You don’t have to apologise for any delay, I appreciate it that you take the time to think it over. In this way we are always certain of what we are trying to say to each other and what we are trying to relay to people. I hope you don’t mind that my own response is a little late too.
Late in my own terms, because, as always happens, you and duendy have taken this thread in a direction which was not originally intended, but: a differing direction is not by definition a bad thing and often leads to new insights, however there are scarce new insights to divulge in the discussion for the reality of ‘unconventional-flying-objects’. One often tends to relay on information that is (ent-)rusted in his neural pathways of his/her brain,…
People are generally afraid of new insights that behave contrary to their popular belief systems that are carved in the sociological pathways of society. People want simple answers! Yes, ufo’s exist! No, ufo’s don’t exist! Yes, there is intelligent life outside of our earth! No, there is no other intelligence outside of our own planet. They even try to force a ‘democratic’ vote upon it, to determine if it does or doesn’t, these questions can’t be answered by a poll,…how much more unintelligent can it get? Unfortunately the question of ‘UFO’s’ or ‘alien existence’ does require a whole lot of study and techniques that are all but simple, let alone to explain. Therefore scientists and also ordinary people often tend to relay information upon a basis of the ‘given’: that which is established as a fact is taken for granted and often not even allowed for to be questioned.
Too often people are discredited, because of a theory that they can’t fathom and too often theory’s are denounced and any evidence (whiter it be data, facts or documents), gets pockmarked and branded as ridiculous, ludicrous, preposterous, unbelievable, absurd, illogical, unscientific, unsound, unfounded, outrageous, speculative, despicable, loathsome, …
Bordering on the TABOO, one needs to realise that it often required for scientists to attack this so-called ‘establishment’ to gain credibility to their own theory. Not often this would result in boycott and damnation of the scientists in question, that had no other means of validating their research through different media outlets, often resulting in front-page tabloid covering, thereby contributing to the confusion and even myths surrounding the subject, or eventually not getting covered at all. Often ending careers that could have been other whilst promising to say the least. What a waste of potential this mentality brings about. So don’t go off screaming that nobody cares, because you better hope that National Security isn’t in danger, or if you might care: the rest of the world and it’s inhabitants too.
However mind-boggling or implausible it may seem, people really need to check reality and however strange it may seem; reality is not the common sense we use to define it! (reality), not in the slightest. We live in a small part of the improbable universe, that came about tunnelling. The majority of this vast universe is fabricated out of black matter and exist out of dark energy, (not the other way ‘round
) for the record: it is not US living in the ‘norm’ of any ‘ality’, we, and everything surrounding us, is NOT the norm, we are the very implausible and improbable! No need to denounce ourselves however because we do exist! And so do those other universes in this ‘multiverse’ beyond the reasonable doubt.
We are indeed not here just to explore or deplore the term ‘empirical’, this is indeed not what this thread is intended to do,…What it does try to do is to confirm the validity of ‘empirical’ evidence as means of substantiating the existence of ‘unusual’ and/or ‘unconventional’ Flying Objects. As for formulating an hypothesis that follows the observation, "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory" thus logically follows the quest for experimental (=scientific) testing of ‘unconventional-flying-objects’ and ‘alien existence’ in particular. How then, can we perform experimental testing on these issues is the question we should look for in this debate, any clue leading to a scientific theory could be and should be delved into. You say nobody gives a shit about ufo’s, well, that’s just a wrong assumption and you know it. There are circulating a whole lot of differing and/or overlapping theory’s, to which we will refer to as the need arises. (you are truly fishing after my theory to denounce it, aren’t you mr.anxious! )
If we make an observation, it is done on an empirical basis,…
Then:
we find an working theory,…or hypothesis, to my knowledge these two are one and the same thing. Empirical data is based upon observation or experience:
According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary: Empirical. Originating in or based upon observation or experience; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance:
Empirical
Relying upon or derived from observation or experiment.
Empirical Research
Research that uses data drawn from observation or experience.
Empirical Validity
Empirical evidence that an instrument measures what it has been designed to measure.
And also: - the adjective 'empirical' means 'based upon experience'. In philosophy the term empiricism refers to the theory that all concepts are derived from experience and that all statements which express knowledge must ultimately derive their justification from experience; those who hold that view are referred to as empiricists
I think you may call me an empiricist in this regard. I personally hold true my own experiences, and I know by personal experience what hallucinating means, I know how an airplane looks, I know what a komet looks like, I know were to locate the planet Venus in the night or evening sky, I know how a balloon behaves and looks like, I know how satellites behave and look like, I do know the difference between being awake and dreaming,…need I say more? Okay, I know the difference between an ULM and a UAV and how an model plane look like, sounds like, how a helicopter moves, that it can bear a searchlight(s), I know about cosmological events like nebulae and starbursts and pulsars and I know how a projectile moves, what a Frisbee or your sisters rabbit can do to fix a hoax, I know about almost any weather-related lightning effect, including ball-lightning, vortexes, wind hoses, and dog piles, so about anything you can find flying trough the air if you care to look up on a good clear evening or nightsky.
