[extropy-chat] UFOs and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures)

Tue May 2 18:42:02 UTC 2006

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> > 5. There are alleged landing sites that are
> > radioactive according to geiger-counter wielding
> > "experts".
> >
> Huh? areas of higher radioactivity are landing
> sites? Now why would that be?
> If I were traveling the universe, the last way I
> want to go about it is
> through conventional nuclear fission. There can't be
> any other explanation
> for this at all?

Fission is not the only process that would cause
radioactivity. The gamma rays of matter/anti-matter
reactors could do so as well. Nuclear energy seems a
far more feasable power-source for interstellar travel
than conventional chemical engines, so I would not
rule out some sort of nuclear drive. 

> 
> > 6. There are numerous non-profit organizations
> devoted
> > to their study.
> 
> Now that did it. I'm convinced. Since some
> non-profit groups study it, that
> means it's true. How could I have ever doubted it.
> I'm so blind! I should
> have known that flat-earth group was right!

I am not trying to convince you. I am trying to
address the question in an objective a manner as
possible. There is a distinct difference. You are
right, however, in that the existence of such
organizations is poor evidence.

> >
> > 7. There was a historic military confrontation
> with
> > one or more UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS during
> World
> > War II:
> > http://www.militarymuseum.org/BattleofLA.html
> >
> Are you listing individual incidents now? Doesn;t
> this belong up above?

I consider this a special case because of the numerous
independent witnesses, the scope of the reaction by
the military, the sheer amount of mass confusion
generated, and the bizarre disparity between the
"official stories" given by the various branches of
the military/ government involved. Essentially a
battle occured wherein tens of thousands of artillery
shells were shot at nothing at all. Although if you
look at the photograph, the searchlights are
converging on SOMETHING that has a vaguely saucer
shape. 

> > 8. At least 2 extropes on this list have
> personally
> > seen a UFO.
> 
> OK. Now you have really done it. It must be true.

Kevin, if you are not able to grant your intellectual
peers a modicum of credibility who do you trust at
all?

> >
> > If even 99% of these are hoaxes, this still
> amounts to
> > on the order of 100 solid data points in FAVOR of
> the
> > existense of UFOs.

> Come one. Can;t you do better? How about alternate
> explanations?
> Maybe a
> percentage of all human brains are just twisted. How
> many serial killers are
> there?

Yes a certain percentage of human brains ARE twisted.
If certain sources can be trusted 4%(1 in 25) people
are born without a conscience. That is not my point.
Alternate explanations are not the point either. My
original question was whether UFO phenomena are
evidence of technologically superior extra-terrestrial
intelligence in a Bayesian sense. I am trying to
estimate a probability as to the existence of
technologically advanced space-faring civilizations. 

Any phenomenon can have any number of explanations.
Like the planets are orbiting the earth doing back
flips regularly. These epicycles certainly explain the
phenomena we OBSERVE but that doesn't make it correct.
We have to use Occam's razor to find the SIMPLEST
explanation that explains the phenomena and even then,
that is no guarantee it is correct. But it is more
likely to be. Thus I can bend over backwards to
concoct a huge number of possible scenarios that
explain the UFO evidence, but that is not what I am
trying to do. I am testing a specific hypothesis: Are
UFOs evidence that there are space- faring
extra-terrestrials out there.

Far from being trivial, the existence of proof of
principle that interstellar travel is indeed POSSIBLE
is a question of singular importance for the long term
survival of the human (or even posthuman) species.
If ET can do it than so can we.

I asked for negative evidence and instead got a whole
bunch of reactionary "ambiguous and inconclusive" from
people. The only person that has given me a shred of
negative evidence is Keith and that was by admission
of some truly devious UFO hoaxes he pulled off.

The fact that somebody as smart of Keith would go to
so much effort to for people for the simple motivation
of "anonymous publicity" somewhat disturbs me but also
adjusts my posterior probability down quite a bit.
Something that all the skeptical hand-waving by the
other responses did not.

So I guess my question now is whether enough hoaxsters
of Keith's caliber could have fooled the U.S. Airforce
to render the posterior probability of the existence
of UFOs negligible. It would be nice if I could find a
way to quantify this analysis. I will start with a
modified Drake Equation as a prior probability and
adjust using the positive and negative evidence
accordingly.

Interesting photos by National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) weather sattelites:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/space/Photo166.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/space/photo31.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/space/photo162.htm

Riddle me this Batman: What is disk-shaped, 400 km
wide, intermittently shows up in geostationary orbit
around the earth, and emits water vapor and infrared?
Of course these could be modified/hoaxed so I am
looking thru the archives on the NOAA's websites.
Although if they are carefully censored, it may prove
useless.     

Also as far as allegations that UFOs are products of
"pop sci-fi culture" explain their consistent
appearence in art work from around the world as far
back as 5000 BC? 

Look for yourself:

http://www.ufoartwork.com/

Particularly striking is the resemblance of many of
the depicted floating "saucers" to those in alleged
photographs from the modern era. Some look almost
identical to modern photographs. Also look at the
depictions of the so-called skygods. Why do they have
such prominent eyes and such subdued facial features
similar to accounts told by modern day ufo abductees?
What is this connection between mideval and
rennaisance depictions of the crucifixion of Jesus,
the Virgin Mary, and strange floating disks in the
sky? Is Christianity just another UFO cult?

Why would hallucinations and other "mental
disturbances" manifest themselves in such a consistent
manner over thousands of years and across numerous
disparate cultures? Is there some biological reason
why the "flying saucer" shape is a preferred
confabulation? What is the SIMPLEST explanation?
Remember there were no weather balloons in the stone
ages.

Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

-St. Einstein

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 