Where did all the skeptics go?

[mike]

That such theories are unfalsifiable says nothing about either their validity or truth. But it does assist us in determining to what extent such statements might be evaluated. If evidence cannot be presented to support a case, and yet the case cannot be shown to be indeed false, not much credence can be given to such a statement. However, you can also look at this case from another perspective. Let's say that the statement is "all swans are not green". An attempt to verify this positively would require a search for non-green swans, which you are sure to find. However, having rounded up and examined every known swan, there is always the possibility that there is at least one more swan but we will never know for sure until we find it and if we do, there may be yet, one more swan, and it may be green. On the other hand, we may say that "all swans are not green" but instead of attempting to positively verify this statement we attempt to falsify it by looking for a green swan. In that case, we need only find one swan (a green one), in the absence of which we can accept the original statement as a working hypothesis until such a swan is discovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

There are a number of examples where falsifibility does not work, as such its not a universal test.
I'm of the opinion the ETH is another area where it does not apply.
I personally am not saying they do or dont exist, but rather that on the balance of probability as per NDT's quote, its they are likely to.
Your final question could apply to santa claus or the tooth fairy with the same results, but in those examples i would say on the balance of probability they dont exist.

 

[kukalakana]

Your final question could apply to santa claus or the tooth fairy with the same results, but in those examples i would say on the balance of probability they dont exist.

--<"Noooooooooo !!!")

You are destroying my innocent world!:frown:

So, I ask again. If we are not being visited by ET's how can we determine that? If you are wrong (note I'm not saying you are) how will you know it?

Actually that might be an interesting question for anyone to ask -- even just as an exercise. What would it take to prove you (convincingly) wrong?

 

[Trajanus]

Why? To trick us into believing their something their not?

Possible. They could project all kinds of strange images to confuse us about their nature, to prevent any final solution to the mystery. That would make sense if they're acting to our detriment, ultimately. By preventing us from reaching a final conclusion, they forestall or delay action based on it.

The ETH is not falsifiable.

What if there were no radar sightings, that would've effectively sunk it.

 

[mike]

Lets look at the options.

1: there are no ET's man is alone in the universe in as far as sentient entitys as we dfine them go
2: ET's exist but are not vistiting earth
3: ET's exist and are vistiting earth.

Now, lets deal with option No 1.

There are no ET's..............
This is falsifiable if we find a species of ET somewhere in the vastness that is the visable universe.

Although the logic of naïve falsification is valid, it is rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to fit the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory adjustments'. Popper drew attention to these limitations in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in response to criticism from Pierre Duhem. W. V. Quine expounded this argument in detail, calling it confirmation holism. To logically falsify a universal, one must find a true falsifying singular statement. But Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.

This is where the use of falsifiable falls short in the ET question.

Prior to finding a black swan in australia, was it "true" that all swans are white ?

This is the primary flaw in the "falsifiable" argument, a lack of data is not data, in the context of the equation

The "falsifiable" mechanism is a test, its not, nor can it ever be an answer.

If a being were to show up here and say im from zeta reticuli, and we were to travel with this being back home and find more beings like it on ZR prime and its moons.
That would be observational and empirical evidence for options 2 and 3. falsification would no longer apply since you would have to travel the known universe including ZR prime and its moons and find no life in order to prove an opposite value.

Falsification is a test, its not an answer, and as in the case of the black swan the results of that test dont always equate to the truth of the matter

 

[stphrz]

Lets look at the options.

1: there are no ET's man is alone in the universe in as far as sentient entitys as we dfine them go
2: ET's exist but are not vistiting earth
3: ET's exist and are vistiting earth.

Now, lets deal with option No 1.

There are no ET's..............
This is falsifiable if we find a species of ET somewhere in the vastness that is the visable universe.



This is where the use of falsifiable falls short in the ET question.

Prior to finding a black swan in australia, was it "true" that all swans are white ?

This is the primary flaw in the "falsifiable" argument, a lack of data is not data, in the context of the equation

The "falsifiable" mechanism is a test, its not, nor can it ever be an answer.

If a being were to show up here and say im from zeta reticuli, and we were to travel with this being back home and find more beings like it on ZR prime and its moons.
That would be observational and empirical evidence for options 2 and 3. falsification would no longer apply since you would have to travel the known universe including ZR prime and its moons and find no life in order to prove an opposite value.

