Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance.

[PCarr]

The problem with claiming there is no evidence, or that lack of evidence is evidence of absence is that it is impossible to determine what the likelihood ratio is. It's a clear lack of epistemic humility if we think we would know what evidence extraterrestrial visitors would manifest. I believe it was Jacques Vallee who said the theorizing is premature.

 

[boomerang]

Tyson is obviously a talented and motivational champion of science and the art of critical thinking. But he fails, either by virtue of unwillingness to examine the history of the UFO phenomenon, or simply due to loss of nerve, to address the central mystery of the UFO. It's a question for which one needn't revert to an irrational, atavistic worldview. It's the "square one" mystery that has driven ufology since at least 1947: Why have hundreds if not thousands of sane and credible people been (or at least claim to have been) witness to utterly strange and seemingly impossible events? One can understand mainstream scientists reluctance to speculate on whatever might underlie this simple but undeniable fact. But flat dismissal of it comes across as somewhat arrogant and narrow minded to those of us who have taken the time to read and study beyond "Tinfoil hat 101".

As PCarr suggests, a little genuine humility would go a long way here without violating established tenets of science.

 

[PCarr]

I just want to state the obvious, which you would think everyone knows, but apparently not...

The argument from ignorance IS a fallacy. Skeptics are correct to point this out, but they are shooting fish in a barrel again. You can always find someone who will make an idiotic argument, and then have some fun feeling superior while you shoot that down.

Less obvious: I want to ban the word "proof" from UFO discussions. Science is about evidence. Math is about proof. Evidence for a hypothesis increases the odds that hypothesis is true, but is not "proof." Proof means that a proposition is logically unavoidable given a set of assumptions, which is great, but not how real science works.

Also, can we define "Belief"while I can't sleep? The modern view of belief is probabilistic, but I prefer my simple operational definition for ordinary discourse. I "believe" something if I act and and think as if it were true or good (or both). It does not mean that I am unwilling or unable to entertain doubt about it. If I plop into a chair without testing it first, then I "believe" that the chair is strong enough to hold me up. Justified beliefs result from lots of testing and experience. Unjustified beliefs can come from any random place, but most often from tradition.

 

[Randall]

Neil Tyson on UFOs again:
Cosmic Queries: UFOs | StarTalk Radio Show by Neil deGrasse Tyson

So first Tyson sets the tone with the typical giggle factor nonsense. Then he answers a question about circular UFOs by invoking the assumption that they all spin ( which they don't ). Then he adds some more giggle factor by bringing up the Frisbee. Then he answers a question about the possibility of us building a circular flying object with the capabilities reported by UFO witnesses by saying we have helicopters ( totally flippant answer ). Then he answers a question about the possibility of creating a flying machine using the Earth's magnetic field with a reasonable answer, but still with the same giggle factor. It's the same dismissive, mocking attitude toward UFOs we hear from him over and over again. I'm not a Tyson fan, but have been watching the new Cosmos series ( excellent special FX there ). A final comment: On his comment that it makes no sense for UFOs ( as spacecraft ) to produce light as a part of its propulsion system because it indicates a waste of energy ....

Rocket Launch Lights Up Night Sky

 

[boomerang]

Less obvious: I want to ban the word "proof" from UFO discussions. Science is about evidence.

This one should be chiseled in stone everywhere.

 

[manxman]

I just want to state the obvious, which you would think everyone knows, but apparently not...

The argument from ignorance IS a fallacy. Skeptics are correct to point this out, but they are shooting fish in a barrel again. You can always find someone who will make an idiotic argument, and then have some fun feeling superior while you shoot that down.

Less obvious: I want to ban the word "proof" from UFO discussions. Science is about evidence. Math is about proof. Evidence for a hypothesis increases the odds that hypothesis is true, but is not "proof." Proof means that a proposition is logically unavoidable given a set of assumptions, which is great, but not how real science works.

Also, can we define "Belief"while I can't sleep? The modern view of belief is probabilistic, but I prefer my simple operational definition for ordinary discourse. I "believe" something if I act and and think as if it were true or good (or both). It does not mean that I am unwilling or unable to entertain doubt about it. If I plop into a chair without testing it first, then I "believe" that the chair is strong enough to hold me up. Justified beliefs result from lots of testing and experience. Unjustified beliefs can come from any random place, but most often from tradition.

i like that paul.
they dont just ridicule the numpty, they ridicule 'ALL' because of the numpty.
and i like your 'operational' definition of belief.

 

[Randall]

This one should be chiseled in stone everywhere.

Proof is evidence that is sufficient to justify believing a claim is true. In math the proof is self-evident by way of pure logic. But math isn't the only situation where logic can tell us that something is or isn't true, because in certain situations, logic can also tell us what things are or are not possible. Things like life after death and time travel, if taken in their typical context, are not logically possible ( The Vulcan Science Directorate is correct ). Also, even when the truth of a situation cannot be ascertained logically and applied to the issue of proof, there is often enough evidence ( scientific or otherwise ) to make it unreasonable to suggest that the amount of evidence doesn't constitute proof ( notice I didn't say "scientific proof" ), and IMO such is the case for UFOs.

