach us, let alone find us?  Not so far.

You are sure there are other lifeforms.., how do you speak with 100% certainty when officially we are not sure?
How can you scientifically conclude that an ET race has never visited Earth n 4.5 billion years? Why is it impossible today.., and in the past.., yet for some reason its perfectly acceptable theory in the future? Please elaborate.

This is a great example of our own preconceived thoughts and bias getting in the way of rigorous science. The process of finding the truth.., as opposed to everyone blurting out their opinions worded as gospel. Its a horrible way to go about discussing any topic.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
Posted (edited)
On 5/30/2018 at 8:36 PM, Fila said:

I think I see the problem with UFOlogy. There are 2 teams.., scoffers and believers.

The problem is that both sides have made up their minds.., and don't feel the need to pursue it scientifically to prove their conclusion. This is what's wrong. Both sides claim to be 100% correct.

Scoffers will say all UFO reports are lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs of known objects.., and we should stop looking into it. There is anger towards people who look into it.

Believers know ETs are here.., and don't feel the need to prove it scientifically. Its up to humans to "wake-up" whatever that means.

I am what science calls a sceptic. I can look at both sides objectively.., and this can be shown in my posts. I would like everyone to take some time and look over their posts.., and see if they argue both sides.., or if they have an agenda.

What's needed are more "sceptics". Not sceptical of one theory (ETH).., but sceptical of information. That is what sceptic means. We can twist it around and say I am sceptical of UFO reports.., but that still means you would need to look at both sides. IF you only argue one side.., you are biased. Universities and science in general does not allow this. If you submit a paper arguing one side.., it will be thrown out.

This thread is not designed to start a war between the 2 sides.., more of an attempt to help people reflect on themselves to see their patterns.., eliminate 100% certainty in discussions.., and encourage unbiased scientific discourse.

Anything presented in here is just stories. The best evidence one could present in here to back up a story is photographic or video evidence, however those are easy to hoax or doctor and should not be used as "evidence." With that said, I doubt there is a single case presented on these forums that hasn't been debunked or outright rejected.

Edited by South Alabam
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
11 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Anything presented in here is just stories. The best evidence one could present in here to back up a story is phonographic or video evidence, however those are easy to hoax or doctor and should not be used as "evidence." With that said, I doubt there is a single case presented on these forums that hasn't been debunked or outright rejected.

Just to add about "video evidence", since people have personal drones. It would be too easy to fake a video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Where's the I don't know and maybe options on the poll?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
13 hours ago, Fila said:

You are sure there are other lifeforms.., how do you speak with 100% certainty when officially we are not sure?

We are sure. Lifeforms have been found in space.

Quote

Scientists on board the International Space Station (ISS) have discovered living bacteria clinging to the orbital facility's external surface

https://www.sciencealert.com/living-bacteria-from-outer-space-found-clinging-to-iss-alien-life

 

 

On 31/05/2018 at 2:36 AM, Fila said:

Scoffers will say all UFO reports are lies

Absolutely wrong.

I do not believe aliens have visited or are visiting Earth, but i do believe many people see something they can not identify. This is where the term UFO comes into it. 

UFO does not mean it is an alien craft from outta space, it means not everyone are aware what a plane can look like when hit at a certain angle by the sun or a military plane which has not been seen before it is taken on its test run...there are numerous reasons why people see a UFO, to them that is what it is, to those who know or can explain what it is, it is no longer a UFO.

There is absolutely no proof that aliens are visiting Earth, but there is plenty of proof that many people do not know what they saw in the sky, but there is always many who can explain it to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
38 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Just to add about "video evidence", since people have personal drones. It would be too easy to fake a video.

True. I meant that in my reply, but you said it better. :P

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, South Alabam said:

Anything presented in here is just stories. The best evidence one could present in here to back up a story is photographic or video evidence, however those are easy to hoax or doctor and should not be used as "evidence." With that said, I doubt there is a single case presented on these forums that hasn't been debunked or outright rejected.

Hi Alabam, I think we are all coming to that same conclusion. All we have are stories from witnesses. We need scientific observations. Otherwise all we will ever have are stories.., which will merely result in another 80 years of tail chasing. Something which I cannot be involved in.

I would really like to hear your input on this thread if you get a chance. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318431-how-to-document-ufo-sightings/

I have started a list of UFO cases (claims / stories) that are more credible than others posted by anonymous users. I don't think they can sufficiently be explained.., but am always open to new input. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314152-the-best-evidence-for-ufos/?page=12

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, freetoroam said:

We are sure. Lifeforms have been found in space.

I am aware of this.., however it is believed these bacteria originated from Earth.., not outer space. It is scientific evidence that lifeforms can live in space.., but the scientific community does not see this as proof lifeforms exist elsewhere. This is very different.., we know of Earth based organisms that can survive in space.., however this is not proof aliens exist. It is proof some organisms can survive in space.

9 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Absolutely wrong.