Falsification is a test, its not an answer, and as in the case of the black swan the results of that test dont always equate to the truth of the matter

Falsification is a test. Yes. You understand. What does it test? It tests the hypothesis! It can show you if you are wrong.

Unfalsifiable of course does not mean wrong. It means there is no way to know if what you are saying is incorrect. Instead you go on only looking for evidence to confirm. You work only to bolster you claims not to beat them down. It makes you disregard evidence that goes against your hypothesis.

This is dangerous. It leads to dogma. It's what happens when someone says "I've formed a hypothesis and now I will try my best to prove I'm right."

Scientists say: "I've formed a hypothesis and now I will try my best to shred it to bits." This is the antithesis of dogma.

Falsification can be very inconvenient at times. It can be difficult. Yet scientists insist upon it. I'm just the messenger here. I'm only telling you one of the main reasons why science objects to what you are saying. And why I object to you calling what you are saying science.

It comes down to the difference between a hypothesis and a suspiscion or belief.

If a being were to show up here and say im from zeta reticuli, and we were to travel with this being back home and find more beings like it on ZR prime and its moons.
That would be observational and empirical evidence for options 2 and 3. falsification would no longer apply

While this is true, I would remind you that the evidence, data and observations gathered thus far do not even begin to rise to that level. That is no different than a Christian saying "if Jesus appeared here right now and raised the dead, turned water into wine and cured the sick it would show I'm right." Indeed it would.

You contend that falsification does not apply to ETH. Well I agree. That's what I have been saying all along. I'm also saying that's why it's invalid. That's why I don't propose it.

Actually that might be an interesting question for anyone to ask -- even just as an exercise. What would it take to prove you (convincingly) wrong?

This is a an excellent question.

My answer is this:

If there is a test, or observation that could be made that would show that my thinking is wrong then my thinking is a valid scientific hypothesis.

If there is no such test or observation then my thinking is a belief or suspiscion. <!-- edit note -->

 

[mike]

Again i can only reiterate that it doesnt work for all scenarios, and as such its a stretch imo to use it to prove the ETH unscientific

The claim "No human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. On the other hand, "All humans live forever" is falsifiable since the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong (excluding metaphysical assertions about souls, which are more difficult to falsify). Moreover, a claim may be true and still be falsifiable; "All humans have red blood" is a true statement but remains falsifiable because we can at least imagine finding a human with blood of another color to prove this statement wrong.

At the end of the day its a variable benchmark of what we do and dont know not a means for forming a conclusion

Non-falsifiable theories can usually be reduced to a simple uncircumscribed existential statement, such as there exists a green swan. It is entirely possible to verify whether or not this statement is true, simply by producing the green swan. But since this statement does not specify when or where the green swan exists; it is simply not possible to show that the swan does not exist, and so it is impossible to falsify the statement.

The very same could have been said about black swans 300 years ago, that didnt mean they did not exist.

The same applies to ET's

Logic and mathematics
The question may be raised as to whether the theorems of logic and mathematics are falsifiable or not. In considering this question, it is helpful to introduce a classical distinction that is frequently emphasized in this connection by Charles Sanders Peirce. On the one hand, he defines a positive science as "an inquiry which seeks for positive knowledge", that is, for knowledge that can be expressed in a categorical proposition (Peirce, The Essential Peirce (EP) v. 2, 144). He goes on to say the following of the normative sciences, namely, logic, ethics and aesthetics:

Logic and the other normative framework ask not what is but what ought to be. They are nevertheless positive sciences since it is by asserting positive, categorical truth that they are able show that what really is so; and the right reason derived from positive categorical fact. (Peirce, EP 2, 144).
​

And indeed if you look at NDT's statement about ET's its all about logic and the numbers.
The ETH then could be said to be not what IS, but what ought to be......... given the vasteness of space and time

And that has always been my take on the ETH, ive never stated what IS, i only ever state given the variables what ought to be.

Like NDT's statement

"it would be inexcusably egocentric to suggest we are alone in the cosmos..........."

