'Christianity' vs 'Islam'

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 25 of 31 < 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 >

Lyons550 Shirley 04 Jul 17 4.30pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 You should never exclude the improbable on the basis of it being improbable - As Sherlock says, once you dismiss the probable, what your left with is the improbabable and that's kind of how science works. You don't prove 'it could be aliens', you prove that it can't be anything else, systematically through testing all other hypothesis. Hmmmm interesting...pretty much the exact opposite of Occums Razor The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 04 Jul 17 4.30pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

You should never exclude the improbable on the basis of it being improbable - As Sherlock says, once you dismiss the probable, what your left with is the improbabable and that's kind of how science works.

You don't prove 'it could be aliens', you prove that it can't be anything else, systematically through testing all other hypothesis.

Hmmmm interesting...pretty much the exact opposite of Occums Razor

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 04 Jul 17 4.35pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 You should never exclude the improbable on the basis of it being improbable - As Sherlock says, once you dismiss the probable, what your left with is the improbabable and that's kind of how science works. You don't prove 'it could be aliens', you prove that it can't be anything else, systematically through testing all other hypothesis. That is very difficult if the evidence is being obfuscated. Scientific investigation can be nobbled and people can be silenced. If any of this stuff is true it has huge implications for technology and the control of it. It then stops being just a curiosity or a possible security issue and starts being the single biggest conspiracy ever with the widest reaching consequences. There are either aliens coming here or we have technology far in advance of what is known or someone has an agenda which involves making it appear that one or both are true.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

04 Jul 17 4.35pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

You should never exclude the improbable on the basis of it being improbable - As Sherlock says, once you dismiss the probable, what your left with is the improbabable and that's kind of how science works.

You don't prove 'it could be aliens', you prove that it can't be anything else, systematically through testing all other hypothesis.

That is very difficult if the evidence is being obfuscated. Scientific investigation can be nobbled and people can be silenced. If any of this stuff is true it has huge implications for technology and the control of it. It then stops being just a curiosity or a possible security issue and starts being the single biggest conspiracy ever with the widest reaching consequences.
There are either aliens coming here or we have technology far in advance of what is known or someone has an agenda which involves making it appear that one or both are true.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 17 5.30pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 Hmmmm interesting...pretty much the exact opposite of Occums Razor Not quite, both require that you disprove more probable explanations, before accepting improbable ones. So to prove something improbable or in this case alien, you need to eliminate more probable hypothesis. You don't try to prove your hypothesis, you try to disprove the null hypothesis. If your hypothesis is that x causes y, they your try to disprove that anything else causes Y. Its about control of variables and you keep conducting experiment's, until you can get to the point where you prove nothing else causes y. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Jul 17 5.30pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

Hmmmm interesting...pretty much the exact opposite of Occums Razor

Not quite, both require that you disprove more probable explanations, before accepting improbable ones. So to prove something improbable or in this case alien, you need to eliminate more probable hypothesis.

You don't try to prove your hypothesis, you try to disprove the null hypothesis. If your hypothesis is that x causes y, they your try to disprove that anything else causes Y.

Its about control of variables and you keep conducting experiment's, until you can get to the point where you prove nothing else causes y.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 17 5.38pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger That is very difficult if the evidence is being obfuscated. Scientific investigation can be nobbled and people can be silenced. If any of this stuff is true it has huge implications for technology and the control of it. It then stops being just a curiosity or a possible security issue and starts being the single biggest conspiracy ever with the widest reaching consequences. There are either aliens coming here or we have technology far in advance of what is known or someone has an agenda which involves making it appear that one or both are true. In which case you have to prove that evidence is being nobbled, and people are being silenced i.e. the existence of a conspiracy. You don't have to prove with an absolute certainty. A pearson co-efficient of above 7.5 or a frequency of 95 plus is usually good enough. Basically, you have to show that its 'very probable that there is a conspiracy'. But you can't just take people at their word. You have to corroborate evidence, statements etc. You also have to do thinks like demonstrate that accidents are not just coincidences as well. Conspiracy theorists tend to be very s**t at doing this - Just because something fits your proposed story doesn't mean its true. Problem is people lack the journalistic integrity - and its more like people writing for tabloids, than for broadsheets. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Jul 17 5.38pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

In which case you have to prove that evidence is being nobbled, and people are being silenced i.e. the existence of a conspiracy.

You don't have to prove with an absolute certainty. A pearson co-efficient of above 7.5 or a frequency of 95 plus is usually good enough.

Basically, you have to show that its 'very probable that there is a conspiracy'.

But you can't just take people at their word. You have to corroborate evidence, statements etc.