I do not believe aliens have visited or are visiting Earth, but i do believe many people see something they can not identify. This is where the term UFO comes into it. 

UFO does not mean it is an alien craft from outta space, it means not everyone are aware what a plane can look like when hit at a certain angle by the sun or a military plane which has not been seen before it is taken on its test run...there are numerous reasons why people see a UFO, to them that is what it is, to those who know or can explain what it is, it is no longer a UFO.

There is absolutely no proof that aliens are visiting Earth, but there is plenty of proof that many people do not know what they saw in the sky, but there is always many who can explain it to them.

I guess this one is my fault. I should always add a disclaimer about the usage of the acronym UFO. Please review this thread: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314101-redefining-the-term-ufo/

I am referring to UFOs as objects that are still unidentified.., not initially unidentified and later found to be a known object thus taking it out of the UFO category.., and placed into a "known" category.

You are saying people see UFOs, that are planes etc. I would call these IFOs (Identified). Scientists get false results all the time.., all the time. We do not focus on these bad results to say hey.., stop doing research cause you got a bad result. They push through and reveal their findings once completed. We do not say "Jack thinks its getting colder.., therefore global warming is fake". We don't say "John feels its getting warmer.., therefore all the data from Jake is inaccurate." We hear an observation from both.., then look into it objectively (via science) to find the correct answer. Not the opposite. We don't use one "opinion" to scientifically disprove an event. A majority of bad results does not negate the hypothesis. This is normal in science.

Your "belief" that its impossible for an alien to have visited Earth over the past 4 billion years is your belief.., and I accept that. However I cannot scientifically prove or disprove the theory.., and I am not a "believer" in one theory.., so I guess we just leave it there?

Its possible I misinterpreted your reply.., and you meant there is simply not enough evidence to say ET has visited Earth.., and that's great. Please hold onto this form of logic and apply this reasoning to both sides of the argument.., or at least see why we cannot disprove events this way.

A lack of evidence does not disprove a theory in science. Especially if you take into consideration the evidence paradox.., which clearly shows UFO witnesses cannot gather sufficient evidence of a UFO event.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ufoscan
Quote

I think I see the problem with UFOlogy. There are 2 teams.., scoffers and believers.

There's also people that thought nothing of UFOs till the day they saw one.

Quote

This is what's wrong. Both sides claim to be 100% correct.

I don't quite agree.  I have seen UFOs several times but I am mostly known as a skeptic as far as UFO pictures and videos.  Probably has to do with the fact that I am a photographer.  I also question pretty much every UFO claim made on the internet or at UFO conferences.  Then on the other hand, I have met several people over the course of my life that have seen UFOs but won't publicly talk about it.

Quote

Scoffers will say all UFO reports are lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs of known objects..

Unfortunately, when it comes to claims made on the internet, they are probably right most of the time. That doesn't change the fact that some people do see UFOs but don't care to talk about it publicly.

Quote

Believers know ETs are here

I would say that believers "believe" ETs are here.  It's the people that see UFOs that perhaps realize that the believers may have a point so long as they have ascertained that what they saw was not a misidentified known phenomenon.

Quote

We can twist it around and say I am sceptical of UFO reports

I think this may vary with the way UFO reports are made. Most people I have met that have had UFO experiences never wanted to go public about them.  They simply are not interested in being the target of ridicule. Others on the other hand tend to seek public exposure.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 5/31/2018 at 8:37 PM, Fila said:

I may need to start a new thread about this. This seems like a catch 22 or a paradox of some kind.
We demand proof from UFO witnesses.., yet images are not proof and barely considered evidence. So.., what "proof" can they gather.., and how?
How can a hypothesis fail.., simply because "proof" is hard to attain? Einsteins theory about space/time was not dismissed because we didn't have the tech to check back in the day. Now we have atomic clocks and he was correct. Achilles and the tortoise paradox was proven wrong after we invented calculus.., so until we have to tools to disprove a theory conclusively.., it is not busted.

ChrLzs.., can you please visit this thread and leave a comment. Please. I have asked before.., yet you ignore and keep making blanket statements saying its impossible.., then use this as a reason they are not real sightings. Thank you.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318431-how-to-document-ufo-sightings/

You are sure there are other lifeforms.., how do you speak with 100% certainty when officially we are not sure?
How can you scientifically conclude that an ET race has never visited Earth n 4.5 billion years? Why is it impossible today.., and in the past.., yet for some reason its perfectly acceptable theory in the future? Please elaborate.

This is a great example of our own preconceived thoughts and bias getting in the way of rigorous science. The process of finding the truth.., as opposed to everyone blurting out their opinions worded as gospel. Its a horrible way to go about discussing any topic.

Let's get things right. First off it is evidence that is needed, not proof. Science does not prove. It can't. That is the realm of math and logic.

You have Einstein's ideas wrong. His theories were based on known facts and made predictions which turned out to be correct. Things like time dilation were observed a full decade before atomic clocks were made.