They ought to be real, by the numbers and logic

The math and logic start at 5:13

Provided we accept that the ETH is an expression of logic and maths, the unfalsifiable test does not apply

You cannot compare it with religion since it HAS been tested and failed

the hypothesis that God created humankind specifically in their modern form. The latter is falsified by evidence that instead supports evolutionary origins from our last universal ancestor.

or to put it another way

 

[kukalakana]

However, the meaning of words can change beyond their original source. What does the rest of the Encarta entry say? And "skepticism" to the best of my knowledge has never been presented as a science, but rather an attitude, or in its earliest context a school of thought -- so I'm not sure if the word "pseudoscience" applies. For the purpose of categorising the concept, it is closer to Cynicism *the philosophical school* than it is to Astrology *the pseudoscience*

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

Seriously ufology? Why are you being childish about this? Carl Sagan is a "skeptic" in the sense that he doubted things that were not proven to be true, such as extra terrestrials visiting Earth. Same thing for all other "skeptics" such as the hosts of Skeptics Guide to the Universe, Mythbusters, and people like Phil Plait and Neil Degrasse Tyson.

You can make it mean what ever you want to to mean, but it doesn't change what those who call themselves "skeptics" do. Okay?

 

[tyder001]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

Skepticism isn't science one way or the other. It's a way of looking and using critical thinking skills. It becomes a "religion" when somebody says "we" are the keepers of orthadoxy. However, it is a much needed common sense critical thinking skill when employed to question all dogma. I am a skeptic even about things I believe in. I can meditate and pray on one hand and ask myself if there is anyone or any force outside of my own imagination at the same time. I can and do have lucid dreams and times when I have known something that "some" scientist say is impossible to know. At the same time I ask myself "Am I sure or could I be interpreting it the way I want it to be." I'm an agnostic and even worse I'm a "Christian Agnostic" becaue the deeper meaning of Christianity "Love or God or Universe actually taking part in the struggle of humanity" calls to me in a way other religions don't. However, the angry old man in the sky or the cosmic Santa Claus is something I just can't honestly believe these days. I am a believer in evolution but I'm also skeptical of the gaps and the neat little answers of "some" Darwinians. I don't believe in people from outer space coming to earth. As a matter of fact (I saw this quote somewhere else and I happen to agree with it.) "Pertaining to life on other worlds I'm an Agnostic. But when it comes to visitors from other planents to earth I'm a staunch Atheist."

Still, I try to keep a critical open mind about life the universe and everything. I've noticed in my work one thing that I never forget:
The most troubled folks I have ever seen are the ones who are absolutely "sure" of their rightness. Insanity never questions itself.

The word kills, but the spirit gives life...Jesus Christ.
The thing you would not have done to you. Don't do to others...The Buddha
Thanks for all the fish....Douglas Adams
Now, I'm not a religious man, but if your up there Superman...save me. ....Homer Simpson.

 

[plumbbob12]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

Got to chime in here with a pet peeve of mine, which has little bearing on this topic, other than one of perception.
It has always been my take that the evil government is not out there blocking our attempts to learn the “truth” of what is in our skies. I think that the new “FBI Vault” has proved this to be true. For the most part, most of the FBI folks have less of an idea then we do, and are as easily fooled as the general public. I think that the UFO community does more to discredit themselves then any government “men in black” could. This leads to my pet peeve of the week.
To Wit: People who put UFO videos on YouTube, and feel the need to insert either hard rock, or romantic music in the clip, along with dialog, either written or spoken stating the “spiritual” nature of the recorded event. Of course, the additions to a possibility authentic event take away any creditability the event could have ever had. I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s artistic bent, but please, for God’s sake, just publish the event as recorded! I can just picture a security meeting with heads of CIA, NSA, and their ilk, viewing a real video with jingles brought to you by Ozzy Osborn, or worst yet, Queen! Real professional. Peace.

 

[tyder001]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

or worst yet, Queen

Unless it's the album "News of the World" which is one of my favorite classic rock albums of all time.
1. One of These Nights...Eagles
2. Rumors....Fleetwood Mac
3. News of The World...Queen
4. The Grand Illusion...Styx
5. Hotel California...Eagles
6. Heart Like A Wheel...Linda Ronstadt
7. Nothin Fanct...Lynyrd Skynyrd
8. Hurry Sundown...Outlaws
9. Idlewild South...Allman Brothers
10. Searching For A Rainbow...Marshal Tucker Band.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack.
Rock and Roll Never Forgets...Bob Segar. 8)

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

I don't always take the world so seriously ... but since you do,

Trust me dude, I don't take this stuff seriously at all. It's mostly entertainment for me because in the end, the whole UFO thing is meaningless. That is unless actual aliens are coming here and messing with us, but for now, I see nothing that convinces me of that.

