I guess I just can’t imagine a superior intelligent species travelling light-years across galaxies to joyride in an atmosphere of a planet filled with goofballs.
Polycarp: Once again, effusive thanks for demonstrating the commendable openness of mind you display on numerous other threads. I take it you’ve noticed that, as of this morning, no really substantive answer has been made to your final question? As pldennison makes clear, all he can truly do is quibble about virtually indistinguishable differences between words.
pldennison: What, thou a princeling? Nay, thou Churlish One, didst I invoke thy name? Thou wouldst mayhap have preferred the sobriquet running dogs?
Far be it from me to kick a man when he’s down (especially when he’s got a freakin’ bionic leg to come back with. 
I don’t recall every specifically using the word ‘firmly’, and this isn’t a quibble, since that significantly changes the import of the sentence. If I did, okay, I hereby withdraw the word, and maintain the rest of the statement.
As for the difference between ‘nonidentified’ and ‘nonidentifiable’-- it would take more than Occam’s razor to split that hair. So, if I’m understanding you, you’re saying that everything, 100%, bar none that is currently classified as a UFO, which has not subsequently yielded to any conventional explanation, is nevertheless identifiable, awaiting only whatever progress Science may make in the future and thereby provide an explanation? And how long, pray tell, must we be reasonably expected to wait to classify it otherwise?
As for ‘an explanation that explains nothing’ – to deny that these things are in some way nonterrestrial is, in effect, to assert that they are terrestrial. If they are, you provide an explanation. Otherwise, you’re just whistling past the graveyard.
Spoonie: What, you call that fillip of flatulence sarcasm. Why, you little noodling, if you think that’s sarcasm, you better keep your distance from people like Kellibelli, ChiefScott, Big Iron, Contestant#3, et al.
Assert whatever you want, Bunkie. Since it is obvious from your mention of my use of ‘incontrovertibly’ that you haven’t made even so minimal an effort as to read the posts on this very page, and therefore know what I’m talking about, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. I assert right back that, in the situation you put forth, the burden of proof is exactly equal. As for the extent of your knowledge, the depth of your obvious ignorance of the subject is inversely proportional to the shallowness of your thought about it.
As for baffling you – that wasn’t hard, I did it without even trying.
Come back when you have terrestrial explanations for every UFO ever sighted.
Because, despite whatever whining denialists ever do on the subject, that is where the burden of proof lies for those who assert such a thing.
Occam, I think you’re onto something there:
[quote]
I guess I just can’t imagine . . .*
No, I’m sorry, DIF, you’re asserting that these things must be nonterrestrial only because they have not been identified. We both know it simply doesn’t work that way.
Furthermore, you’ve stated before that invasion by an alien lifeform is one of your fears for the destruction of humanity. Don’t you think that might color your perception of what these things might and might not be?
Furthermore, neither you nor C#3 have answered any of my legitimately posed questions either. How do abductees travel between star systems with no relativistic effects? Why do so many sightings resemble things Hollywood SFX guys came up with 40 years ago, and indeed resemble what pulp mag cover artists come up with 80 years ago? If you have no answers for these questions, it is indeed an explanation that explains nothing. It’s all just speculation.
Let’s work with your assertion–they’re nonterrestrial. Now what? You act as if you have proof for all of these assertions, but you have none. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nothing but your own perceptions. So what do you want us to do about them? We can’t match their super hi-tech gravity-and-intertia-defying propulsion systems; can’t even find their radio traffic, let alone decode it; can’t see where they’re hiding and staging from. So what do you want us to do?
“Denialists,” “whistling past the graveyard” . . . you sit there as if you have incontrovertible proof of anything, yet you have nothing. But in order to disguise the fact, you want “denalists” to prove that they aren’t ET spaceships. You want to shift the burden of proof to them from yourself. When will science have explanations for all of them? How the hell should I know? Do I look like a prognosticator? It hardly matters, as you would be inclined to reject any scientific explanation anyway.
