Sorry, what is this supposed to be? There's so much alluded to but not said, that it's hard to even talk about what's being said here. He asks on his non-scientific Twitter poll: Well, what does...
Exemplary
Sorry, what is this supposed to be? There's so much alluded to but not said, that it's hard to even talk about what's being said here. He asks on his non-scientific Twitter poll:
How best explain top 10 hardest-to-explain UFO cases?
Well, what does the author think are the top 10 hardest-to-explain UFO cases? Without that info, the question is moot.
But beyond that, the author makes some claims without really justifying them.
you will see that there are a lot of pretty sober looking people who all say they saw the same pretty clear and dramatic things under pretty good observing conditions.
Please show us these people saying these things. What I see most with UFO sightings is the exact opposite of that. I will present as much evidence for this claim as the author did. There, done.
And often what they say they saw is solid-looking objects with remarkable combinations of location, speed, and acceleration, with no attendant thrust or control surfaces of the sort we’d use if we were trying to achieve those combinations.
Yeah, people say all kinds of shit. They are frequently wrong. For example, just look up how many people supposedly remember the line in Casablanca being "Play it again, Sam." That line appears nowhere in the movie. People saying they saw something doesn't mean they saw the thing they said they saw, or anything, really.
Yes, when you start to actually measure objectively, you begin to see that humans are generally not reliable when giving eyewitness testimony. Elizabeth Loftus has also studied human memory and...
I agree. UAPs are much more fun when we have some video footage. The Pentagon owes congress a full report on these matters by June 1st. Their usual way of handling these incidents is just to say...
I agree. UAPs are much more fun when we have some video footage.
The Pentagon owes congress a full report on these matters by June 1st. Their usual way of handling these incidents is just to say 'yes that's a real video' and then nothing else whatsoever about it. Ostensibly, that report to congress will actually contain some of what the Pentagon makes of all of this, for the first time.
Yeah, there's a difference between DoD confirming "that's a real observation of an unidentified flying object" vs. confirming "alien life/new physics/ghosts/etc." Since military technology...
Yeah, there's a difference between DoD confirming "that's a real observation of an unidentified flying object" vs. confirming "alien life/new physics/ghosts/etc."
Since military technology generally has a head start on civilian/consumer tech, we constantly have the possibility of such tech being observed by civilians out of context. I'm having trouble finding them, but I know I've seen reports of civilian sightings of then-classified military aircraft, such as the Nighthawk stealth fighter in the early 80s or the SR-71 Blackbird in the late 60s. Seeing some sort of delta-wing shape in the sky is honestly not all that surprising at this point considering the kinds of exotic-looking military UAVs that aren't even classified.
I highly recommend The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast. They talk about these sorts of things at length and there are 16 years worth of episodes to listen to. They address paranormal...
I highly recommend The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast. They talk about these sorts of things at length and there are 16 years worth of episodes to listen to.
They address paranormal experiences. They talk about psychological phenomena, physiological phenomena, and various experiences people have that lead them to believe in these sorts of things. The host is a neurosurgeon and he often discusses neurological things that people can mistake for paranormal experiences, for example.
He and his brothers (who are the other hosts of the show) even spent time working with some well-known "ghost hunters" and breaking down where their thinking goes wrong, and what mistakes they make when doing their "hunting." And what's really cool is they aren't snarky about it. They have fun, but it's not one of these podcasts where they put everything down. They genuinely love figuring out what's really going on.
Can you explain how the scientific method does not fulfill your expectations? The reason the scientific method and the idea of Popperian falsifiability is so effective at getting at the truth of...
What I would like to happen (and I believe others would too) is the development of a methodology that would address 'paranormal' experiences, for example.
Can you explain how the scientific method does not fulfill your expectations?
The reason the scientific method and the idea of Popperian falsifiability is so effective at getting at the truth of things is that it is continuously self-correcting. You come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, you set up an experiment to test the hypothesis, you make observations (objective observations—not eyewitness testimony), munge your data, and come to a conclusion. By that point, you either have enough information to have satisfactorily tested your hypothesis, and/or you have enough info to formulate a new hypothesis and iterate again.
This is how all scientific progress is made. That's how we moved from thinking the earth is flat to spheroid, from phlogiston theory to understanding oxidative combustion, from miasma theory to germ theory, etc. Honest scientists don't concern themselves with unfalsifiable notions like whether ghosts are real—at least I'm not aware of any sort of "ghost theory". After all, what logical possibility could one offer that would contradict the statement "ghosts are real"? What even are the properties of a ghost that we can determine what is and isn't a ghost? Maybe we can come up with some specific falsifiable theory, like "the sound you heard, and attributed to a ghost, was produced by the building foundation settling". But, even if we can gather satisfactory empirical evidence showing that the sound produced by the building is the same as the sound you heard, we haven't gotten any closer to disproving the existence of ghosts.