You also have to do thinks like demonstrate that accidents are not just coincidences as well. Conspiracy theorists tend to be very s**t at doing this - Just because something fits your proposed story doesn't mean its true.

Problem is people lack the journalistic integrity - and its more like people writing for tabloids, than for broadsheets.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 17 5.42pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 Oh I wouldn't say I'm a believer at all...i'm certainly open to the idea though...as it appears you are...I was simply playing devils advocate..as you hear plenty of scientist past and present suggesting that stepping out from the agreed 'norm' is likely to be detrimental to ones career....esp when basing that decision on theory without any actual concrete evidence. But then thats the point...in order to attempt to have a balanced view...both sides of the equation need to be considered and appreciated I think you'd find it hard to find a geologist who thinks that aliens flattened the Nazca mountain. However it shouldn't be too hard to find a geologist who might be able to prove that it wasn't the product of seismic activity affecting a river delta etc. The fact that many geologists also claim that you can see traces of tributaries in the geological formation of the mountain top suggests that they've looked. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Jul 17 5.42pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

Oh I wouldn't say I'm a believer at all...i'm certainly open to the idea though...as it appears you are...I was simply playing devils advocate..as you hear plenty of scientist past and present suggesting that stepping out from the agreed 'norm' is likely to be detrimental to ones career....esp when basing that decision on theory without any actual concrete evidence.

But then thats the point...in order to attempt to have a balanced view...both sides of the equation need to be considered and appreciated

I think you'd find it hard to find a geologist who thinks that aliens flattened the Nazca mountain. However it shouldn't be too hard to find a geologist who might be able to prove that it wasn't the product of seismic activity affecting a river delta etc.

The fact that many geologists also claim that you can see traces of tributaries in the geological formation of the mountain top suggests that they've looked.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 17 5.44pm
Originally posted by wordup Correct."I'm not sure what this is so it must be controlled by aliens from another planet" is pretty far down any rational list. Edited by wordup (04 Jul 2017 4.30pm) Yep. Lights in the sky, doesn't prove a UFO, until you eliminate all other phenomena. And even then it doesn't follow that a UFO is an alien spaceship either, only that its an unidentified flying object. Its a long haul down the razor, from lights reflecting on water vapour in clouds, to Silurian Space Ship. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Jul 17 5.44pm

Originally posted by wordup

Correct."I'm not sure what this is so it must be controlled by aliens from another planet" is pretty far down any rational list.

Edited by wordup (04 Jul 2017 4.30pm)

Yep.

Lights in the sky, doesn't prove a UFO, until you eliminate all other phenomena. And even then it doesn't follow that a UFO is an alien spaceship either, only that its an unidentified flying object.

Its a long haul down the razor, from lights reflecting on water vapour in clouds, to Silurian Space Ship.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 04 Jul 17 6.10pm
Logic and statistics would suggest that advanced life exists, many times over, other than ours in this galaxy let alone the universe. It can't be evidenced so it isn't a practical certainty but I think on a rational level we can pretty much accept it whilst also recognising the primacy and requirement of proof. Beyond this we start to move into higher levels of speculation. I think I once saw a UFO myself but what I think I saw and what I actually saw could be two different things. If think it's likely that 'a little' of the footage that I watched...and I emphasize 'a little' over the years has been pretty convincing. However, it has to be listed under 'unproven' because the level of evidence just isn't there. Advanced life being able to transverse vast galactic distances is an obvious problem. Also the lack of space related communication that we can recognise also presents an issue. It would be foolish to suggest that it isn't happening given the small time scale we have been looking but we at least know that this part of the galaxy isn't flooded with the more obvious forms that we currently look for. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jul 2017 6.12pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

04 Jul 17 6.10pm

Logic and statistics would suggest that advanced life exists, many times over, other than ours in this galaxy let alone the universe.

It can't be evidenced so it isn't a practical certainty but I think on a rational level we can pretty much accept it whilst also recognising the primacy and requirement of proof.

Beyond this we start to move into higher levels of speculation. I think I once saw a UFO myself but what I think I saw and what I actually saw could be two different things.

If think it's likely that 'a little' of the footage that I watched...and I emphasize 'a little' over the years has been pretty convincing.

However, it has to be listed under 'unproven' because the level of evidence just isn't there.

Advanced life being able to transverse vast galactic distances is an obvious problem.

