|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 10:18:46 [Permalink]
|
Kil and perro de tokio.....
No quarrel. A UFO, properly vetted, is a UFO. Is this also to say that the consideration of the subject ends there? Is informed, sophisticated speculation in order, or should the subject be dropped or dismissed? Would it be appropriate for scientists of various stripes to form hypotheses as to what the unknown phenomena is, attempt to devise methods to test those hypotheses, and proceed to tentative theories? Can the traditional scientific method be applied to a subject such as UFOs?
Of course, there is the problem of evidence, and the lack of tangible material to be tested and examined in a laboratory environment. But the science of astronomy had precious little tangible evidence to work with until Galileo. And until the moon landing, visual observation and photographic evidence was sufficient to create a formidable Science without much in the way of tangible (in the first definition) evidence; meteorites and the indisputable presence of the Earth underfoot notwithstanding.
As I have stated many times here, I have little interest in extraterrestrial visitation. It is one of the less probable explanations for UFOs. But I believe there is at least persuasive visual evidence for the existence of a lot of unexplained aerial and space phenomena that probably is persuasive enough to merit serious scientific enquiry. |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2007 : 11:04:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Kil and perro de tokio..... |
I understand this was addressed to those guys, but I just can't help myself sometimes.| No quarrel. A UFO, properly vetted, is a UFO. Is this also to say that the consideration of the subject ends there? Is informed, sophisticated speculation in order, or should the subject be dropped or dismissed? Would it be appropriate for scientists of various stripes to form hypotheses as to what the unknown phenomena is, attempt to devise methods to test those hypotheses, and proceed to tentative theories? Can the traditional scientific method be applied to a subject such as UFOs? |
First of all, nobody is suggesting that unidentified objects should not be investigated scientifically. In fact, most here think scientific investigation is the only way to look into these phenomena.| Of course, there is the problem of evidence, and the lack of tangible material to be tested and examined in a laboratory environment. But the science of astronomy had precious little tangible evidence to work with until Galileo. And until the moon landing, visual observation and photographic evidence was sufficient to create a formidable Science without much in the way of tangible (in the first definition) evidence; meteorites and the indisputable presence of the Earth underfoot notwithstanding. |
The fundamental problem is there are too many different types of UFO sightings, many with very mundane explanations, not that there isn't enough evidence.
A significant number of "UFOlogists" start their investigations with the presupposition that aliens are peeking at us. These investigators seek to confirm their beliefs; or, lacking data, they assume no valid explanation is evidence of their preconceived notion. This is not science. | As I have stated many times here, I have little interest in extraterrestrial visitation. It is one of the less probable explanations for UFOs. |
You and I are in complete agreement here.| But I believe there is at least persuasive visual evidence for the existence of a lot of unexplained aerial and space phenomena that probably is persuasive enough to merit serious scientific enquiry. |
Absolutely. That doesn't mean, however, that all of these phenomena are related in any significant way. In fact, most have already been explained. Sadly for us, the explanation is not glamorous enough for the media to take interest. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 11:34:43 [Permalink]
|
| The UFO was the reflection off of Paris Hilton's watch. [/glamorous] |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 11:36:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
More of the same. Who exactly are these scientists/skeptics making “scientific pronouncements?” |
I think Dr. Haisch is referring to people like Phil Klass, whom the UFO community regularly accused of throwing out ad hoc, speculative explanations of his own (like, "it was probably a meteor"). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 15:09:44 [Permalink]
|
Boron.....
I appreciate your comments. With reference to this quote:
First of all, nobody is suggesting that unidentified objects should not be investigated scientifically. In fact, most here think scientific investigation is the only way to look into these phenomena.
In your view, and bearing in mind the lack of tangible (touchable) evidence, what would be the appropriate application of the scientific method to the investigation of UAP phenomena?
If you were the director of a well-funded project with a mission to undertake such an investigation, what specific steps would you take to initiate the investigative process?
I would appreciate comments from any others who would care to respond to these questions.
TO MODERATOR:
If it is better form to confine these questions to another thread, I will be happy to oblige and start another thread. If it is your opinion that this general topic "Brights' Opinions of Select UFO Sightings" has lived its useful life as far as SFN is concerned, I will be glad to withdraw. I have recently been in contact with Dr. Haisch, and if you feel there is sufficient interest on the Forum, I will be glad to comment on his replies to my questions.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 15:25:23 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck asked:
In your view, and bearing in mind the lack of tangible (touchable) evidence, what would be the appropriate application of the scientific method to the investigation of UAP phenomena?
|
First, you have to take the irrational step to and conclude that flashing lights in the sky are worth money to investigate.
Second, you have to start with the basics. Observation. You have to generate some data by simply going out and recording observations. You could do this in any variety of ways. Get some high res/high definition telescopic video cameras and set them to look at the skies. Build a radar site dedicated to the task, which eliminates the pesky real job that other radar sites have to do.
