Objective evidence

From Razing-Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
“ Information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.[1] ”

While this is relatively to the point I would like to add clarification as it specifically relates to the UFO phenomenon.

Contents

Subjective Reality vs Objective Reality

“

Definition:

PROOF :

  1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true.
  2. anything serving as such evidence.
  3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial.

According to the dictionary definition of the word "proof", there has never been a universally agreed upon "proof" of any of the following:

  • Alien beings.
  • Telepathic communication.
  • Extraterrestrial life forms of any kind.
  • Extraterrestrial flying craft of any kind.
  • Spirits, ghosts, gods, or disembodied entities.
  • The existence of any extraterrestrial flying object.
  • The extraterrestrial origin of any Unidentified Flying Object.

However, a great many people believe that some or all of these phenomenon are "true", or that they "exist", or that they are "real".

Definition:

BELIEVE :

  1. to hold an opinion.
  2. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.
  3. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
  4. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
  5. to suppose or assume; understand.

Therefore, by definition, the common denominator of "proof" for each individual regarding any of these items is based on the personal, subjective opinion, ability or disability of an individual as to whether or not they "believe" something is "true" or "real", either as an "objective" reality or as a "subjective" reality.

Let's look at definitions for the following terms:

REALITY:

  1. That which is agreed upon.

TRUE :

  1. In accordance with reality.

OBJECTIVE :

  1. Relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent or subjective existence.

SUBJECTIVE :

  1. relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
  2. personal : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
  3. arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes.

Therefore, if you "believe" that a "subjective" experience or reality can be "proof" of anything, then it can be "true" for you. There are as many "realities" as there are objective and/or personal views or perceptions.

Many people feel that they must have agreement from others in order to perceive reality. However, what is true for you, is true for you, whether or not anyone else agrees with you.[2]

”

Start of Objective Reality

“ Therefore, if you "believe" that a "subjective" experience or reality can be "proof" of anything, then it can be "true" for you. There are as many "realities" as there are objective and/or personal views or perceptions.[2] ”

Objective reality starts when there is corroboration by many trustworthy sources backed by standardized equipment that measures and authenticates the observation. Following this data collection, it then requires analysis by a group of individuals expert in relevant areas of study.

Dealing with Paranormal Phenomena

When dealing with paranormal or borderline paranormal phenomenon the above definition of "objective evidence" needs to be further refined.

To convince a scientist that the data is valid:

  1. numerous corroborating trustworthy sources (i.e. people who have more to lose than they have to gain) are required
  2. with some form of mechanical instrumentation recording the event
  3. and where all the data has been analyzed by experts in appropriate respective fields.

Regarding UFOs, please see my definition of the word, this would come in the form of multiple ground-air radar contacts along with air-ground visuals, studied by committees such as the AIAA and the military. Unfortunately only a handful cases have received such a treatment. One of the few cases where this has occurred was in the '56 Lakenheath/Bentwaters UFO incident.

Incorrectly Perceived Objective Evidence

Physical evidence should be suspect. What if a "saucer" someone toted out was simply Moller's latest aeronautic design? The only instance when people should accept a saucer-shaped craft as alien is if after analysis by engineers and followed by a thorough vetting by the worlds militaries confirming the object is of non-human origin.

Bob White's object is probably the most compelling piece of physical evidence to date because after analysis by numerous labs. It seems as though the general consensus is that it's of a non-terrestrial composition and has nano-scale structures mimicking man-made nanotubes.

People should even doubt their own eyes. Pareidolia is an extremely common cognitive bias. Perhaps the observer experienced a stroke, astrocytoma, sleep paralysis, or maybe the person was even drugged (unintentionally or otherwise).

Objective Testimony

The stick used to measure credibility of human testimony is the amount of supporting evidence (additional testimony would count as long as the other witnesses can be confirmed as having no connection to the source) in conjunction with how much the person has to lose.

