When does a subject qualify as science?

[Ivan Seeking]

"I must admit that any favorable mention of the flying saucers by a scientist amounts to extreme heresy and places the one making the statement in danger of excommunication by the scientific theocracy. Nevertheless, in recent years I have investigated the story of the unidentified flying object (UFO), and I am no longer able to dismiss the idea lightly."

Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, Professor of Plant Physiology at Utah State University:
(Paper on "Exobiology" presented at the First Annual Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, held at the United States Air Force Academy, in May 1964. Quoted in Fuller, John G., Incident at Exeter, Putnam, 1966.)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Dr. James E. McDonald, Senior Physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, testified at the UFO hearings convened by the House Committee on on Science and Astronautics in 1968:

"The type of UFO reports that are most intriguing are close-range sightings of machine-like objects of unconventional nature and unconventional performance characteristics, seen at low altitudes, and sometimes even on the ground. The general public is entirely unaware of the large number of such reports that are coming from credible witnesses... When one starts searching for such cases, their number are quite astonishing. Also, such sightings appear to be occurring all over the globe."

("Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects," Hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, July 29, 1968.)

 

[(Q)]

2in

Could you show me what evidence and observation exists
for the currently accepted scientific theory of the INCREASING RATE
of expansion of the universe?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9506/9506304.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0303/0303009.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008337.pdf

Observation tells us that things were
moving away from us faster 10 billion years ago than they were
one thousand years ago. That doesn't seem to be an increasing rate to me, just the opposite.

What observation? How did you come to that conclusion?

There is no observation or direct
evidence of either dark energy or increasing rate of expansion.

It appears you haven’t been keeping up with current events. See above links. If you want, I can find more.

There is trace evidence, radar evidence and observational testimony
of countless witnesses including airline pilots, physicists and astronauts supporting the existance of UFOs.

What is ‘trace evidence?’ Did the pilots, physicists and astronauts confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt they saw aliens and alien crafts? Or did they merely see something they couldn’t explain and the UFOlogy nutters filled in the gaps?

Scientists don’t really, really want to believe that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate – but the observational evidence indicates so. Do you have a better explanation? If so, let’s here it.

Believers, on the other hand, really, really want to believe there are aliens visiting Earth, and they will make claims that aliens do in fact exist, despite the lack of credible evidence and the myriad of illogical conclusions and misunderstandings of science.

 

[(Q)]

Ivan

Isn't that nice - you've put together a list of who's-who from the Ufology nutters camp.

Have you even tried doing a search of this forum to find out how many other believers have used these nutters as their references?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by (Q)
I have a polka-dotted dragon living in my basement

Yes we know Q.

 

[2inquisitive]

Originally posted by (Q)
2in



Observation tells us that things were
moving away from us faster 10 billion years ago than they were
one thousand years ago. That doesn't seem to be an increasing rate to me, just the opposite.

What observation? How did you come to that conclusion?
======================================
Analysis of the red shift data by science. Are you claiming that data
does not show that the more distant and older objects (quasars
and galaxies) are not receding from us at higher velocities than
the closer galaxies that are observed in a more recent time frame?
=======================================

There is no observation or direct
evidence of either dark energy or increasing rate of expansion.

It appears you haven?t been keeping up with current events. See above links. If you want, I can find more.
===========================================
Quote from the links you posted: " In summary, we know everything about these particulars, except whether they really
exist."
" Direct detection is superior only in mass range mx<GeV, but this
region is, arguably, ruled out by previous searches."
=========================================
That is your direct evidence of dark matter? Dark matter with
anti-gravitational properties is the REASON the hypothesis of an
ever increasing rate of expansion was postulated. I am not challenging the hypothesis, just stating that it is not supported
by the "direct evidence and observation" you deem necessary to
be science.
edited: the quote "mass range mx (less than notation) GeV" did
not post correctly.

 

[Persol]

And you've complained about other people not having intelligent discussions? You read completely to much into what were statements, which you had no reason to think were directed at you.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You don't consider RADAR data evidence? I know that you can open the links that I posted just above. Your comments would indicate that you never opened them.
Yes, radar is evidence... but as I've said, radar data of a craft doesn't mean it's alien.

Here we see how thorough your own thinking is. "The only reason" is that I am a private contractor. This was on my personal notebook. I am a systems integrator and consultant.
If another engineer successfully used the presence of SETI on your personal computer against you, something is defintely wrong. Funny enough, I am also a systems integration consultant (rail vehicles). If SETI is enough to turn an engineer against you, they already had a bad impression of you.

Again you assume that we have no evidence when you admitted that you can't open links.
Did I say that? No! I was agreeing with you, and you took it as an attack.