 

[boomerang]

Proof is evidence that is sufficient to justify believing a claim is true. In math the proof is self-evident by way of pure logic. But math isn't the only situation where logic can tell us that something is or isn't true, because in certain situations, logic can also tell us what things are or are not possible. Things like life after death and time travel, if taken in their typical context, are not logically possible ( The Vulcan Science Directorate is correct ). Also, even when the truth of a situation cannot be ascertained logically and applied to the issue of proof, there is often enough evidence ( scientific or otherwise ) to make it unreasonable to suggest that the amount of evidence doesn't constitute proof ( notice I didn't say "scientific proof" ), and IMO such is the case for UFOs.

I mostly agree in the sense that truth is yet another cognitive model of the human mind, maybe essential for the functioning of the individual and for society. We are probably in close but not quite complete agreement. IMO, "religious truth" is redundant while "scientific truth" could be regarded as an oxymoron.

 

[PCarr]

Truth is just one possible state of a proposition, the other possibility being falsehood. We assign probabilities to these as a result of previous measurement (theory) and present measurements. As Hume persuasively argued in the 18th century, we can't be dead certain that everything will behave as it has before, so probabilities never get to be exactly 0 or 1 (the definition of dogma), although they can be very, very close. If I believe something is true, that means I think and act as if it were, but doesn't mean that I can't doubt its truth. The more tests it passes, the less energy I will commit to any doubts.

 

[boomerang]

Truth is just one possible state of a proposition, the other possibility being falsehood. We assign probabilities to these as a result of previous measurement (theory) and present measurements. As Hume persuasively argued in the 18th century, we can't be dead certain that everything will behave as it has before, so probabilities never get to be exactly 0 or 1 (the definition of dogma), although they can be very, very close. If I believe something is true, that means I think and act as if it were, but doesn't mean that I can't doubt its truth. The more tests it passes, the less energy I will commit to any doubts.

That's an excellent means of definition. I sometimes toy with the following thought experiment: Given the astronomical odds of winning a multimillion dollar lottery, the purchase of tickets (especially by the financially strapped) is, logically speaking, a foolish investment. And yet, someone wins. So--was the purchase of the winning ticket a foolish investment for the multi-million dollar winner?

Most people would say "no!" The winner would almost certainly say the ticket purchase was not foolish. Given the money involved, I would probably say the same thing in the unlikely event I had won.

But I maintain that purchasing said ticket remains a foolish investment. It's just that the laws of probability have favored certain individuals in spite of this. This could almost be seen as a kind of superposition of truths. It would seem that the larger superposition of probability makes any ticket purchase statistically foolish. When the drawing is held, the system of possibilities collapses to reveal one or a handful of instances in which the winners, from their particular standpoint of observation, see a much different picture.

Apologies to those who are genuinely conversant with the application of quantum mechanics. The analogy is admittedly a loose one at best !

 

[Randall]

That's an excellent means of definition.

An excellent definition of what: Truth or belief? The definition of belief in my post above uses truth as the standard by which the evidence is sufficient to justify belief. In this context we're not talking about religious truth, but truth as a state of affairs that corresponds to the reality of the situation in question. This is generally known as the Correspondence Theory For Truth. So for example if someone says there's an alien craft on the front lawn, you may be inclined to reserve judgement on whether or not to believe that claim until you have gone out to the front lawn to see the craft for yourself. If it's still there when you go look, then the claim corresponds to the evidence and therefore because the claim is true, you probably have sufficient reason to believe the claim. However in some cases less evidence may be sufficient for you, like if someone you trust makes the same claim, you might be inclined to believe them without further evidence.

 

[boomerang]

An excellent definition of what: Truth or belief? The definition of belief in my post above uses truth as the standard by which the evidence is sufficient to justify belief. In this context we're not talking about religious truth, but truth as a state of affairs that corresponds to the reality of the situation in question. This is generally known as the Correspondence Theory For Truth. So for example if someone says there's an alien craft on the front lawn, you may be inclined to reserve judgement on whether or not to believe that claim until you have gone out to the front lawn to see the craft for yourself. If it's still there when you go look, then the claim corresponds to the evidence and therefore because the claim is true, you probably have sufficient reason to believe the claim. However in some cases less evidence may be sufficient for you, like if someone you trust makes the same claim, you might be inclined to believe them without further evidence.

Hmm....I was referring to this as an excellent definition of what is generally accepted as scientific truth, which is all too often misinterpreted as a system of rigid belief. Viewed in the context of Pcarr's post, truth becomes a subjective state resulting from application of an ongoing statistical process in asessing a given "thing" as either true or false. Belief, if I understand correctly, is the cause and effect actuation in decision making that relies upon what has individually or collectively been agreed upon as most likely to be true, or false.