In short: I do have a BASE upon which to draw conclusions, in retrospect as well as eventual future happenings that may or may not occur in my surroundings. Upon which I FORMULATE a certain hypothesis about an unusual ‘experience’ that I may have had.
NOTE: This thread is also not about my own personal experiences that I may or may not have had, because that would require a differing approach from the approach I’m taking now.
The concept of a Flying Object that can’t be an airplane because of it’s bright color, it’s speed and trajectory,…(which means it flies, makes straight turns, pulsates and has a round form, can’t be venus bytheway) Or that it’s floating in the air just one meter above ground etcetera etcetera,…
You denounce the explication of empirical evidence and say that all it leads to an hypothesis, not validating as proof of the theory. Okay, but then you postulate that a theory is not valid in it’s own respect, and I quote you:
Well eeeh, that is exactly what has been done the last 60 years, Right!
Going for your ‘classical example’ of ufo propulsion, it indeed doesn’t needs to be that outer worldly as most people suppose that it is. We do have a working hypothesis as you say and we do have a specific theory (or idea if you will) about how to produce an effect that is similar to that of UFO propulsion.
There are plenty of reasons why a scandal should remain hidden, or heads will roll! Go and take the lit off,….
I’m sure you’re familiar with theoretical physicists? They do math on a chalkboard, they theorise away, … yet they didn’t have the possibility until recently to ‘validate’ them. (CERN) Take Einstein for example: his relativity theory put the world in a perspective that was very logical, but nevertheless people cling to their popular beliefs and the denounced it! All he had WAS a theory!
Should we build a UFO, just to validate and prove the means by which it would be possible to bridge the cosmological gap between here and Zeta-reticuli? We are trying to do so, by every means, and may I tell you as citizen of this world that we are damn close in civilian science,….but we’re way behind the industrial-military-complex.
- end of part I -
Late in my own terms, because, as always happens, you and duendy have taken this thread in a direction which was not originally intended, but: a differing direction is not by definition a bad thing and often leads to new insights, however there are scarce new insights to divulge in the discussion for the reality of ‘unconventional-flying-objects’. One often tends to relay on information that is (ent-)rusted in his neural pathways of his/her brain,…
People are generally afraid of new insights that behave contrary to their popular belief systems that are carved in the sociological pathways of society. People want simple answers! Yes, ufo’s exist! No, ufo’s don’t exist! Yes, there is intelligent life outside of our earth! No, there is no other intelligence outside of our own planet. They even try to force a ‘democratic’ vote upon it, to determine if it does or doesn’t, these questions can’t be answered by a poll,…how much more unintelligent can it get? Unfortunately the question of ‘UFO’s’ or ‘alien existence’ does require a whole lot of study and techniques that are all but simple, let alone to explain. Therefore scientists and also ordinary people often tend to relay information upon a basis of the ‘given’: that which is established as a fact is taken for granted and often not even allowed for to be questioned.
Too often people are discredited, because of a theory that they can’t fathom and too often theory’s are denounced and any evidence (whiter it be data, facts or documents), gets pockmarked and branded as ridiculous, ludicrous, preposterous, unbelievable, absurd, illogical, unscientific, unsound, unfounded, outrageous, speculative, despicable, loathsome, …
Bordering on the TABOO, one needs to realise that it often required for scientists to attack this so-called ‘establishment’ to gain credibility to their own theory. Not often this would result in boycott and damnation of the scientists in question, that had no other means of validating their research through different media outlets, often resulting in front-page tabloid covering, thereby contributing to the confusion and even myths surrounding the subject, or eventually not getting covered at all. Often ending careers that could have been other whilst promising to say the least. What a waste of potential this mentality brings about. So don’t go off screaming that nobody cares, because you better hope that National Security isn’t in danger, or if you might care: the rest of the world and it’s inhabitants too.