DIF said:
I didn’t realize that the goal here was to out-use each other with sarcasm. I use sarcasm to make a point.
DIF said:
[quote]
Assert whatever you want, Bunkie. Since it is obvious from your mention of my use of ‘incontrovertibly’ that you haven’t made even so minimal an effort as to read the posts on this very page, and therefore know what I’m talking about, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
[/QUOTE}
I apologize if its difficult to synthesize your points and arguments from the general name calling and other pointless blather found in your posts.
I at least explained why I made my assertion and still believe it is logically sound. Perhaps instead of just making blind assertions, you could provide points to back those up? I don’t think that is too much to ask in a forum called ‘Great Debates.’
Perhaps you should stick to the name calling rather than trying to use a mathematical reference to describe my ‘depth of ignorance’ and ‘shallowness of thought’ which I am assuming you think are both large. I’m fairly certain to achieve the effect of suggesting these are both large, you should have stated that they were directly proportional. I only bring this up because you at least show great potential for being good at insulting, and barely a spec of potential for being a good debater, and I’m a firm believer that everyone should try to reach full potential at those things they seem to be somewhat adept at.
Hardly something to brag about.
For sake of argument, we can agree that all UFO’s are either terrestrial or extra-terrestrial. I assert that ‘No UFO’s to date are extra-terrestrial.’ This is equivalent to ‘All UFO’s to date are terrestrial.’ You assert that ‘All UFO’s to date are not terrestrial.’ This is equivalent to ‘One or more UFO’s to date are extra-terrestrial.’ You can assert all you want that proving these two points have equal burden of proof. You say to prove all UFO’s are terrestrial, I say to prove that one is extra-terrestrial. Considering that science tries to work within the realm of possibility, you actually have the easier task.
I should note that I do not deny the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. I actually believe that there is. I do not believe, however, that any of the UFO’s reported to date were extra-terrestrial in origin, which I believe is supported by the current scientific evidence to date, logical arguments notwithstanding.
If my assumption about what you are asserting is incorrect, feel free to correct me DIF. Since you provided no specific examples of what I said that caused you to believe that I hadn’t read any prior posts, I would welcome a further explanation.
First, Phil, a word of advice: decaf.
Second, I am not asserting that they must be nonterrestrial simply because they are nonidentified, and remain nonidentifiable by any present, fair-minded, rational means. I am asserting that it is reasonable to presume (until evidence otherwise is found) that they do not originate on this planet because they behave in ways no terrestrial, conventional flying object has ever been known to behave, or even will be able to behave, in the foreseeable future. Nor can any sensible arguments be put forth to explain why, if they’re terrestrial, the builders haven’t made themselves known.
Yet you continue to insist that they **cannot ** be nonterrestrial because that’s ‘impossible’. Therefore – is this not a fair conclusion? – you are saying, in effect, that they must all be terrestrial, no exceptions.
If my worry about the ultimate intentions of whatever/whoever is behind UFOs ‘colors my perception’ of these things, it certainly does so no more or less than your quasi-fundamentalist ‘faith’ in the inviolability of natural law as we currently perceive it.
As for your questions, I had intended to answer them, but by the time I had the time to get back to the particular thread, the conversation had moved so far along, the immediate topic had shifted. But, here goes, for what it’s worth:
To quote someone else you may recognize:
If I could come up with the technology to do what ‘they’ do, you think I’d be dicking around an internet message board with hardheads like you? (I’d be hovering outside the freakin’ library windows during the next meeting of REALL, for one thing! :))
Polycarp, if you read this, check me: did I say I absolutely think ‘they’ (and you know who I mean) are necessarily interstellar? I don’t even know that there is a ‘they’, but if others who claim to have had encounters say there are beings involved, I am at least willing to listen without prejudice.
Correct me if I’m wrong in my attribution, but aren’t you the guy who attacked post hoc, ergo propter hoc logic on another thread, or was it David, and you simply agreed with him? But now it’s suddenly a legitimate point?
