• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is?

Forums New posts
ufology said:
What's the difference? Between what exactly? The issue raised was the question of what "predicates science". In that context the only interpretation of the word "predicate"that makes linguistic logic is is as a transitive verb meaning, "to base an opinion, an action, or a result on something (formal)." e.g. predicated on reason. ( Encarta ). 1. So essentially Constance's claim that the foundations of science are based ( predicated ) on human biases is complete garbage ( review the Wikipedia entry ). 2. When problems arise in the scientific community it's not because science itself has issues, it's because of the politics and biases of the humans involved.

Now lets compare that with spiritual movements, including most religions and New Age nonsense. Not only do you still have to deal with all the same human based biases, politics, favoritism and all the rest of the problems, the foundations of spiritual institutions in general are not based ( predicated ) on the principle of non-biased, evidence based, objective reason. Time and time again it's founded on the subjective experiences or proclamations of some mythological figure, who threatens punishment for disobedience, and even today, people are punished by religious institutions for defying them. So if you didn't see the difference before, I hope you do now.
Click to expand...


U,
The term predication means to "to base, or declare, based on. This you fully agree with in your #2 declaration. So what I have stated is absolutely correct as you have observed. You cannot remove the human element from the scientific process.

With respect for #1, I am not specifically familiar with Constance's position on the initial biases of scientific direction, but if there is a free will choice involved in terms of direction within the scientific institutions of general progress, you can bet predication is WAY involved. Predication is merely the act of the free will rationally choosing stance (base), or direction (based on).

I am certain via Stanton's book that you are familiar with the MANY times that science has been wrong for many years on end. This is the result of misguided or misinterpreted predication. There is simply no way to remove such a characteristic from the human condition's undertakings. No one is exempt. Science is the product of humanity. Humanity is not the product of science.

We must allow for our erroneous nature. In science, the empirical lobby's mass predication can either be right or wrong in the long run. However we cannot stop, or abate, such a human characteristic. In fact science fully knows and recognizes as much due the fact that it's overturns are based on falsification, not alternatives. It's a safety net that is place due to predicated mass consensus which has been shown to be wrong many times.
 
Burnt State said:
Well you have to keep in mind that this is before I get myself straightned out. When I get my face on, I really come together.

Katharine-Hepburn-in-pants.jpg
Click to expand...

More like this:

hepburn.jpg
 
smcder said:
I like the one with the horned gorilla better. For some reason I always thought of it as a gorilla - chicken.

mugato.jpg
Click to expand...


old series, they all sucked, the new stuff i liked, the britist, UFO series with straker, and all the 60/70s styling i liked, that moonbase alpha one was a constant dissapointment tho, i liked the glimpses of the alien that you got in ufo, and the sound of the ufo, i can still here it now, still see the futuristic de loreans the drove.
 
manxman said:
old series, they all sucked, the new stuff i liked, the britist, UFO series with straker, and all the 60/70s styling i liked, that moonbase alpha one was a constant dissapointment tho, i liked the glimpses of the alien that you got in ufo, and the sound of the ufo, i can still here it now, still see the futuristic de loreans the drove.
Click to expand...

There's the nostalgia - growing up watching re-runs on late night TV with my brother and some good episodes like City on the Edge of Forever - but overall it doesn't hold up when I've watched them as an adult.

I didn't watch too much of the original series when it was on, I did enjoy the episodes with Q as Yahweh-Trickster and Picard as Moses . . . and I have I, Borg in the Netflix Q (yes, I still have discs sent to me through the mail), have heard good things about this - watched Space 1999 on public television as a kid, but don't remember much and I've never seen UFO but it's also in the queue!
 
Jeff Davis said:
After all, it was one of the pilots. I actually loved this episode as a kid of 10-14 or so. Still do most likely, but I have not watched the Trek for years now. Capt. Pike was A-OK in my book and I bet Stephen Hawking thinks so too.
Click to expand...

They updated a lot of the special effects for STOS and reissued it a few years ago. My wife bought me season two for X-mas and I've been watching those on and off.
 
manxman said:
UFO (TV series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i enjoyed that read, brought it all back sheesh i was only 11 when it first aired, i got hooked on babylon5 for a few series, wouldnt miss one, they were on channel 4 at about 1am, thursdays i think, a sci fi soap opera..
Click to expand...

"Speed: 100 miles per second"

My favorite quote from this great old series. What can you say about purple haired babes wearing mini skirts in space? I don't know, but you can sure dream! :p
 
ufology said:
What's the difference? Between what exactly? The issue raised was the question of what "predicates science". In that context the only interpretation of the word "predicate"that makes linguistic logic is is as a transitive verb meaning, "to base an opinion, an action, or a result on something (formal)." e.g. predicated on reason. ( Encarta ). So essentially Constance's claim that the foundations of science are based ( predicated ) on human biases is complete garbage ( review the Wikipedia entry ). When problems arise in the scientific community it's not because science itself has issues, it's because of the politics and biases of the humans involved.
Click to expand...


Jeff has pointed out that we were commenting not on the 'foundations of science' but on science as it operates in our time, where the still heavy hand of a dying paradigm exerts both a professional and a popular stranglehold on the representation of new research and theory. As a human institution alongside, and complicit with, other human institutions, science must be judged by what it does, which includes the representation of ‘reality’ it continues to propagate.
 
manxman said:
wheres the speed quote from, 100 per sec, 6000 a minute 360, 000 mph an hour, thats not to shabby.
Click to expand...