The former FAA Head of Accidents and Investigations, John Callahan, is probably the best example of trustworthy testimony. Mr. Callahan has in his possession the raw JAL-1628 radar print-outs, the FAA report, the flight-tapes, his testimony is corroborated by the pilot, co-pilot, the flight-engineer, the AARTC controller, and the ROCC controller. Furthermore he has placed himself before the National Press Club and flatly stated he is willing to provide this data, along with testimony, before Congress under oath.

This is compelling because there is a stable of material evidence; circumstantial evidence supported by physical evidence; as a high-ranking FAA official he is putting his reputation on the line; the degrees of removal between the witnesses is extremely high; and should Mr. Callahan be caught lying he would face perjury charges.

There are no shortcuts. Personally knowing someone and trusting their testimony does not short-circuit these tests allowing anecdotal evidence to pass as objective data.

I have had the opportunity to hear UFO-abduction testimony from people who I would probably trust with my life. After listening to their testimonies I've told these same people quite bluntly that I have a hard time accepting their interpretation of the experience. While this might make me feel guilty for questioning their experiences. I steadfastly hold to this rule, because it is far too easy for people to misinterpret solitary observations.

Objective evidence and Hypothesis formation

Objective evidence stands separate from the hypothesis.

Even if a person did in fact witness a physical, tangible flying object it's possible the individual witnessed a terrestrial, experimental military aircraft. As an observer the person would label it as a UFO, but in reality the craft is identifiable to people with the appropriate clearance. A confirmed TRue UFO (TRUFO) is something unidentifiable by anyone on planet earth.

An alien spacecraft or probe, a new form of atmospheric phenomenon, macro-scale quantum manifestation, and so on, even though conceived by man are still unknown to man and therefore represent 'true UFOs.'

In this example the observation does not actually fit the hypothesis due to incomplete information, but would be labeled a TRUFO until new information became available.

Thus until there is a very large database of information (incomplete as it might be) objective evidence must simply incorporate the best hypothesis of the time, while the data verifying the report remains trustworthy and unassailable.

Without a foundation of raw agreed upon objective evidence we have nothing.

Notes

  1. ↑ "Objective Evidence: definition" (in English). EverythingBio.com. http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=objective+evidence. Retrieved on 05-20-2009. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Spencer, Lawrence. "THE PROOF OF ALIEN INTERVIEW" (in English). AlienInterview.com. Archived from the original on 5-14-2009. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread460074/pg2#pid6294148. Retrieved on 05-20-2009. 


References


Further Reading


External Links



.
.
.

Transcluded from Wikipedia

This article is about the concept of scientific evidence in pure science. For the legal term, see Scientific evidence (law).
 This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (October 2010)

Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences (see qualitative research and intersubjectivity). Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism.

Contents

[edit] Principles of inference

Scientific evidence is evidence that does not concede the dependence of the evidence on principles of inference. This allows the relevancy of facts to a hypothesis to be determined by examining the assumptions made.[1]

A person’s assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between alleged facts and a hypothesis will determine whether that person takes the facts as evidence.[1] Consider, for example alternative uses of the observation that day and night alternate at a steady rate. In an environment where the observer makes a causal connection between exposure to the sun and day, the observer may take the observation of day and night as evidence for a theory of cosmology. Without an assumption or belief that a causal connection exists between exposure to the sun and the observance of day, the observation of day will be discounted as evidence of a cosmological theory.

A person’s assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between alleged facts and a hypothesis will also determine how a person utilizes the facts as evidence. Continuing with the same example, in an environment where geocentric cosmology is prevalent, the observation of day and night may be taken as evidence that the sun moves about the earth. Alternatively, in an environment where heliocentric cosmology is prevalent, the same observation may be taken as evidence that the earth is spinning about an axis.[1] In summary, beliefs or assumptions about causal relationships are utilized to determine whether facts are evidence of a hypothesis.