Without consistent verifiable, and reliable observations, you have no place to go. Witness testimony is weak, even dozens of witnesses, in scientific inquiry. Mostly it is used as a way to determine where you can go to actually make real observations.
Third, don't invite the crackpot brigade. Don't involve anyone who is a true believer in aliens comming to earth. Avoid confirmation bias. Don't begin your observations with any specific intent other than to make observations.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 16:27:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
TO MODERATOR:
If it is better form to confine these questions to another thread, I will be happy to oblige and start another thread. If it is your opinion that this general topic "Brights' Opinions of Select UFO Sightings" has lived its useful life as far as SFN is concerned, I will be glad to withdraw. I have recently been in contact with Dr. Haisch, and if you feel there is sufficient interest on the Forum, I will be glad to comment on his replies to my questions. |
As an admin here, I'll say that threads evolve. If you think you're not going to get any more answers to your original question, then I have no problem with this thread becoming "Answers from Dr. Haisch" and/or "How to Investigate UFO Sightings." If you would prefer to start new threads for either (or both), you could do that, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 16:49:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
bngbuck asked:
In your view, and bearing in mind the lack of tangible (touchable) evidence, what would be the appropriate application of the scientific method to the investigation of UAP phenomena?
|
First, you have to take the irrational step to and conclude that flashing lights in the sky are worth money to investigate.
Second, you have to start with the basics. Observation. You have to generate some data by simply going out and recording observations. You could do this in any variety of ways. Get some high res/high definition telescopic video cameras and set them to look at the skies. Build a radar site dedicated to the task, which eliminates the pesky real job that other radar sites have to do.
Without consistent verifiable, and reliable observations, you have no place to go. Witness testimony is weak, even dozens of witnesses, in scientific inquiry. Mostly it is used as a way to determine where you can go to actually make real observations.
Third, don't invite the crackpot brigade. Don't involve anyone who is a true believer in aliens comming to earth. Avoid confirmation bias. Don't begin your observations with any specific intent other than to make observations.
|
Well said, Dude.
I think we can safely eliminate alien visitations from the equation. That leaves us with natural phenomena, which can be rigorously investigated, and the supernatural, from which no empirical results have ever been achieved from any investigation despite the claims. Whether or not it's worth it at all is up to the investigator.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2007 : 18:56:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Well said, Dude.
I think we can safely eliminate alien visitations from the equation. That leaves us with natural phenomena, which can be rigorously investigated, and the supernatural, from which no empirical results have ever been achieved from any investigation despite the claims. Whether or not it's worth it at all is up to the investigator.
|
Why would you eliminate alien visitations? Based on mathematical probabilities there are aliens and they are more technologically advanced than us.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 19:43:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why would you eliminate alien visitations? Based on mathematical probabilities there are aliens and they are more technologically advanced than us. |
Despite what you have heard, there are no probabilities to work from. Anything you might have heard would only have been guesses, educated or not. We have no idea what percentage of planets in the Universe might harbor life, let alone intelligent life, let alone the sort of intelligence required to traverse the Universe. If intelligent life did exist, the most likely first contact would be by radio signal. The second most likely would be by a robotic probe. Far less likely is the possibility of direct contact. However, since there are private and government agencies constantly monitoring our air space and near outer space, the most remote possibility is that intelligent aliens are visiting our planet without being detected in any fashion. In fact, the possibility is so remote that it merits little consideration without extremely compelling evidence.
This type of evidence has not been forthcoming.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/06/2007 19:45:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 19:44:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why would you eliminate alien visitations? Based on mathematical probabilities there are aliens and they are more technologically advanced than us. |
Based upon the reproducible, testable evidence, there have been no alien visitations. According to the Drake Equation, there may be 1,988 light years between inhabited star systems on average, and our radio waves have been travelling for less than 150 years (or so), so it's unlikely that any aliens even know that we are here to visit.
Technological advances allow one to stay home where it is safe. Imagine a whole-galaxy planetary spectrograph (WGPS). The aliens shut down their wasteful version of SETI, and instead just use the WGPS to look for planets with organics in their atmospheres, and then wait for radio signals from just those planets (a focused search for very weak signals). Then, they go ahead and radio back, to see if a dialog will commence. Doesn't really matter if each message takes thousands of years, because these beings are so technologically advanced that they won't just vanish.
Go read Contact (better book than it was a movie) if you'd like to see Sagan's speculation on what a first meeting would be like. There's stuff in there that's so high-tech it's indistinguishable from magic, but it's all based on the idea that the ETs aren't going to waste time and resources doing fly-bys that they'd have to know would freak out us primitives. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 20:15:45 [Permalink]
|
Forum Members.....