You can't separate the experiment from the experimenter. You can't argue that science exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. I acknowledge the scientific method. You are using the claim of bad method to practice your own pseudoscience.
Wait, bad method is bad method... regardless of who is using the bad method. Regardless, I didn't claim that you were showing bad method.

To what truth did I lay claim? You are very loose with your facts.
Paranoid are we? You are very loose with your interpretation to take a simple statement and think that I was talking about you. It should have been more then clear from the context that the ''you' used above was in a general sense.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by (Q)
I have a polka-dotted dragon living in my basement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes we know Q.
You are being very immature here. If you don't think he has any good points, then let that show on it's own... instead of acting like an idiot.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Persol
And you've complained about other people not having intelligent discussions? You read completely to much into what were statements, which you had no reason to think were directed at you.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You don't consider RADAR data evidence? I know that you can open the links that I posted just above. Your comments would indicate that you never opened them.
Yes, radar is evidence... but as I've said, radar data of a craft doesn't mean it's alien.

I never said that it did. Why do you insist that UFO have aliens inside?

If another engineer successfully used the presence of SETI on your personal computer against you, something is defintely wrong. Funny enough, I am also a systems integration consultant (rail vehicles). If SETI is enough to turn an engineer against you, they already had a bad impression of you.

Boy you are really loose with your assumptions aren't you. How about a competitive environment??? Do you pretend here that you have not tried to use this to discredit me yourself. Both of your assumptions sort of make me the bad guy don’t you think?. Have you considered why do you need to assume such a personal attack posture?

No! I was agreeing with you, and you took it as an attack

Whoops. Please clarify.

Wait, bad method is bad method... regardless of who is using the bad method. Regardless, I didn't claim that you were showing bad method.

But you seem to assume that UFO = bad method. How do you justify this?

Paranoid are we? You are very loose with your interpretation to take a simple statement and think that I was talking about you. It should have been more then clear from the context that the ''you' used above was in a general sense.

Paranoid? No. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Persol
[B However, thinking you know the truth, and not having any evidence, is even worse. [/B]

What does this have to do with the discussion? We can beat up all of the boloney all day. Many seem to use this in an attempt to discredit any person who attempts this discussion, and then to avoid the discussion of legitimate evidence. Your comments here have nothing to do what interests me in UFOs. This is an example of the very point that I’m trying to make. Did you bother to even address one quote cited?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by (Q)
I have a polka-dotted dragon living in my basement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes we know Q.
You are being very immature here. If you don't think he has any good points, then let that show on it's own... instead of acting like an idiot. [/B][/QUOTE]

Q has shown himself to be a rude and arrogant antagonist who only seeks to discredit people who have points of view contrary to his own. He gets exactly as much respect from me as he has shown towards me. It is a shame that he is allowed to run around acting like a fool

 

[(Q)]

Q has shown himself to be a rude and arrogant antagonist who only seeks to discredit people who have points of view contrary to his own.

You discredit yourself when you make unsubstantiated claims that science is a religion – anyone who knew anything about science would find that contrary and somewhat insulting.

 

[MRC_Hans]

To say that science is a religion is absurd. You may think the "polka-dotted dragon" is immature (thereby showing your lack of humor), but it is very relevant for this discussion:

(Q) claims he has a PDD in his basement.

Based on religion, you have only two options:

1) Accept his claim (and stay away from his basement).

2) Claim that since you know the truth, he is lying.

Based on science, you can argue the point and show why he has to be wrong (no, you cannot prove a negative, but you can still dismantle such a claim).

Hans

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I never said that it did. Why do you insist that UFO have aliens inside?
Never said that I did. I don't disagree that UFOs exist any more then I disagree with the existance of weather ballons and clouds. My point is that just because a UFO exists, doesn't mean it is anything special. You must agree that the main thrust of UFO research is towards alien control/contact/existance. The existance of UFOs does not suddenly make aliens (or their craft) visitng earth.

Boy you are really loose with your assumptions aren't you. How about a competitive environment??? Do you pretend here that you have not tried to use this to discredit me yourself. Both of your assumptions sort of make me the bad guy don’t you think?. Have you considered why do you need to assume such a personal attack posture?
My point is that if someone made that claim as an 'attack' on me, they'd be laughed at. Nobody would take them seriously unless they already had something against me. Especially if that group are engineers. Once again, you're being parinoid. I did not mean this as an attack, I was just saying that using SETI as an attack on you makes no sense whatsoever. If anything, SETI would have just been an excuse to attack you, for whatever reason.

Whoops. Please clarify.
You said 'answers are usually given as THE TRUTH'. I said 'To think that a theory is the absolute truth is short-sighted.' How this is an attack on you is beyond me.