With regards to skepticism being pseudoscience, I'd like to see actual examples of this. Here's an example of something i am skeptical of being pseudoscience: Homeopathy. If that were an actual science, we'd have a lot of dead people on our hands that overdosed from it a few months ago. Instead, we have a whole bunch of skeptics that proved a point.

I understand that you are trying to make a point that doubting everything is as useless as believing everything - i totally agree - but that's not what I think of when I think skeptic. I think someone that needs absolute proof to believe something that goes against what we known science.

Do you see what I mean?

As for the CSI thing, changing the name to that was silly, as is the David Caruso sunglasses meme. Silly is not bad though. Here is my proof:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/36WEn-9zs1U" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe>

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

The correct skeptical position should be that the evidence for UFOs (using the term in its colloquial sense) is weak and that the likelihood of their is existence is very low.

That is my stance on the subject. I can come around to saying they do exist once evidence is shown that is the case. Unfortunately, there's no way to prove that they don't exist, which takes us to the whole falsifiability thing.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

As anyone can see, I asked for some evidence of this claim and the poster is unable to supply such.
Love to see those passenger UFO reports as well.

What can you say about someone so intellectually bankrupt?

Lance, be nice.

Seriously though ufology, you didn't really provide any examples. You just agreed with something I said by competly saying the opposite, which makes no sense.

 

[stphrz]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

The correct skeptical position should be that the evidence for UFOs (using the term in its colloquial sense) is weak and that the likelihood of their is existence is very low.Lance

Lance:

I believe your statement is true. That the probability of ET craft visiting earth is very low.

However I do maintain there is no experiment or observation that can ascertain the converse.

For example. You have 999 white marbles and 1 black marble in a bag. Without looking you draw one out of the bag and place it under a cup.

Doing some calculations you can say that the probability of the marble under the cup is black is only 0.001.

You can then form a valid hypothesis that the marble under the cup is white. To check, all you have to do is lift the cup.

But what if you couldn't lift the cup to check? Under that condition it's my contention that any hypothesis concerning the color of the marble isn't valid, scientifically.

This is kind of the situation with ufos being ET spacecraft. I think the very question of it isn't worthy of scientific consideration.

At all.

As far as personal opinions go all is fine. Once you try to bring in science to bolster any claims for or against you are walking straight into quicksand.

 

[stphrz]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

stphrz,

I like your post.



This is where I think your analogy goes off track.

If you know the forgoing data you cannot form a hypothesis that the marble is white.

You already know that there is a chance that it is not. The best you can say is that it is likely to be white. A hypothesis (it seems to me) cannot be valid if you ignore the data you already have. In this case a guess is not the same as a hypothesis.

The Schrödinger's cat stuff is interesting but I don't think it applies in this case.

Lance

You missed my point. (probably my fault, my wording was flawed) . The scenario I laid out was only a one time shot, not a bunch of trials.

In both cases the marble under the cup was either black or white. Just like we are being visited by ET or we are not. Stating that the marble under the cup has a probability of being 0.999 white isn't a hypothesis in that one specific instance, it's just essentially restating the data. A hypothesis is in fact a guess. A hypothesis requires you to go out on a limb and say one way or another. Black or white?

In the first case we had a way to check if our guess, based on probabiltity, was right. This is what makes such a hypothesis valid.

In the second case (no cup lifting) we did not. Just like we have, in reality, no way to check concerning ET. So, in that case you are right, no valid hypothesis can be made.

A specific statement based on intuition/experience or probability can in fact be a valid hypothesis provided you can check it by experimentation and observation. If you are wrong the test will tell. Then you have to alter the hypothesis or try a new one.

I can make a statement that I can guess the top card of a shuffled deck with a probability of 0.7 because I'm just so damned awesome.

Even though the statement sounds totally whacked out, it can be tested. Thus, is is a valid hypothesis. When I try it and can only guess right with a probability of 0.02 (after say a thousand trials), then the hypothesis is falsified. I cannot guess with a probability of 0.7 and I'm not so awesome.