However mind-boggling or implausible it may seem, people really need to check reality and however strange it may seem; reality is not the common sense we use to define it! (reality), not in the slightest. We live in a small part of the improbable universe, that came about tunnelling. The majority of this vast universe is fabricated out of black matter and exist out of dark energy, (not the other way ‘round
) for the record: it is not US living in the ‘norm’ of any ‘ality’, we, and everything surrounding us, is NOT the norm, we are the very implausible and improbable! No need to denounce ourselves however because we do exist! And so do those other universes in this ‘multiverse’ beyond the reasonable doubt.We are indeed not here just to explore or deplore the term ‘empirical’, this is indeed not what this thread is intended to do,…What it does try to do is to confirm the validity of ‘empirical’ evidence as means of substantiating the existence of ‘unusual’ and/or ‘unconventional’ Flying Objects. As for formulating an hypothesis that follows the observation, "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory" thus logically follows the quest for experimental (=scientific) testing of ‘unconventional-flying-objects’ and ‘alien existence’ in particular. How then, can we perform experimental testing on these issues is the question we should look for in this debate, any clue leading to a scientific theory could be and should be delved into. You say nobody gives a shit about ufo’s, well, that’s just a wrong assumption and you know it. There are circulating a whole lot of differing and/or overlapping theory’s, to which we will refer to as the need arises. (you are truly fishing after my theory to denounce it, aren’t you mr.anxious! )
If we make an observation, it is done on an empirical basis,…
Then:
we find an working theory,…or hypothesis, to my knowledge these two are one and the same thing. Empirical data is based upon observation or experience:
According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary: Empirical. Originating in or based upon observation or experience; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance:
Empirical
Relying upon or derived from observation or experiment.
Empirical Research
Research that uses data drawn from observation or experience.
Empirical Validity
Empirical evidence that an instrument measures what it has been designed to measure.
And also: - the adjective 'empirical' means 'based upon experience'. In philosophy the term empiricism refers to the theory that all concepts are derived from experience and that all statements which express knowledge must ultimately derive their justification from experience; those who hold that view are referred to as empiricists
I think you may call me an empiricist in this regard. I personally hold true my own experiences, and I know by personal experience what hallucinating means, I know how an airplane looks, I know what a komet looks like, I know were to locate the planet Venus in the night or evening sky, I know how a balloon behaves and looks like, I know how satellites behave and look like, I do know the difference between being awake and dreaming,…need I say more? Okay, I know the difference between an ULM and a UAV and how an model plane look like, sounds like, how a helicopter moves, that it can bear a searchlight(s), I know about cosmological events like nebulae and starbursts and pulsars and I know how a projectile moves, what a Frisbee or your sisters rabbit can do to fix a hoax, I know about almost any weather-related lightning effect, including ball-lightning, vortexes, wind hoses, and dog piles, so about anything you can find flying trough the air if you care to look up on a good clear evening or nightsky.
In short: I do have a BASE upon which to draw conclusions, in retrospect as well as eventual future happenings that may or may not occur in my surroundings. Upon which I FORMULATE a certain hypothesis about an unusual ‘experience’ that I may have had.
NOTE: This thread is also not about my own personal experiences that I may or may not have had, because that would require a differing approach from the approach I’m taking now.
The concept of a Flying Object that can’t be an airplane because of it’s bright color, it’s speed and trajectory,…(which means it flies, makes straight turns, pulsates and has a round form, can’t be venus bytheway) Or that it’s floating in the air just one meter above ground etcetera etcetera,…
You denounce the explication of empirical evidence and say that all it leads to an hypothesis, not validating as proof of the theory. Okay, but then you postulate that a theory is not valid in it’s own respect, and I quote you:
So the theory is just like that hypothesis: not constituting any proof of theory,…okay,…then let’s go even further to ‘prove’ to you personally and to the rest of this board and the world, that UFO’s REALLY DO EXIST by means of proving the theory, which means, to both of us I hope, comparing the facts, looking for similarity’s in the experiences, building an ‘hypothesis’ or ‘theory’ about the phenomenon that is observed. Right?
Well eeeh, that is exactly what has been done the last 60 years, Right!
Going for your ‘classical example’ of ufo propulsion, it indeed doesn’t needs to be that outer worldly as most people suppose that it is. We do have a working hypothesis as you say and we do have a specific theory (or idea if you will) about how to produce an effect that is similar to that of UFO propulsion.
I’m suspecting ‘they’ve been there and done that,…
There are plenty of reasons why a scandal should remain hidden, or heads will roll! Go and take the lit off,….
I’m sure you’re familiar with theoretical physicists? They do math on a chalkboard, they theorise away, … yet they didn’t have the possibility until recently to ‘validate’ them. (CERN) Take Einstein for example: his relativity theory put the world in a perspective that was very logical, but nevertheless people cling to their popular beliefs and the denounced it! All he had WAS a theory!
Should we build a UFO, just to validate and prove the means by which it would be possible to bridge the cosmological gap between here and Zeta-reticuli? We are trying to do so, by every means, and may I tell you as citizen of this world that we are damn close in civilian science,….but we’re way behind the industrial-military-complex.
- end of part I -