Brother Manxman,
I am not certain which episode exactly, but I made a bunch of soundbite recordings from one particular episode that I routinely regurgitate, or rather trigger, while improvising as a musician. It's definitely from the UFO series however. I just love it because it's the engineer or whoever and he comes over the ship's PA and makes the statement or announcement. I think it was one of the very first episodes because the series only became available to me through netflix and I just rented a few discs to check out the series. I never saw it actually as a weekly program back in the day. It is extremely cool though. Very "mod" late 60s. The show kinda reminds me of the Avengers, only set in space, if you know what I mean. Very British Mod. Love it!
 
think you are talking about moonbase alpha, they used the moonbase set for space 1999 i think, because UFO got cancelled.
that was a constant dissapointment, it was purely LSD inspired writing.

and full of PPA aswell.
 
Constance said:
Jeff has pointed out that we were commenting not on the 'foundations of science' but on science as it operates in our time, where the still heavy hand of a dying paradigm exerts both a professional and a popular stranglehold on the representation of new research and theory. As a human institution alongside, and complicit with, other human institutions, science must be judged by what it does, which includes the representation of ‘reality’ it continues to propagate.

This is from an article about statistical errors and misuse in mainstream science:

Any reform would need to sweep through an entrenched culture. It would have to change how statistics is taught, how data analysis is done and how results are reported and interpreted. But at least researchers are admitting that they have a problem, says Goodman. “The wake-up call is that so many of our published findings are not true.” Work by researchers such as Ioannidis shows the link between theoretical statistical complaints and actual difficulties, says Goodman. “The problems that statisticians have predicted are exactly what we're now seeing. We just don't yet have all the fixes.”

Scientific method: Statistical errors : Nature News & Comment

For many scientists, this is especially worrying in light of the reproducibility concerns. In 2005, epidemiologist John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California suggested that most published findings are false2; since then, a string of high-profile replication problems has forced scientists to rethink how they evaluate results.
. . .

For many scientists, this is especially worrying in light of the reproducibility concerns. In 2005, epidemiologist John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California suggested that most published findings are false2; since then, a string of high-profile replication problems has forced scientists to rethink how they evaluate results.

But while the rivals feuded — Neyman called some of Fisher's work mathematically “worse than useless”; Fisher called Neyman's approach “childish” and “horrifying [for] intellectual freedom in the west” — other researchers lost patience and began to write statistics manuals for working scientists. And because many of the authors were non-statisticians without a thorough understanding of either approach, they created a hybrid system that crammed Fisher's easy-to-calculate P value into Neyman and Pearson's reassuringly rigorous rule-based system. This is when a P value of 0.05 became enshrined as 'statistically significant', for example. “The P value was never meant to be used the way it's used today,” says Goodman.

. . .

Perhaps the worst fallacy is the kind of self-deception for which psychologist Uri Simonsohn of the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues have popularized the term P-hacking; it is also known as data-dredging, snooping, fishing, significance-chasing and double-dipping. “P-hacking,” says Simonsohn, “is trying multiple things until you get the desired result” — even unconsciously. It may be the first statistical term to rate a definition in the online Urban Dictionary, where the usage examples are telling: “That finding seems to have been obtained through p-hacking, the authors dropped one of the conditions so that the overall p-value would be less than .05”, and “She is a p-hacker, she always monitors data while it is being collected.”

. . .
Click to expand...
 
manxman said:
think you are talking about moonbase alpha, they used the moonbase set for space 1999 i think, because UFO got cancelled.
that was a constant dissapointment, it was purely LSD inspired writing.

and full of PPA aswell.
Click to expand...

Now it's on! LOL!! I HAVE to find and identify that episode. Moonbase Alpha? Frick me, I've never even heard of it, or if I did, I forgot about it. Now there is another sci-fi show I have got to get a little into. I used to watch the Trek on one TV, and Space 1999 simultaneously on another TV at the same time because they scheduled both shows in the same time slot on different UHF channels! Competitive bastids!

My recall wasn't too good on either show needless to say, but what the heck, this was before the advent of the VCR and I wasn't gonna miss a bit of either. Naturally Star Trek was that which was relegated to the color TV set. Remember, I am a yank you know. :p
 
moonbase alpha was the moonbase in UFO, they used the set for the sorta in a fashion so to speak, spin-off series.

quote

Second series and Space: 1999
Two years after the 26 episodes were completed, the series was syndicated on American television and the ratings were initially promising enough to prompt ITC to commission a second season of UFO. As the Moon-based episodes appeared to have proven more popular than the Earth-based stories, ITC insisted that in the new season, the action would take place entirely on the Moon. Gerry Anderson proposed a format in which SHADO Moonbase had been greatly enlarged to become the organisation's main headquarters, and pre-production on UFO 2 began with extensive research and design for the new Moonbase. These developments were not without precedent in the earlier episodes: a subplot of "Kill Straker!" sees Straker negotiating with SHADO's financial supporters for funding to build more moonbases within 10 years. However, when ratings for the syndicated broadcasts in America dropped towards the end of the run, ITC got cold feet and cancelled the second season plans. Unwilling to let the UFO 2 pre-production work go to waste, Anderson instead offered ITC a new series idea, unrelated to UFO, in which the Moon would be blown out of Earth orbit taking the Moonbase survivors with it. This proposal developed into Space: 1999.



i wouldnt bother paying money to get space1999 jeff, full of wobbly sets and PPA


Piss Poor Acting.
 
Last edited:
Constance said:
Jeff has pointed out that we were commenting not on the 'foundations of science' but on science as it operates in our time, where the still heavy hand of a dying paradigm exerts both a professional and a popular stranglehold on the representation of new research and theory. As a human institution alongside, and complicit with, other human institutions, science must be judged by what it does, which includes the representation of ‘reality’ it continues to propagate.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Back
Top