One man’s ‘speculation’ is another man’s Nobel Prize. It may all just be speculation, but then so is your insistence that all UFOs are ultimately explainable. Insisting that they must be explainable, even though they have remained unexplained after years of investigation and research, also explains nothing.
You act as if saying “Now what?” ends the discussion. If the working hypothesis is that these things are nonterrestrial in origin, now we investigate by every means available, and we look for new means of investigation. As for proof, there are literally shelves and shelves and cabinet upon cabinet of proof, both in the form of photographic evidence and in the testimony of almost countless impeccable eyewitnesses that include people to whom we entrust the nation’s defense and society’s protection. All of which means nothing to you, only because your mind is immutably closed on the subject.
I don’t want to prove they’re ET spaceships. I just want you to prove that they are all terrestrial in origin; that is what your stance ultimately requires of you, which you manifestly can’t do and will never be able to do.
I want to try to find some level ground for us to pursue this on, since it appears that we may actually be getting somewhere if the proportion of heat to light can be kept to a reasonable level.
Here are some assertions:
- There are flying objects which have not as yet been identified. I think everyone agrees on this.
- There are hoaxes, errors of observation, misinterpretations of data, and other phenomena which account for a fair share of the otherwise unexplained phenomena, but not all of it. This seems safe to assume. C#3, who seems the least skeptical of our UFO posters, has IIRC accepted this.
- Some unexplained sightings include phenomena that appear to preclude natural explanation, such as improbably rapid turns in flight.
Okay. DIF appears to be saying that these last are “nonidentifiable” in the sense that nothing known to man could have caused them. Phil appears to be saying otherwise… that there is a “natural” explanation not involving things not now known to man. Have I interpreted your posts right?
-
Explanations of these phenomena include:
[ul][li]Fortean phenomena[]Extraterrestrial visitations[]Visitations from other universes[]Misinterpretations of data[]Unknown natural processes[/ul][/li]Am I in error here, and have I omitted any major category (whether or not you accept it as a probability)? -
Occam’s Razor is not a sure guide to an explanation. But it does place the onus of proof on the theorist whose theory requires the greater number of or the less probable assumptions. Does anyone have a problem with this? (E.g., if I read a post alleging itself to be from TubaDiva, it is more likely that there is a real TubaDiva posting it than that a hypothetical Satan is messing with my mind. Although Satan is verifiable, given where I live and work, and the probability of a lady tuba virtuoso stretches my credulity… ;))
Okay, given all this:
[ul][]The least improbable explanation, the one requiring the fewest assumptions, is that data were consciously or unconsciously misinterpreted.[]The probability of the existence of additional natural laws explaining the observed phenomena cannot be estimated, but would in theory be testable, once hypotheses are mounted to explain the data.[]The probability of extraterrestrial visitations cannot be reliably evaluated, but based on our current knowledge of physical law is tentatively low. (I think that the skeptics would allow that there are strong potentials for the exploitation of “loopholes” available in current natural law, and the discovery of new law. Simultaneously, the pro-ETV advocates would have to allow that the likelihood of ETVs which operate on known mechanisms is quite low. We have no propulsive forces nor operator support devices which would allow for the operation of ETVs that do aerial broken-field runs like rabbits evading beagles.[]In the absence of reliable evidence for intrauniversal movement (by anything, be it subatomic particle or ETV), the whole multiple universes concept, including ETVs as interuniversal transports, must be relegated to a very low priority.Fortean “explanations” explain nothing.[/ul]
“Purple unicorns exist” is not a scientific statement, because it cannot be falsified. “Purple unicorns do NOT exist” is a scientific statement, because it can be falsified by catching a purple unicorn."
Similarly, “extraterrestrial spacecraft exist” is not a scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be falsified. “Extraterrestrial spacecraft do NOT exist” is a scientific hypothesis, because it can be falsified by catching an extraterrestrial spacecraft."
Until someone catches an extraterrestrial spacecraft, saying that they do not exist is a scientifically valid theory.
Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
Polycarp - Point 1: agreed; point 2: agreed; point 3: agreed. On the summaries, I just want to be sure that you didn’t use a double negative by error in describing Phil’s position, so to re-state it somewhat differently, Phil appears to assert that all otherwise unexplained/unexplainable UFOs could nonetheless be explained in terms of currently understood scientific principles if sufficient effort were made. I’d concur with your summary of my viewpoint.
On point 4, bullet #1, I’d like you to specify ‘Fortean phenomena’ a bit – do you refer to things like ‘rains’ of frogs, rocks, etc.? I don’t recall ever reading anyone ‘explaining’ UFOs in a similar way. I’d summarize bullets #2 & #3 under one, since anything ‘interdimensional’ would, by definition, also be extraterrestrial, along with anything either interplanetary or interstellar. Bullet #5 I have no problem with. Bullet #4: since I include misinterpretations under ‘misidentifications’, I’m understanding this to mean “natural processes manifesting in previously unrecognized ways.”
I don’t entirely agree with your summation of Occam’s Razor, since I have always understood it to just to mean “the simplest explanation is probably the right one”. First, I think it would be unreasonable to try to apply it to an explanation for an entire class of phenomena; for individual cases, yes. Second, it comes down inevitably to being a matter of opinion which of two contending explanations truly requires more, or less probable, assumptions.
E.G. – ufologists can provide a considerable library of photographic, movie, and video images of UFOs of unattributable design, behaving in ways which seem to violate our terrestrial understanding of the laws of nature. Their explanation: the objects are built and guided and/or pilotted by some extraterrestrial source, operating according to principles we have as yet not discovered, OR operating using applications of natural law as we understand them, but which we have not as yet realised to be practicable. There are four or five assumptions this explanation requires, but most of them, corresponding to the unknown variables of the Drake Equation, are assumptions I think most ‘Saganists’ would agree are reasonable, if you see any point to conducting a SETI program. If you can find it believable that a certain crucial number of alien civilizations can be as advanced as ours is, to the point of beaming radio transmissions to other hypothetical civilizations, it’s not all that humongous a leap to believe there will be a certain number technologically advanced beyond us, and of that number, there will be some so technologically advanced that interstellar flight might be practicable. These last two really might be reduced to one.
On the opposite side, the use of Occam’s Razor comes down to saying: whatever they are, they’re explainable in some natural way. The assumption: the anthropocentric one that our knowledge of physical laws is so thoroughly complete that ‘everything that’s discoverable (regarding certain currently known physical laws) has been discovered’ (to paraphrase a certain patent office official), so that our current technology is the highest available. The evidence: none, only a hopeful conjecture.
As for the final bullets, I can agree with all, with the proviso that, in #1, an explanation of ‘misinterpretation’ requires the party advancing such an ‘explanation’ to provide reasonably convincing evidence of what the proper interpretation should (or at the very least could have been.
Trying the typical reductio ad absurdum tactics won’t pass. Like David, you don’t prove anything by hitting the slow pitches. No one but you has mentioned ‘purple unicorns’. The statement might better be understood as this:
Here is a photograph taken by the wing camera of a United State Air Force jet during an era when computer generated imagery was impossible. Analyzed down to the level of the pigment grains, it shows no evidence of tampering. The plane was operated by a certified, highly professional USAF pilot who would have faced such severe personal repercussions if he had participated in the perpretration of a hoax that to advance such a theory is preposterous. The photo nonetheless shows a disc with no discernible markings, only a few feet in diameter, which ‘paced’ the plane at hundreds of miles per hour through a succession of maneuvers, and ultimately vanished without a trace. Your assertion is that this is a manifestation of natural physical law as we on Earth understand it. Provide proof.
Whoa…falsifiability is a necessary but not sufficient characteristic of a scientific statement. Allow me to demonstrate by analogy:
“Whales live in the ocean.”/“Whales do not live in the ocean.” By your standards “Whales live in the ocean” is not scientific, but “Whales do not live in the ocean” is, because it can be falsified by demonstrating one whale which does live in the ocean. Clearly there is an error somewhere in the sequence of logic here.
