They still say this about people who say they saw UFOs because they’re no more credible now than they were then. They just chat together online more now and refuse to read reports correctly.
Deriding data doesn’t make the data go away. That’s what people used to do decades ago; now we have governments, militaries, researchers taking the UFO phenomenon seriously.
Dealer’s choice? The only “data” we’ve got on either is people making claims, eyewitness testimony without substantiating physical evidence is worthless, and what little physical evidence anyone has ever produced for either phenomenon has been at best inconclusive, more often just proven to be fake
It’s a big question, maybe start a thread and tag me?
Section 2.3 of ‘The Scientific Investigation of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) using multimodal ground-based observatories’ lays out some of the evidence. There’s the model of categorising reports as [low credibility, low strangeness], [low credibility, high strangeness], [high credibility, low strangeness], and [high credibility, high strangeness], and obviously the high credibility high strangeness reports are the most interesting ones.
eyewitness testimony without substantiating physical evidence is worthless
In all cases? e.g. in a legal trial? Or in ethlogy? Or only if the claims are anomalous? Like if I said I saw a flock of geese in the sky, and I had no video, you’d think I was lying?
You’re claiming that we do have data, but not enough. So let’s investigate. And you’re happy to trust my eyewitness account in one case but not the other.
It’s obvious that some phenomena will have a lot of data, some (dark matter, Planet X, sterile neutrinos, Sasquatch), are only suspected to exist. We have varying amounts of data for varying phenomena, naturally.
Have you read Kuhn? He says that when anomalous data build up that contradicts the incumbent theory, they’re dismissed/resisted for a long time, don’t get research-funding, until enough substantiating data build up that the paradigm has to be replaced.
There are two ways of dealing with data that don’t match your theory –
Investigate, research, adjust
Dismiss, ignore, deride. You’ve used scare-quotes twice here and here to sneer at the data that doesn’t fit the understanding that temporarily holds sway now.
One of these two ways is rational, the other is dogmatic.
Which is more likely:
There are no anomalies
Some people have a psychological abreaction against anomalies, and try to shout them down.
I’ll admit to having poor understanding of the paradigmatic theory of these data. Supposing there is a vast conspiracy to fake UFO videos, to have fake congressional and military inquiries… why? Why do these alleged conspirators make these claims? They get a lot of negative backlash from the dogmatists – why expose themselves to scorn for no reason?
Or the ‘mass hallucination’ theory… what is the psychology theory behind that? I’ve never heard of a credible psychiatric report of people hallucinating the same thing at the same time. And why would people with no existing mental conditions suddenly start hallucinating?
They still say this about people who say they saw UFOs because they’re no more credible now than they were then. They just chat together online more now and refuse to read reports correctly.
Enlighten us, then. Which reports have you read correctly?
Kinda a dated view, IMO.
Deriding data doesn’t make the data go away. That’s what people used to do decades ago; now we have governments, militaries, researchers taking the UFO phenomenon seriously.
What data
Is your question about UFOs or Sasquatch?
Dealer’s choice? The only “data” we’ve got on either is people making claims, eyewitness testimony without substantiating physical evidence is worthless, and what little physical evidence anyone has ever produced for either phenomenon has been at best inconclusive, more often just proven to be fake
It’s a big question, maybe start a thread and tag me?
Section 2.3 of ‘The Scientific Investigation of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) using multimodal ground-based observatories’ lays out some of the evidence. There’s the model of categorising reports as [low credibility, low strangeness], [low credibility, high strangeness], [high credibility, low strangeness], and [high credibility, high strangeness], and obviously the high credibility high strangeness reports are the most interesting ones.
In all cases? e.g. in a legal trial? Or in ethlogy? Or only if the claims are anomalous? Like if I said I saw a flock of geese in the sky, and I had no video, you’d think I was lying?
We have a shitload of substantiating physical evidence for the existence of geese, try again
Right, that’s my point, thanks for agreeing.
You’re claiming that we do have data, but not enough. So let’s investigate. And you’re happy to trust my eyewitness account in one case but not the other.
It’s obvious that some phenomena will have a lot of data, some (dark matter, Planet X, sterile neutrinos, Sasquatch), are only suspected to exist. We have varying amounts of data for varying phenomena, naturally.
Have you read Kuhn? He says that when anomalous data build up that contradicts the incumbent theory, they’re dismissed/resisted for a long time, don’t get research-funding, until enough substantiating data build up that the paradigm has to be replaced.
There are two ways of dealing with data that don’t match your theory –
One of these two ways is rational, the other is dogmatic.
Which is more likely:
I’ll admit to having poor understanding of the paradigmatic theory of these data. Supposing there is a vast conspiracy to fake UFO videos, to have fake congressional and military inquiries… why? Why do these alleged conspirators make these claims? They get a lot of negative backlash from the dogmatists – why expose themselves to scorn for no reason?
Or the ‘mass hallucination’ theory… what is the psychology theory behind that? I’ve never heard of a credible psychiatric report of people hallucinating the same thing at the same time. And why would people with no existing mental conditions suddenly start hallucinating?