This gets into epistemology pretty quickly, and I'm not sure if that's something you care to dive into. The way that I like to approach claims of paranormal phenomena is under the framework of rational skepticism (i.e., Russell's teapot). Try to find out what is the actual specific claim that is being made that defies conventional explanation. This is usually harder than it seems, because people who claim they've had paranormal experiences don't generally have empirical observations to back them up, just their memory of the experience (and as discussed previously in this thread, this is not a solid foundation on which to develop justifiable belief). If you can determine the specific claims that can't be readily explained under existing theories and turn your paranormal experience into a testable theory, then maybe it can turn into a real scientific project that would move our understanding of the universe closer to the capital T Truth.
Our memories are unreliable and malleable. I read of some research recently - if I remember correctly, the very act of recalling memories alters them. Imagine that! The Mandela effect really makes...
People saying they saw something doesn't mean they saw the thing they said they saw, or anything, really.
Our memories are unreliable and malleable. I read of some research recently - if I remember correctly, the very act of recalling memories alters them. Imagine that!
The Mandela effect really makes me wonder what completely bogus beliefs and memories I have.
There is an interesting argument for Christianity that asks, was Jesus a Lord (God), or a Liar, or a Lunatic... because he must have been one, right? Except it assumes that what we have are 100%...
There is an interesting argument for Christianity that asks, was Jesus a Lord (God), or a Liar, or a Lunatic... because he must have been one, right?
Except it assumes that what we have are 100% accurate representations of what Jesus said, and ignores the fact that in all but one questionable gospel Jesus never claimed to be God.
In addition to the excellent points that @joplin makes, there is an utter lack of compelling video, which is strange now that smart phones are so prevalent.
Plus wild claims require strong evidence, not logical arguments.
Another thing that blew my mind... Paul never met Jesus. Paul only met the disciples. Very briefly. Once or twice. And only after he wrote the bulk of the Pauline epistles, which makes up a...
Another thing that blew my mind...
Paul never met Jesus. Paul only met the disciples. Very briefly. Once or twice. And only after he wrote the bulk of the Pauline epistles, which makes up a substantial portion of the New Testament. Pauls entire knowledge of christianity came from one brief conversation with a fiery bush, the Old Testament, plus whatever he learned by talking to those Christians he persecuted. Paul never quotes the sayings of Jesus, because there was no New Testament when he was alive.
The gospels and acts appear to have been written by non eye witnesses a hundred years after Jesus, and are largely written for Romans. So the entire message of Christianity had ample opportunity to evolve from whatever the original disciples taught their early Jewish followers, to something that would appeal to Romans.
In fact, there were many competing beliefs, with many competing writings, but ultimately only one belief became the dominant one and the writings we have were canonized when the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. All the other crazy beliefs like Gnosticism were considered heretical, and we only have a few glimpses into what they even were. There were people who believed Jesus was just a man and not a God. There were people who believed Jesus was just a God not a man. There were people who believed Mary was a God. There are writings about Jesus as a child who pranked people he didn't like with Miracles.
Somehow the early Roman christians settled on the holy trinity, which would make perfect sense to a Roman, but would sound utterly insane to a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. The disciples were Jews. All the early followers of Jesus were Jews. So if Jesus really did say he was a God, you would expect it to be a much bigger deal in all the writings.
If this sounds at all interesting, I recommend reading some of Ehrmans books.
Sorry, what is this supposed to be? There's so much alluded to but not said, that it's hard to even talk about what's being said here. He asks on his non-scientific Twitter poll:
Well, what does the author think are the top 10 hardest-to-explain UFO cases? Without that info, the question is moot.
But beyond that, the author makes some claims without really justifying them.
Please show us these people saying these things. What I see most with UFO sightings is the exact opposite of that. I will present as much evidence for this claim as the author did. There, done.
Yeah, people say all kinds of shit. They are frequently wrong. For example, just look up how many people supposedly remember the line in Casablanca being "Play it again, Sam." That line appears nowhere in the movie. People saying they saw something doesn't mean they saw the thing they said they saw, or anything, really.
Yes, when you start to actually measure objectively, you begin to see that humans are generally not reliable when giving eyewitness testimony.
Elizabeth Loftus has also studied human memory and its reliability.
We should demand unedited video recordings or other objective observations—not eyewitness testimony.
I agree. UAPs are much more fun when we have some video footage.
The Pentagon owes congress a full report on these matters by June 1st. Their usual way of handling these incidents is just to say 'yes that's a real video' and then nothing else whatsoever about it. Ostensibly, that report to congress will actually contain some of what the Pentagon makes of all of this, for the first time.
Yeah, there's a difference between DoD confirming "that's a real observation of an unidentified flying object" vs. confirming "alien life/new physics/ghosts/etc."
Since military technology generally has a head start on civilian/consumer tech, we constantly have the possibility of such tech being observed by civilians out of context. I'm having trouble finding them, but I know I've seen reports of civilian sightings of then-classified military aircraft, such as the Nighthawk stealth fighter in the early 80s or the SR-71 Blackbird in the late 60s. Seeing some sort of delta-wing shape in the sky is honestly not all that surprising at this point considering the kinds of exotic-looking military UAVs that aren't even classified.