Also the lack of space related communication that we can recognise also presents an issue. It would be foolish to suggest that it isn't happening given the small time scale we have been looking but we at least know that this part of the galaxy isn't flooded with the more obvious forms that we currently look for.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jul 2017 6.12pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 04 Jul 17 6.13pm
However....Who needs real life...or evidence...Elite: Dangerous is all the proof any sado needs. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jul 2017 6.13pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

04 Jul 17 6.13pm

However....Who needs real life...or evidence...Elite: Dangerous is all the proof any sado needs.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jul 2017 6.13pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 04 Jul 17 6.19pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 In which case you have to prove that evidence is being nobbled, and people are being silenced i.e. the existence of a conspiracy. You don't have to prove with an absolute certainty. A pearson co-efficient of above 7.5 or a frequency of 95 plus is usually good enough. Basically, you have to show that its 'very probable that there is a conspiracy'. But you can't just take people at their word. You have to corroborate evidence, statements etc. You also have to do thinks like demonstrate that accidents are not just coincidences as well. Conspiracy theorists tend to be very s**t at doing this - Just because something fits your proposed story doesn't mean its true. Problem is people lack the journalistic integrity - and its more like people writing for tabloids, than for broadsheets. It could be argued that we have all this already. I would also argue that on just any other subject, what we have would be seen as sufficient evidence. One has to consider the difficulty of obtaining concrete evidence on a subject like this and how easy it would be to dismiss even the strongest evidence. People are just as prone to believe half baked explanations as they are half baked claims. The tabloids are more inclined to rubbish and belittle claims about ETs than take them seriously. They make the subject seem bonkers and some would say that it is a deliberate ploy. I think the only way for most people to be a little more open to the topic is to see a UFO do right angles and fly at vast speed for themselves. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Jul 2017 6.20pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

04 Jul 17 6.19pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

In which case you have to prove that evidence is being nobbled, and people are being silenced i.e. the existence of a conspiracy.

You don't have to prove with an absolute certainty. A pearson co-efficient of above 7.5 or a frequency of 95 plus is usually good enough.

Basically, you have to show that its 'very probable that there is a conspiracy'.

But you can't just take people at their word. You have to corroborate evidence, statements etc.

Problem is people lack the journalistic integrity - and its more like people writing for tabloids, than for broadsheets.

It could be argued that we have all this already.

I would also argue that on just any other subject, what we have would be seen as sufficient evidence.
One has to consider the difficulty of obtaining concrete evidence on a subject like this and how easy it would be to dismiss even the strongest evidence.
People are just as prone to believe half baked explanations as they are half baked claims.
The tabloids are more inclined to rubbish and belittle claims about ETs than take them seriously. They make the subject seem bonkers and some would say that it is a deliberate ploy.
I think the only way for most people to be a little more open to the topic is to see a UFO do right angles and fly at vast speed for themselves.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Jul 2017 6.20pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 04 Jul 17 8.32pm
Just as an aside: If our sun was a the size of one millimetre ...for scale, a grain of sand, the nearest star to it (Proxima Centauri) would be thirty kilometres away or over 18.6 miles away.....that's how far away the nearest star is from the sun. And at 4.2 light years away the nearest system to us it's still significantly closer than the next nearest star system which is Barnard's Star at nearly 6 light years. If we were being visited by aliens in our 'close' neighborhood you would think that we should be seeing some some unusual radiation from those systems. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jul 2017 8.35pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

04 Jul 17 8.32pm

Just as an aside:

If our sun was a the size of one millimetre ...for scale, a grain of sand, the nearest star to it (Proxima Centauri) would be thirty kilometres away or over 18.6 miles away.....that's how far away the nearest star is from the sun.

And at 4.2 light years away the nearest system to us it's still significantly closer than the next nearest star system which is Barnard's Star at nearly 6 light years.

If we were being visited by aliens in our 'close' neighborhood you would think that we should be seeing some some unusual radiation from those systems.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jul 2017 8.35pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 04 Jul 17 8.39pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger It could be argued that we have all this already. I would also argue that on just any other subject, what we have would be seen as sufficient evidence. One has to consider the difficulty of obtaining concrete evidence on a subject like this and how easy it would be to dismiss even the strongest evidence. People are just as prone to believe half baked explanations as they are half baked claims. The tabloids are more inclined to rubbish and belittle claims about ETs than take them seriously. They make the subject seem bonkers and some would say that it is a deliberate ploy. I think the only way for most people to be a little more open to the topic is to see a UFO do right angles and fly at vast speed for themselves. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Jul 2017 6.20pm) [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 04 Jul 17 8.39pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It could be argued that we have all this already.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Jul 2017 6.20pm)

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 04 Jul 17 8.46pm
Originally posted by nickgusset [Link] Errol Brown, you are missed sir. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

04 Jul 17 8.46pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

[Link]

Errol Brown, you are missed sir.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 25 of 31 < 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

'Christianity' vs 'Islam'

Site Map

Sponsors