But you seem to assume that UFO = bad method. How do you justify this?
Once again, I never said that. I said 'razor is not scientific method'. You said 'you cant seperate experiment from experimentor'. I said 'bad method is bad method... regardless of who is using the bad method.' I never said UFo research uses bad method, although some of it does (but some of every field does).

Did you bother to even address one quote cited?
I could care less about the quotes. They have nothing to do with UFO evidence, and are just complaining that they feel slighted by the scientific community. I have said, and stand by, that some UFO research is pure garbage. Of course they will be ignored by the scientific community. However, there is no reason for the scientific community to put down a researcher who is actually doing good research. Unfortunately, most 'research' consists of interviewing people who said they saw a UFO. This is no more 'research' then asking if people have seen Elvis. Now setting up cameras to watch 'hotspots', analyzing the footage, etc is research.

It is a shame that he is allowed to run around acting like a fool
Yeah, usually he doesn't do that. First time I've seen him on a rampage.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Persol
[Never said that I did. I don't disagree that UFOs exist any more then I disagree with the existance of weather ballons and clouds. My point is that just because a UFO exists, doesn't mean it is anything special. You must agree that the main thrust of UFO research is towards alien control/contact/existance. The existance of UFOs does not suddenly make aliens (or their craft) visitng earth.

I agree that this is the thrust of the attention - clearly because so many people claim to have seen ET. Although the core of the best evidence may hint at this idea, IMO it does not confirm this notion. We may find, for example, that some UFOs are really some bizarre QM phenom that yields valuable insights to core subjects of science. I feel that many scientist fall prey to the giggle factor when in fact it is only their own assumption that ET flies these things that makes them giggle in the first place. Really, you might say that they only laugh at themselves. ET is their solution to this phenomenon; not mine. On the other hand, I don't easily call a millions of people liars and nuts just because I don’t like what they say either. This is required in order to dismiss the ETH.

My point is that if someone made that claim as an 'attack' on me, they'd be laughed at. Nobody would take them seriously unless they already had something against me. Especially if that group are engineers. Once again, you're being parinoid. I did not mean this as an attack, I was just saying that using SETI as an attack on you makes no sense whatsoever. If anything, SETI would have just been an excuse to attack you, for whatever reason.

Well, it was used against me by a competitor. Obviously he did have something against me. What amazed me was that he was able to use this. [note that this happened at a customer site where no one knows me]. It seems that many professionals [engineers and scientists] really do not tolerate good science - I have even heard SETI take hits from other scientist. Sorry, but I have seen, heard, and experienced this myself. I know this happens. I think you underestimate the power of perception. I suggest that you apply for some engineering jobs and put UFO research down as a primary interest. See how many offers you get. On the other hand, put down basketball or golf and you’ll be fine. Or, just go around and tell all of your friends that you think UFOs really are something – you don’t even need to bother to define UFOs as in James R’s definition of science. See what the reaction is. You will instantly lose credibility with many people. Don’t believe it? Do it!

You said 'answers are usually given as THE TRUTH'. I said 'To think that a theory is the absolute truth is short-sighted.' How this is an attack on you is beyond me.

Sorry. I totally misread something somewhere I guess.

But you seem to assume that UFO = bad method. How do you justify this?
Once again, I never said that. I said 'razor is not scientific method'. You said 'you cant seperate experiment from experimentor'. I said 'bad method is bad method... regardless of who is using the bad method.' I never said UFo research uses bad method, although some of it does (but some of every field does)

Agreed. I also volunteer that much of so called Ufology is nonsense.

Did you bother to even address one quote cited?

I could care less about the quotes. They have nothing to do with UFO evidence, and are just complaining that they feel slighted by the scientific community. I have said, and stand by, that some UFO research is pure garbage. Of course they will be ignored by the scientific community. However, there is no reason for the scientific community to put down a researcher who is actually doing good research. Unfortunately, most 'research' consists of interviewing people who said they saw a UFO. This is no more 'research' then asking if people have seen Elvis. Now setting up cameras to watch 'hotspots', analyzing the footage, etc is research.

Note that this thread addresses the attitude of scientists; not implicitly the truth of UFOs. It appears to me that virtually every scientist who investigates this stuff will tell you of prejudice. These quotes are from accomplished scientists who are telling you that this happens. This is completely in opposition to the process of discovery. This reaction by many scientists is in fact anti-scientific and verging on religious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thank you Tristan for proving my point.

By arguing that UFOs need not contain ETs, this thread moved to pseudoscience.




Persol, what more evidence do you need?

 

[Persol]

Lol, sci-forums isn't exactly the scientific community. More on point, this thread isn't science. If anything it's human behavior.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Persol
Lol, sci-forums isn't exactly the scientific community. More on point, this thread isn't science. If anything it's human behavior.