As Clarke's third law says:
I highly recommend The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast. They talk about these sorts of things at length and there are 16 years worth of episodes to listen to.
They address paranormal experiences. They talk about psychological phenomena, physiological phenomena, and various experiences people have that lead them to believe in these sorts of things. The host is a neurosurgeon and he often discusses neurological things that people can mistake for paranormal experiences, for example.
He and his brothers (who are the other hosts of the show) even spent time working with some well-known "ghost hunters" and breaking down where their thinking goes wrong, and what mistakes they make when doing their "hunting." And what's really cool is they aren't snarky about it. They have fun, but it's not one of these podcasts where they put everything down. They genuinely love figuring out what's really going on.
Can you explain how the scientific method does not fulfill your expectations?
The reason the scientific method and the idea of Popperian falsifiability is so effective at getting at the truth of things is that it is continuously self-correcting. You come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, you set up an experiment to test the hypothesis, you make observations (objective observations—not eyewitness testimony), munge your data, and come to a conclusion. By that point, you either have enough information to have satisfactorily tested your hypothesis, and/or you have enough info to formulate a new hypothesis and iterate again.
This is how all scientific progress is made. That's how we moved from thinking the earth is flat to spheroid, from phlogiston theory to understanding oxidative combustion, from miasma theory to germ theory, etc. Honest scientists don't concern themselves with unfalsifiable notions like whether ghosts are real—at least I'm not aware of any sort of "ghost theory". After all, what logical possibility could one offer that would contradict the statement "ghosts are real"? What even are the properties of a ghost that we can determine what is and isn't a ghost? Maybe we can come up with some specific falsifiable theory, like "the sound you heard, and attributed to a ghost, was produced by the building foundation settling". But, even if we can gather satisfactory empirical evidence showing that the sound produced by the building is the same as the sound you heard, we haven't gotten any closer to disproving the existence of ghosts.
This gets into epistemology pretty quickly, and I'm not sure if that's something you care to dive into. The way that I like to approach claims of paranormal phenomena is under the framework of rational skepticism (i.e., Russell's teapot). Try to find out what is the actual specific claim that is being made that defies conventional explanation. This is usually harder than it seems, because people who claim they've had paranormal experiences don't generally have empirical observations to back them up, just their memory of the experience (and as discussed previously in this thread, this is not a solid foundation on which to develop justifiable belief). If you can determine the specific claims that can't be readily explained under existing theories and turn your paranormal experience into a testable theory, then maybe it can turn into a real scientific project that would move our understanding of the universe closer to the capital T Truth.
Our memories are unreliable and malleable. I read of some research recently - if I remember correctly, the very act of recalling memories alters them. Imagine that!
The Mandela effect really makes me wonder what completely bogus beliefs and memories I have.
There is an interesting argument for Christianity that asks, was Jesus a Lord (God), or a Liar, or a Lunatic... because he must have been one, right?
Except it assumes that what we have are 100% accurate representations of what Jesus said, and ignores the fact that in all but one questionable gospel Jesus never claimed to be God.
In addition to the excellent points that @joplin makes, there is an utter lack of compelling video, which is strange now that smart phones are so prevalent.
Plus wild claims require strong evidence, not logical arguments.
That was fascinating, thanks for the link. As a former Christian I've never run across this particular historical tidbit before.
Another thing that blew my mind...
Paul never met Jesus. Paul only met the disciples. Very briefly. Once or twice. And only after he wrote the bulk of the Pauline epistles, which makes up a substantial portion of the New Testament. Pauls entire knowledge of christianity came from one brief conversation with a fiery bush, the Old Testament, plus whatever he learned by talking to those Christians he persecuted. Paul never quotes the sayings of Jesus, because there was no New Testament when he was alive.
The gospels and acts appear to have been written by non eye witnesses a hundred years after Jesus, and are largely written for Romans. So the entire message of Christianity had ample opportunity to evolve from whatever the original disciples taught their early Jewish followers, to something that would appeal to Romans.
In fact, there were many competing beliefs, with many competing writings, but ultimately only one belief became the dominant one and the writings we have were canonized when the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. All the other crazy beliefs like Gnosticism were considered heretical, and we only have a few glimpses into what they even were. There were people who believed Jesus was just a man and not a God. There were people who believed Jesus was just a God not a man. There were people who believed Mary was a God. There are writings about Jesus as a child who pranked people he didn't like with Miracles.
Somehow the early Roman christians settled on the holy trinity, which would make perfect sense to a Roman, but would sound utterly insane to a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. The disciples were Jews. All the early followers of Jesus were Jews. So if Jesus really did say he was a God, you would expect it to be a much bigger deal in all the writings.
If this sounds at all interesting, I recommend reading some of Ehrmans books.