In the UFO on the lawn example, there is a lack of cumulative statistical data upon which the individual normally relies when deciding whether to place something in the 'true' or 'false' category. It is highly unlikely that a given individual will have more than one opportunity in a lifetime to "check the lawn" for the existence of a saucer. It is not lacking in the societal sense (ironically), due to huge numbers of credible observations on record of like phenomena. But it is tends to be absent as a much needed statistical process available to the individual.

The irony here is that the statistical method for reality testing is therefore turned on its head. Reality checking of the UFO phenomenon should work for the society which often refuses to take the UFO seriously. But it usually fails the individual whose life and world view may be forever altered from but one extraordinary encounter.

I rant, I rant....

 

[Randall]

Hmm....I was referring to this as an excellent definition of what is generally accepted as scientific truth, which is all too often misinterpreted as a system of rigid belief. Viewed in the context of Pcarr's post, truth becomes a subjective state resulting from application of an ongoing statistical process in asessing a given "thing" as either true or false. Belief, if I understand correctly, is the cause and effect actuation in decision making that relies upon what has individually or collectively been agreed upon as most likely to be true, or false.

In the UFO on the lawn example, there is a lack of cumulative statistical data upon which the individual normally relies when deciding whether to place something in the 'true' or 'false' category. It is highly unlikely that a given individual will have more than one opportunity in a lifetime to "check the lawn" for the existence of a saucer. It is not lacking in the societal sense (ironically), due to huge numbers of credible observations on record of like phenomena. But it is tends to be absent as a much needed statistical process available to the individual.

The irony here is that the statistical method for reality testing is therefore turned on its head. Reality checking of the UFO phenomenon should work for the society which often refuses to take the UFO seriously. But it usually fails the individual whose life and world view may be forever altered from but one extraordinary encounter.

I rant, I rant....

Thanks for clarifying that, ( and I always love a good rant ) .

 

[marduk]

The problem with claiming there is no evidence, or that lack of evidence is evidence of absence is that it is impossible to determine what the likelihood ratio is. It's a clear lack of epistemic humility if we think we would know what evidence extraterrestrial visitors would manifest. I believe it was Jacques Vallee who said the theorizing is premature.

I cannot refute your logic, in fact I agree with it.

However I'm also left with the notion that 60 years of not coming up with logical testable theories have left us pretty much where we started.

 

[PCarr]

I cannot refute your logic, in fact I agree with it.

However I'm also left with the notion that 60 years of not coming up with logical testable theories have left us pretty much where we started.

That's because we're greedy. We want to explain everything with one grand theory, when there are a lot of different phenomena and mountains of noise and deception. The scientific approach is take things on methodically, patiently, one thing at a time.

Consider what we mainly have at hand: eyewitness testimony. Have we really done the research to determine who reports UFOs, why, and how accurate their accounts are as a function of time (and other variables)?

The questions go on and on, and yet people want to jump to a grand theory or demand to know why the "Day the Earth Stood Still" has yet to take place in reality. Not only do we not know, we don't know what we don't know.

 

[marduk]

PCarr that leaves us experiencers out in the cold.

I'm past the "prove it to me" ad hominim lumbering pace of inaction from science and the ludicrous junk from the griers and the Farrells.

Time for a little testable theorizing and enough navel gazing.

 

[PCarr]

Here's one thing we can do, and which I advocate. That is: be wrong. You know that whatever we posit about the true nature of the UFO residual (the reports we after the simple noise and deception is filtered out) is likely to be wrong. However, if you can come up with a wrong idea that we can put to the test, then I expect we would learn quite a lot from figuring out why it is wrong, and our next wrong idea will likely be a much better one. However, humility and doubt need to be constant features of this research program. I expect that a complete lack of funding is also going to be a feature of this research.

Here's a an example, and perhaps you'll have a better idea. The hypothesis is that the UFO residual may or may not be intelligently controlled, but its behavior is independent of human observation. So, we set up control areas with tight day and night skywatches (with good security so as not to draw hoaxers), and compare the statistics of high probability/strangeness cases inside and outside the control areas. The hypothesis is that the skywatchers would catch some good cases over time, and this would be more than the good cases outside the control areas. If not, we have to determine if we are really filtering cases well, or if UFOs don't "like" to be watched. This would probably take several years and teams of trained volunteer skywatchers. However, this is careful, patient and often unrewarding work, not Mulder and Scully stuff.

 

[marduk]

You and I are 100% aligned PCarr. I'm going to stew over this and get back to you.

PS Marry me.

 

[PCarr]

PCarr that leaves us experiencers out in the cold.

I'm not sure of that. I was involved with at least one close call from an experiencer. We have physical evidence of physical evidence. Not quite satisfactory, but maybe one day. I've met the guy twice and I don't know what to believe about his experiences, but I don't think he's crazy.

In the meantime, we should be ethically studying the experiencers themselves. We just have to stay away from recovered memories, which I think we now know are unreliable at best. Peter Resta is doing work like this.

 

[manxman]

the right questions need asked, at the right time, fresh sighting, then the same questions need asked again a month later, and that needs to happen on a country by country basis.