Remeber, a hypothesis has to be made before it can be tested/falsified.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

As far as personal opinions go all is fine. Once you try to bring in science to bolster any claims for or against you are walking straight into quicksand.

And in the context of "UFOLOGY" as far as E.T. is concerned, before we had all the Hollywood hyperbole pertaining to little gray aliens and their special little saucer like ships, anything coming out of the "reporting" aspect of the field investigations would only go as far as exclaiming Unidentified as their final discourse....that is if the craft could not be determined as terrestrial or non anomalous in origin.

And don't drag out the Betty and Barney Hill case....Barney's entire hypnosis session was a reenactment of a sci-fi movie which premiered already.

After 47' and into the 50's and beyond, you have E.T. abductees by the millions.

But here is where I am willing to give all of this some slack.

I believe science's role in this should be refined to exclude any and all "rumor mill" or non scientific data as nothing......Absolutely and positively no credence whatsoever.

This means "eyewitness" reporting as no evidence whatsoever to determine what, if anything it was.
This means "abductee" information or regressive hypnosis as no evidence whatsoever.

That leaves physical material either found or gained, a landing site perhaps....but other than that, no other input should be deemed as anything but "inclusive" as to perhaps further investigation and leave it at that.

In conclusion....A U.F.O. is easily reported and logged based on eyewitness sightings, radar, etc.
E.T. investment or sighting as a "third kind and beyond" stage involvement is only possible when there is physical evidence to actually prove thus. And since this is only possible with the creature present or with some form of metal or material we can "prove" is "extraterrestrial", which would be close to impossible with the govt. and lack of knowledge as to what their true progress is....leaves really no way of counting on anything other than Marvin the Martian paying us a visit.

Sorry, the truth hurts the E.T. wannabes every-time.

 

[kukalakana]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

and because Skeptics are the ones making the "unproveable claim" that UFOs don't or can't exist, they are actually succumbing, ironically to pseudoscience.

I don't think that all skeptics make the claim that UFOs can't exist. We are often trying to look at the matter objectively as a point of probability... They are unlikely to exist. Which goes back to the ultimate point of We Do Not Know. "Pseudoscience" as a side-note literally means "false knowledge" -- and the apparent claim that nothing is knowable would by extension be a claim of knowing nothing, and therefore the very antithesis of pseudoscience. lol... Which ends up being so convoluted that... oh Hell. Just go with it.

 

[mike]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

And in the context of "UFOLOGY" as far as E.T. is concerned, before we had all the Hollywood hyperbole pertaining to little gray aliens and their special little saucer like ships, anything coming out of the "reporting" aspect of the field investigations would only go as far as exclaiming Unidentified as their final discourse....that is if the craft could not be determined as terrestrial or non anomalous in origin.

And don't drag out the Betty and Barney Hill case....Barney's entire hypnosis session was a reenactment of a sci-fi movie which premiered already.

After 47' and into the 50's and beyond, you have E.T. abductees by the millions.

But here is where I am willing to give all of this some slack.

I believe science's role in this should be refined to exclude any and all "rumor mill" or non scientific data as nothing......Absolutely and positively no credence whatsoever.

This means "eyewitness" reporting as no evidence whatsoever to determine what, if anything it was.
This means "abductee" information or regressive hypnosis as no evidence whatsoever.

That leaves physical material either found or gained, a landing site perhaps....but other than that, no other input should be deemed as anything but "inclusive" as to perhaps further investigation and leave it at that.

In conclusion....A U.F.O. is easily reported and logged based on eyewitness sightings, radar, etc.
E.T. investment or sighting as a "third kind and beyond" stage involvement is only possible when there is physical evidence to actually prove thus. And since this is only possible with the creature present or with some form of metal or material we can "prove" is "extraterrestrial", which would be close to impossible with the govt. and lack of knowledge as to what their true progress is....leaves really no way of counting on anything other than Marvin the Martian paying us a visit.

Sorry, the truth hurts the E.T. wannabes every-time.

