UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

If people can levitate, then.....

From Facebook linked review:

" ... eyewitnesses to these miracles must be either telling the truth or lying is a false choice fallacy. Lamont explains in convincing detail how sincere people could and did see these seemingly impossible miracles occur."




  • Hmmmm... Written by someone from New Mexico.... For an organization that wants to be [at least in effect] "The Church of the Unbeliever" [read the "Mission Statement" section]...

    I wonder if they believe that "good science" can only be done by "secular humanists" since their work cannot be tainted by "believer myths". In that case please note that most of the folks chasing after a "god-like" AI are "secular humanists" who want to live forever in "hardware".

    Mr. Radford in his review makes the assertion that "The problem is that in science, quality of evidence is what's important, not quantity of evidence. Just as you cannot combine ten cups of weak coffee into one cup of strong coffee, you can't just point to stacks of dubious reports as if their sheer number is evidentially meaningful or scientifically convincing."

    That in a nutshell is the problem with Mr. Radford's review. He makes the error of not "showing his work" when he says "dubious reports". For someone who writes for an organization which says "At the Center for Inquiry, we believe that evidence-based reasoning... is critical for modern world civilization."

    Using Mr. Radford's "measuring stick of evidence", one could just as easily ask "How many home runs did Babe Ruth hit?" and when given the answer of 714, deny that is actually the case since there no evidence that Babe Ruth did so. Mr. Radford's "strength of evidence" measure would require "Photographs, movies, witnesses for each and everyone of them. "Radar data would be a plus". Without such data at hand and just the witness accounts, it *must* be unlikely that Ruth actually hit that many home runs because the evidence is so weak. Let's not even taslk about Hank Aaron. I mean after all, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

    It should be noted, as it is in any real science lab: "Weakness of evidence is not absence of evidence." When there is a preponderance of evidence the task should be not to deny it out of hand as improbable. The task should be to ferret out exactly what happened. You can make a strong cup of coffee from ten weak cups by evaporating the unneeded water...

    Evidence based works [research] on such dubious topics as UFOs and "Psychic Phenomena" are possible given patience, insight, and a willingness to dig for the "meaning in the observations"... sure in might mean the answer is Venus or Meteorites or Pareidolia or Clouds or Ice Crystals or Lightning of various types but it also might mean something else [a Hughes "lander", Stealth Drones, "Black Projects", or maybe even visitations / observation by non-terrestrial "vehicles" from "some where else" {or even from out of the way stable Earth orbits].

    Mr. Radford gets an "A" for effort but a "C" for factuality. His beliefs are shading his thinking-- Just because something [say the whole of modern physics] is improbable does not make it impossible.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Thursday, June 30, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home