DIF, do I understand your position correctly that UFOs are not necessarily extraterrestrial in nature, but (some) are not currently explicable, and that you feel that the ET hypothesis cannot be ruled out?
And it is your understanding that Phil et al. are asserting that the ET hypothesis can be ruled out, simply because of its relative improbability?
Whoops…we simul-posted. Yes, I meant pretty much what you said in all cases. I may have misused “Fortean” but my intent was to suggest that those who “explain” UFOs in Fortean terms are throwing them into that great grab-bag of weird phenomena collected by Charles Fort and his followers, who were less interested in explanations than in accumulations of oddities. In general, Fortean phenomena are (a) not readily explicable but (b) “natural” as opposed to being the work of intelligent life. In short, a “Fortean” explanation explains nothing.
The “interuniversal” bit was a sop to something Contestant #3 brought up, which is a sincerely held belief by a group led by a Dr. Mack and operating out of Boston that UFOs and ET contacts are directly related to a trans-universal contact attempt “from another dimension.” They have gotten into the facilitated memory stuff, and have discovered some interesting linkages between claims of alien abduction and (repressed) childhood sexual abuse. Their take on this, however, is not what any reasonable person would expect. I simply distinguished that sequence of explanations from the (more mundane!) explanation of interstellar flight within our own space-time, possible if arduous using known physical laws and mechanisms. If C#3 has any background on Mack’s group, which my wife researched at one point but no longer has the info. on (and I’m posting from work, so I cannot tap her memory), I’d be interested in seeing a new thread on that.
We concur on what William of Ockham shaved his facts with. I skipped the definition to assert that he who proposes an explanation not in accord with Occam’s Razor bears the burden of justifying why an explanation with fewer or simpler assumptions will not hold water, a concept with which you seem to agree.
I think I can buy in theory your Drake’s law explanation for the potential of interstellar flight, and I have lived long enough to know that Clarke’s first law is quite valid:
Now, on the one hand, you propose a specific, and it is not a “slow pitch.” May I as a disinterested searcher for truth suggest that those who are skeptical of ETV explanations explore possible terrestrial explanations of that phenomenon? On the other hand, those who are inclined to accept an ET hypothesis are invited to suggest possible reasons for the observed behavior of UFOs. If they are ETVs, what are they attempting to do? Why do they behave as they do?
Polycarp – I’m assuming the first part of your last answer was directed at tracer; if I’m wrong, please correct me . . .
Hmmmm . . . I’m taking a looooong moment to go over the second half of your message 'cuz I really hate when I subsequently have to deal with some ramification of agreeing that I didn’t foresee and don’t agree with . . . BUT! Yes, I think you’ve summarized pretty well. I would entertain the proposition that some (perhaps even all, but unlikely) NFOs operate according to principles we understand but using applications we haven’t conceived of, e.g., Bernoulli’s Principle used to lift airfoils/hydrofoils vs. it’s use in disc drives. I can even think of one possible one that might explain some of the anomalous flight dynamics of certain UFOs, and if you like, I’ll provide it. I hesitate to do so now because I see little point to providing more fodder for possible mindless mockery by others.
Rats! Another simul-post. Let’s see if I can catch up to your last last post, regarding providing a rationale for the behavior of ETVs and/or their presumed operators.
Thinking about this stumped me for a long time. Then one day, it occurred to me that, obviously, the only example I had to draw from was the human one. Since there are moments, even periods, in human history which to us today appear insane in one way of another, yet the overall course of history has been a rising, rational one – were there any possible parallels between human history that might explain why alien behavior, while at times appearing irrational, might nonetheless serve a ultimate rational course of action?
Well – I just deleted the beginning of what would have been a dauntingly long explanation, but what it comes down to is: when I thought about the behavior of ETV occupants, I began to realize that (allowing for some ‘cultural differences’) the behavior of ETVoids (?–I’m sure debunkers will like that, since they think the whole subject is void) can be compared to the behavior of human societies at various points in our history, and ultimately nothing they do is truly irrational once the correct ‘identifications’ are made between what ETVoids do and what humans have done to each other in the past.