 

[Tristan]

Yep, pseduscience.

This was more of just a "science" post than "earth science" initially. Now progressed to other topics. However, it hasn't really become negative, and for that im grateful.

Later
T:m:

(Thanks Wet1!)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Re: Yep, pseduscience.

Originally posted by Tristan
This was more of just a "science" post than "earth science" initially. Now progressed to other topics. However, it hasn't really become negative, and for that im grateful.

Later
T:m:

(Thanks Wet1!)

Actually, after reviewing the thread I realized that we had seriously gotten off topic.

The point is [was intended to be], the only down to earth explanations for some UFOs seem to be those rooted in earth science. Of course, if you prefer the ETH and want this back here that's OK. I will mark you down as a true believer.

 

[Ives]

Just read the thread and wanted to post a quick reply. I believe that many of us interested in UFOs resent the seeming constant drumbeat of UFO = alien, which seems to be a convenient straw men set up by those hostile to the study of UFOs.

I have to agree with Ivan that the ETH cannot be ruled out, given the claims of sightings by so many. Personally, I don't spend much time on anecdotal claims of alien sightings, because even if some were genuine, it would be nearly impossible to sort them all out.

That brings us back to a core of incidents with sources of information that reasonably appear to survive normal human filters for bogus vs. credible information.

The core question isn't just scientific, it is also an important philosophical question for the human race. Take the 1976 Iranian incident, discussed in another thread. Debunkers and others hostile to the study of UFOs don't understand why some people are interested in this. I find that question more shocking and dismaying than the fact that someone is interested in UFOs. How could the human race not be interested in this? And so the question becomes- what do we do with this information? What do we do with a set of facts that appears to credibly show such intriguing, yet also alarming information? The debunkers come up flat on this question. Q actually advocates pretending that such incidents don't happen, or assuming they have some prosaic, yet undiscovered explanation. This doesn't seem very responsible.

I agree that the Iranian information does not lead to a conclusion of alien visitation. But again then, what do we do with these facts? How do we analyze them? Why do those hostile to UFOs react so vehemently when it is even suggested that the behavior involved appears volitional?

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Ives
I agree that the Iranian information does not lead to a conclusion of alien visitation.
Agreed.

But again then, what do we do with these facts? How do we analyze them?
Not a damn clue Studies have shown that most UFO sightings are 'misobservations'. the question is, what do you do with the rest? I wonder, if all these sightings where 'misobservations', how many would still be unexplainable... due soley to being unable to completely recreate the scene. (IE: unregistered plane flies under radar with lights blinking) Out of the vast number, we have to focus on those with the most amount of information. The military sightings fit this definition.

Why do those hostile to UFOs react so vehemently when it is even suggested that the behavior involved appears volitional?
Q seems to be the only one to completely act this way... but I still think that it is a jump to conclusions. There are other things that seem to 'act with will'... but are just following the laws of physics.

 

[Ives]

Ives: "But again then, what do we do with these facts? How do we analyze them?"


Persol: "Not a damn clue Studies have shown that most UFO sightings are 'misobservations'. the question is, what do you do with the rest? I wonder, if all these sightings where 'misobservations', how many would still be unexplainable... due soley to being unable to completely recreate the scene. (IE: unregistered plane flies under radar with lights blinking) Out of the vast number, we have to focus on those with the most amount of information. The military sightings fit this definition."

Thanks for the response. Now - "studies have shown that most UFO sightings are 'misobservations'." I'm not sure what studies you are talking about, but I agree nevertheless that the vast, vast majority of UFO sightings have prosaic explantions. So no dispute there. Where your reasoning breaks down is in the application to specific fact patterns like the 1976 Iranian incident. For reference, I went back and reviewed Ivan's original post with the links to the NSA documents, and with all due respect, the facts of this incident do not support "unregistered plane flies under radar with lights blinking". We should not begin to disregard the testimony of the witnesses there simply because it does not fit our expectations. There is no basis to conclude that what is described is a "misobservation". The facts strongly suggest that the 4-4 pilots were interacting with something that responded to them.

I fully conced to you that there may be a prosaic explanation for the 1976 incident - its very nature as "unidentified" must leave that possibility open, and any reasonable person must concede that. But there are elements of that incident that strongly suggest that something had multiple responses to the human/plane presence. Again I would fall back on the same argument I make about Malmstrom; it the military/intelligence apparatus of this country is sincere when they say such incidents have no national security ramifications, then they are irrational or supremely irresponsible. Can you look at the facts of the 1976 Iranian incident and describe with specificity why our military should not be concerned with such incidents? Is it responsible, from a national security point of view, to just disregard such incidents on the assumption that there is a prosaic explanation?