Background beliefs differ. As a result, where observers operate under different paradigms, rational observers may find different meaning in scientific evidence from the same event.[2] For example, Priestley, working with phlogiston theory, took his observations about the decomposition of what we know today as mercuric oxide as evidence of the phlogiston. In contrast, Lavoisier, developing the theory of elements, took the same facts as evidence for oxygen.[3] Note that a causal relationship between the facts and hypothesis does not exist to cause the facts to be taken as evidence,[1] but rather the causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish facts as evidence.

A more formal method to characterize the effect of background beliefs is Bayesianism.[4] Bayesian theory provides that one’s beliefs depend on evidence to which one is exposed and one’s prior experiences (probability distribution, in Bayesian terms).[5] As a result, two observers of the same event will rationally arrive at different evidence, given the same facts, because their priors (previous experiences) differ.

The importance of background beliefs in the determination of what facts are evidence can be illustrated using as provided by Aristotle's syllogistic logic. A standard syllogism is a triad where two propositions jointly imply the conclusion[6]:

All men are mortal,
and
Aristotle is a man;
therefore
Aristotle is mortal.

If either of the propositions is not accepted as true, the conclusion will not be deemed to follow from them.

[edit] Utility of scientific evidence

Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role.[7] In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper’s theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.[8] See falsificationism for more on this view of scientific evidence.

[edit] Philosophic versus scientific views of scientific evidence

The Philosophic community has invested extensive resources to address logical requirements for scientific evidence by examination of the relationship between evidence and hypotheses, in contrast to scientific approaches which focus on the candidate facts and their context.[9] Bechtel, as an example of a scientific approach, provides factors (clarity of the data, replication by others, consistency with results arrived at by alternative methods and consistency with plausible theories) useful for determination if facts rise to the level of scientific evidence.[10]

A variety of philosophical approaches are available for the evaluation of evidence, many of which focus on the relationship between the evidence and the hypothesis, to determine if the facts rise to the level of evidence. Carnap recommends distinguishing such theories of evidence using three concepts: whether the theory is classificatory (does the evidence confirm the hypothesis), comparative (does the evidence support a first hypothesis more than an alternative hypothesis) or quantitative (the degree to which the evidence supports a hypothesis).[11] Achinstein provides a concise presentation by prominent philosophers on evidence, including Carl Hempel (Confirmation), Nelson Goodman (of grue fame), R. B. Braithwaite, Norwood Russell Hanson, Wesley C. Salmon, Clark Glymour and Rudolf Carnap[12]

Based on the philosophical assumption of the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis, a mathematical criterion for evaluation of evidence has been proven, with the criterion having a resemblance to the idea of Occam's Razor that the simplest comprehensive description of the evidence is most likely correct. It states formally, "The ideal principle states that the prior probability associated with the hypothesis should be given by the algorithmic universal probability, and the sum of the log universal probability of the model plus the log of the probability of the data given the model should be minimized." [13]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d Longino, Helen (March 1979). Philosophy of Science , Vol. 46. pp. 37–42. 
  2. ^ Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1962).
  3. ^ Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 2nd Ed. (1970).
  4. ^ William Talbott "Bayesian Epistemology" Accessed May 13, 2007.
  5. ^ Thomas Kelly "Evidence". Accessed May 13, 2007.
  6. ^ George Kenneth Stone, "Evidence in Science"(1966)
  7. ^ Karl R. Popper,"The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (1959).
  8. ^ Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd Ed. (2000), p. 71. Accessed May 13, 2007.
  9. ^ Deborah G. Mayo, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. (Sep., 2000), pp. S194.
  10. ^ William Bechtel, Scientific Evidence: Creating and Evaluating Experimental Instruments and Research Techniques, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1 (1990) p. 561.
  11. ^ Rudolf Carnap, Logical Foundations of Probability (1962) p. 462.
  12. ^ Peter Achinstein (Ed.) "The Concept of Evidence" (1983).
  13. ^ Paul M. B. Vitányi and Ming Li; "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity".


Retrieved from "http://uto.sigsno.org/index.php/Objective_evidence"
Personal tools