Just a little link to a story that tends to support my contention that there may be aspects of certain accepted physical laws (i.e., the speed of light as an unvarying constant) of which we are not yet aware:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm
Hey DIF, nice dancing. Come up with any evidence of extra-terrestrials stopping by for a visit yet? Outside of blurred photos, tall tales told by twilight, and conspiracy rants, of course.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Always have-always will.
DIF – I believe you brought up “Rods” in another thread (I don’t have time to search, and this is the most active UFO thread at the moment, so I figured I’d post about this here). Anyway, the new show “Exploring the Unknown” (Fox Family Channel, Tuesday nights) just had a segment on these. Frankly, they tore it apart.
The main proponent says they are previously undiscovered life forms from 4 inches to 100 feet long, and can fly at up to 200 mph. He says they are not aliens or mechanical, but biological entities. He is probably right that they are biological entities – but we know them quite well, as insects.
Don Ecker, of UFO Magazine, investigated these and said they were flying bugs. A video expert they interviewed came to the same conclusion, as did an entomologist. It’s a photographic artifact caused by a flying insect going through the frame beating its wings quickly. It’s the same effect you’d see if, for example, you took a picture of a kid swinging a baseball bat.
Now, the proponent says he uses a shutter speed that doesn’t allow this. One main problem, though, is that many of the videos he is using as “evidence” were obviously not using that speed (the video expert explained how he could tell this by showing other objects blurring).
And, of course, there is the question of where 100-foot-long flying things are hiding. Why do we only see them on video?
It’s not a new life form – it’s an old one. Bugs.
David B said:
You realize, David, that that only proves maybe, what, .0001% of the UFO population to be explained by science. Until you come up with answers for the other 99.9999% of them, we must assume that at least one of them is extra-terrestrial.
David: As usual, you have posted something which seeks to change the real subject to something you think you can explain from something it’s evident you cannot.
Unfortunately, at this point I’ve been called away to a new work project and will be unable to sustain the dialogue, at least until my own home pc has been set up, which may take weeks to months.
However, I’ll be back.
DIF – I’m not changing the subject at all. As you know, I was gone for a long weekend; I hadn’t even read most of the messages posted here. However, when I saw the bit on “rods” and remembered that you had discussed them, I wanted to post to the most active UFO thread at the time. So rather than thanking me for providing you this information, you whine about it.
Incidentally, on reading the messages now, I see that Phil and others have already said what I would say, so there is little point in my repeating what they’ve already said – especially if you’re not gonna be around (not that you would have listened anyway…).
DIF said:
Slythe, it appears that DIF has provided a situation tailor-made for either proving or disproving the case for “inexplicables.” He’s cited a case where Occam’s razor is in favor of the witness’s veracity (a career to lose, nothing much to gain except a reputation among UFO-nuts, which the average Air Force pilot is not likely to be looking for), the likelihood of fraudulence in the evidence (photos) is likewise diminishingly small, and the phenomena exhibited (pacing plane through manouvers) is anomalous.
Now, I am prepared to see this debunked. I would accept any reasonable explanation up to a member of the ground crew, nursing a grudge against the pilot, having rigged a Stouffer’s plate to “appear” from the wing by transparent nylon cords. But it is not a case that deserves pooh-poohing. I presume this one has been investigated by CSICOP or similar organization. Does anyone have access and time to locate and produce the report on it?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” Agreed. But, as I suggested in the reincarnation thread, there is no “proof” accompanying a claim that cannot be shot down by the proper mix of assumptions.
DIF said:
As a ‘furthermore’ to Poly’s last post, I would like to add that the photo only indicates a disc, and can provide no evidence whatsoever that it ‘paced’ the plane and ‘vanished without a trace.’ A small point, perhaps, but it shows that the actual evidence is quite limited, making it (as most of this kind of ‘evidence’) impossible to be able to truly prove anything, one way or another.