The Zeno paradox you refer to simply determines the time and position at which the slower leader is passed. It was not proven wrong by calculus.

All of your examples seem to be incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, stereologist said:

Let's get things right. First off it is evidence that is needed, not proof. Science does not prove. It can't. That is the realm of math and logic.

I disagree. I think math and logic are part of the scientific process, So are observations, and measurements,

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

You have Einstein's ideas wrong. His theories were based on known facts and made predictions which turned out to be correct. Things like time dilation were observed a full decade before atomic clocks were made.

A full decade.. That sounds like a lot. Almost more than a normal decade.

But he still developed that theory first, right? The experiments were designed to test his theories.

I think his theories were based on math. But its still a theory of relativity. It's not proven until we have the instruments to measure and confirm. He was a theoretical scientist from my understanding. Another example would be his gravity waves. We still cannot detect them.., but the theory suggests they are real.

 

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

The Zeno paradox you refer to simply determines the time and position at which the slower leader is passed. It was not proven wrong by calculus.

All of your examples seem to be incorrect.

"The Greek philosopher Zeno (5th century BCE) devised several “paradoxes of motion” that baffled all of his contemporaries... ...but the situation wasn’t really clear until Newton and Liebniz invented calculus in the late 17th century."

Source: http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/Teach/Math/Zeno+Footraces+InfiniteSeries.pdf

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Fila said:

I disagree. I think math and logic are part of the scientific process, So are observations, and measurements,

A full decade.. That sounds like a lot. Almost more than a normal decade.

But he still developed that theory first, right? The experiments were designed to test his theories.

I think his theories were based on math. But its still a theory of relativity. It's not proven until we have the instruments to measure and confirm. He was a theoretical scientist from my understanding. Another example would be his gravity waves. We still cannot detect them.., but the theory suggests they are real.

 

"The Greek philosopher Zeno (5th century BCE) devised several “paradoxes of motion” that baffled all of his contemporaries... ...but the situation wasn’t really clear until Newton and Liebniz invented calculus in the late 17th century."

Source: http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/Teach/Math/Zeno+Footraces+InfiniteSeries.pdf

You are dead wrong about science doing proofs. Only math and logic can do proofs. Please stop the mistaken obstinate push forward and learn for a change. Science cannot prove. Using tools that involve proof does not mean science can prove.

Time dilation was demonstrated in 1938. Atomic clocks were first built in 1949. That is a full decade.

Einstein developed a theory, a scientific theory. A scientific theory is based on facts. There were many known facts at the time that were incorporated into his theory. Theories are tested by making predictions. Experiments can test the predictions.

That's normal science. You seem to be unclear about how things work. You also seem to be unclear about how relativity was tested. Maybe you might want to learn about it.

Gravity waves have been detected several times. In fact, there are multiple detectors today that can be used to determine the direction of the source of those waves.

As I stated the Zeno paradox only determines the time and location of the slower runner being passed. The main problem for the Greeks was their resistance to using processes of computation that involved what appeared to be infinite steps. The method they did employ was unknown until a book was discovered called "The Method". They were able to solve such problems before calculus.

Quote

The flaw in Zeno’s argument is his unstated assumption that the sum of an infinite series
(or at least an infinite series like this, where every term is greater than zero) cannot be finite.
 But the situation wasn’t really clear until Newton and Liebniz invented calculus in the late 17th century.

Although the above is true it does NOT support your statement " Achilles and the tortoise paradox was proven wrong after we invented calculus "

Please try to understand that the issue was the ability to calculate using a finite process. Ancient Greeks only allowed for finite processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, stereologist said:

You are dead wrong about science doing proofs. Only math and logic can do proofs. Please stop the mistaken obstinate push forward and learn for a change. Science cannot prove. Using tools that involve proof does not mean science can prove.

I am having difficulty understanding your points. What are proofs?

We can use maths and logic to predict something with great accuracy.., but we still design experiments and observations to confirm. How can we use maths and logic to prove someone saw ball lightning?

12 hours ago, stereologist said:

Time dilation was demonstrated in 1938. Atomic clocks were first built in 1949. That is a full decade.

Yes, I do remember you saying that. But you seem to have overlooked my response, and just repeated the same thing.

12 hours ago, stereologist said:

Einstein developed a theory, a scientific theory. A scientific theory is based on facts. There were many known facts at the time that were incorporated into his theory. Theories are tested by making predictions. Experiments can test the predictions.

I am pretty sure I said the same thing Stereo. Can you please compare your response to what I "think".., and show where I am wrong? Because I agree, and I don't really know what we are disagreeing on.

12 hours ago, stereologist said:

The main problem for the Greeks was their resistance to using processes of computation that involved what appeared to be infinite steps. The method they did employ was unknown until a book was discovered called "The Method". They were able to solve such problems before calculus.

I am having difficulty finding "the method". Can you please provide a link?

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resume

You left out the "I don't know" response.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.