The zeal with which you insist this cant be happening, combined with constant inflammatory remarks like "wannabes"
is far more intense than those who are simply open to the possibilities.
Its become as boring as a cracked record, the same old stuff over and over again.
No one has suggested marvin the martian is paying us a visit, marvin is a cartoon character, a fictional character like your god.
Your repeated use of the marvin reference is transparent, unable to bring any solid proof, or rational argument, you resort to devices like marvin, and insults like wannabe to discredit those who have an open mind about these things.
And if thats all you've got to make your point......you've got nothing.
Most people are happy to look at this fascinating subject with an open mind, you on the other hand are dead set certain you know the answers
Why bother ? if you dont think the subject has any merit, why pursue such a persistant and aggressive campaign of ridicule and insult against those who do have an interest.
You are clearly driven by an agenda to discredit this topic, but i think thats more about propping up your own superstitions, than it is to get to the truth of the matter

 

[PararealitySaint]

Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

The saucer shaped disks in holloywood films came about as a result of the sightings of disk shaped objects, not the other way around, and such sightings go back much farther than 1947 ... all the way back to the "wheel within a wheel" sightings of biblical lore.

Nope, sorry, before the Roswell "saucer Disc" craft, you had nothing of the sort that became famous enough to spread the fantasy, and only after thus did the crazy fad take off:

Pre 1940 you had clouds and circles and wheels, and all sorts of fun objects....but no saucers:
UFO Cases Directory: Cases by Decade: Pre-1940 - UFO Evidence

Earliest report in 45' had circular craft....and Arnolds look just like a Nazi Wing in June 47'
New Mexico UFO Crash Encounter In 1945 - San Antonio, New Mexico, United States - August 16, 1945 - UFO Evidence

Unfortunately it was Hollywood with all those creative minds who gave you the mass fad you all play with today.

And those triangle craft......Terrestrial: Most probably developed by Raytheon and E-Systems
Here's an excellent site for the theory that these craft are terrestrial in make:
http://netowne.com/ufos/sightings/

Your offhanded dismissal of the stimulus response is nothing more than an attempt to devalue the experience of thousands of people. Furthermore, the evaluation of physical evidence is still dependent on elements of human perception and interpretation ( which in my view are some of the best tools ), and have already been applied directly to the study of the phenomenon by those who have directly experienced it.

Considering the fact that your so called "stimulus" response cannot be measured with any viable conclusive median, and therefore no changes can be utilized to project the variances in said constant, any and all response would be totally contradictory to that necessary base measurement. Without this initial base, where would any scientist be able to honestly weigh the differences and understand the relevance?

With physical material or fact based evidence based on non soluble differences, you have a base to compare....

Human behavior is a sliding curve to say the least.

Take for-instance the fact that you can place 4 human beings along a path in a forest, have them see before their eyes a scenario by which you developed, and after their walk, ask them what they had seen.....and none of them get the scenerio down pact, most attempting to embellish out of embarrassment, and this leaves open a slight variance to an otherwise unmeasured initial median (human behavior variances).....

Then a month later, ask those same 4 people what they had seen in the forest that day, and when they answer with a totally new amount of input, you have data bordering on an impossibility to gauge; and since you never had that initial median anyway, you now have absolutely nothing but chaotic variables muddying up what could never have been clear water in the first place....

Woops....I just made an assimilation to almost every E.T.H. and every E.T. wannabe story out there.

However if you want to take the element of human perception and interpretation out of the equation and rule that only a machine can make the determination, then you have to be sure that the machine can't make any mistakes, and we already know that machines fail all the time.

Huh?

Human beings and their varying perceptive reality compared to a machine (computer lets say), and then input data placed in a machine to discover a median....then the median used to observe the slopes and rises in future data....and then the hypothesis based on the fluctuations of the various input. Which would arrive at a definitive conclusion based solely on the data alone...leaving out human emotion, what you had for lunch that day which could have thrown you in a bad mood......etc.

No, in the case where "real" data is run under machine analysis and screened to find the appropriate answer, I'd take the machine over the human any day.

In the case of E.T. and E.T.H., since everything found is nothing more than human perception, neither a machine or a human being is capable of "guessing" at an answer, because without the proper method I wrote of above, anything found from this discombobulated and varying interpretation data would be nonsensical to say the least.

You can remain in a state of denial all you want about the ETH, but your simple proclaimations that it isn't true are far outweighed by those with the actual experience.

Once again, judging for the sake of writing doesn't make you right. The mere fact that science is there for us humans as a gift to use correctly, doesn't mean you can hope for the best, spin the bottle, and spew forth eyewitness reporting as some form of evidence.....sorry, but science refuses to be insulted in this way no matter what any martian wannabe hopes for.