In accordance with the suggestions of the Admin, and recognizing that the subject of this thread has evolved, or perhaps mutated, I have chosen to continue under the current topic as it still works well for my purposes. Those purposes would include nothing ulterior, only what I have stated several times previously - I wish to gather Brights' and Skeptics' (mutually inclusive?) opinions on select UFO sightings, and gain some understanding of the nature of the skeptical mindset.
This forum appears to be one of the better ponds in which to fish for opinion (I understand this is a dangerous metaphor). Per suggestions offered in the previous thread, I have posted essentially the same question in several other skeptics' forums. Although generally well received (I was only kicked out of one), both the interest level and the quality of response (from those that largely refrained from pejoratives and were indeed interested in the subject matter) has been higher in SFN. Actually, I learned a considerable amount from even the mostly adversarial and even abusive posts here.
Except maybe for Geemack. (Joke, Dave)
Regarding Dr. Haisch:
Before initially contacting Haisch, I did some background on him in order to get some idea of his accessibility. Filthy's wiki was certainly accurate, but did not mention Haisch's involvement with Digital Universe, which is a project in process that proposes to ultimately be a kind of Wikipedia on steroids - an Omnipedia, if you will. Haisch is President and Director of this monumental project in progress, in addition to being a full time astronomer and publishing astrophysicist. It certainly sounds like the man has his hands full and must be under extreme time restraints. His answer was very cordial but very brief. I copy it here:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Haisch" <haisch@calphysics.org>
To: "William Buck" <bngbuck@roadrunner.com>
Cc: <astro@calphysics.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Correspondence restraints.
> Hello William,
> I don't really track developments in the UFO world so I don't have much current information. NARCAP and CUFOS are the best organizations for information. I'm glad my website is useful.
> Cheers,
> Bernie
I am disappointed but I understand his need for brevity. I have had occasion to correspond with James Randi at some length, and he usually answers in one or two short paragraphs. When you think of the e-mail that high-profile folks like these receive, it is a wonder that they answer at all!
For those that are interested, NARCAP and CUFOS can be accessed as given dot org. The former is far the more credible site for skeptical perusal.
Regarding "How to investigate UFO (UAP re the NARCAP protocol) sightings." - (Dave's fave)
Dude.....
In my hypothetical, I assume that some irrational billionaire like Soros or Allen has provided almost unlimited funds for your investigation. This would be necessary, given the confines imposed by the horizon, it would take a very large number of telescope/radar sights to cover the globe (yes, many UFO sightings have been over large bodies of water. Like the Pacific ocean.) Perhaps some of the engineers in the group have some ideas as how to circumvent this restraint.
I think it would be useful for this discussion if everyone dismissed the concept of aliens or extraterrestrial visitation ad hoc.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 20:34:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Per suggestions offered in the previous thread, I have posted essentially the same question in several other skeptics' forums. Although generally well received (I was only kicked out of one)... |
Well, this piqued my interest, but Google refuses to cough up which forum that was. I can find five forums, and on none have you been banned. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 20:47:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why would you eliminate alien visitations? Based on mathematical probabilities there are aliens and they are more technologically advanced than us. |
Based upon the reproducible, testable evidence, there have been no alien visitations. According to the Drake Equation, there may be 1,988 light years between inhabited star systems on average, and our radio waves have been travelling for less than 150 years (or so), so it's unlikely that any aliens even know that we are here to visit.
Technological advances allow one to stay home where it is safe. Imagine a whole-galaxy planetary spectrograph (WGPS). The aliens shut down their wasteful version of SETI, and instead just use the WGPS to look for planets with organics in their atmospheres, and then wait for radio signals from just those planets (a focused search for very weak signals). Then, they go ahead and radio back, to see if a dialog will commence. Doesn't really matter if each message takes thousands of years, because these beings are so technologically advanced that they won't just vanish.
Go read Contact (better book than it was a movie) if you'd like to see Sagan's speculation on what a first meeting would be like. There's stuff in there that's so high-tech it's indistinguishable from magic, but it's all based on the idea that the ETs aren't going to waste time and resources doing fly-bys that they'd have to know would freak out us primitives.
|
Your thoughts here are based on our concept of technology. You alluded to the fact that their technology could require little effort to transverse the universe in your restatement of Sagan's famous phrase.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 20:58:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Your thoughts here are based on our concept of technology. |
No, they're not. They're based on concepts of pragmatism, safety, rationality and sanity. But I challenge you to post a thought that is not based upon human experience.| You alluded to the fact that their technology could require little effort to transverse the universe in your restatement of Sagan's famous phrase. |
You meant Arthur C. Clarke. But it doesn't matter, you appear to be stuck in an Earth-centric mindset and can't seem to break out. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Brights' opinions of select UFO sightings P.S.
