3 ms·

Not quite true: it's what is reported typically. You have to explain why so many people err in the same way, if you want to claim those reports to be counter-f

Not quite true: it's what is reported typically. You have to explain why so many people err in the same way, if you want to claim those reports to be counter-factual. He shows a video of one of those "round" (rather spherical) objects. While not going at Mach 2 in that instance, it's clearly real and air-borne.

Zetice 3y ago
"So many"? I just quoted the part of the article that says it's 1-5 people per month with "possibly really anomalous" reports. And no, it's neither clearly "real" nor "air-borne". What gets recorded on instruments, including video, is an imperfect reflection of what's happening, and to think that because something has been recorded means it's real is not accurate.
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  Kirkpatrick doesn't count those flying spheres as "really anomalous". I don't know why... Your "It's not clearly real or airborne" is interesting. Technically, you are correct, but it's a remarkably absurd stretch here. The level-headed approach would clearly be, to assume it was real and attain better data.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    The level headed approach is to handle an extraordinary claim with skepticism until an extraordinary level of evidence is presented. Why are these videos always so grainy, out of focus, and otherwise unclear? Perhaps when clear and unambiguous video is captured there is no mystery…
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      "Extraordinary" is no scientific category, it's purely subjective bias based on limited knowledge, aka "ignorance". Basing (in)actions on ignorance and faulty logic is never advisible. These objects exist in a domain of low observability due to common limitations of our sensor technology. Additionally, you assume them to be entirely passive and observed by uniform chance alone. Which presumably should lead to them turning up in somebody's living room. That is nonsense of course.
      - Zetice 3y ago
        "Extraordinary" is absolutely a scientific "category", used to describe ideas that not only lack explanation given current understanding, but also substantially upend that current understanding. These "objects" do not exist simply because recorded measurements could be explained by their existence. Without also providing a way to fit the existence of these objects into reproducible, falsifiable explanations that globally conform to all other theories of physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc., what you have is nothing more than a wild claim. In other words, "extraordinary" is a euphemism for lazy pseudoscience. Do the work before making the claim.
  - NotACop182 3y ago
    You never assume a claim as just real. You take the approach of a skeptic and attain all information before coming to a factual conclusion. If no conclusion is reached it is put in the pile of I don’t know.
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      You are describing ignorance, not skepticism. A scientist's occupation is examining that very pile of "I don't know". I said, you assume the observation to be real. That does not say you already knew what it was.

Zetice 3y ago

"So many"? I just quoted the part of the article that says it's 1-5 people per month with "possibly really anomalous" reports. And no, it's neither clearly "real" nor "air-borne". What gets recorded on instruments, including video, is an imperfect reflection of what's happening, and to think that because something has been recorded means it's real is not accurate.

Loquebantur 3y ago
Kirkpatrick doesn't count those flying spheres as "really anomalous". I don't know why... Your "It's not clearly real or airborne" is interesting. Technically, you are correct, but it's a remarkably absurd stretch here. The level-headed approach would clearly be, to assume it was real and attain better data.
- Zetice 3y ago
  The level headed approach is to handle an extraordinary claim with skepticism until an extraordinary level of evidence is presented. Why are these videos always so grainy, out of focus, and otherwise unclear? Perhaps when clear and unambiguous video is captured there is no mystery…
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    "Extraordinary" is no scientific category, it's purely subjective bias based on limited knowledge, aka "ignorance". Basing (in)actions on ignorance and faulty logic is never advisible. These objects exist in a domain of low observability due to common limitations of our sensor technology. Additionally, you assume them to be entirely passive and observed by uniform chance alone. Which presumably should lead to them turning up in somebody's living room. That is nonsense of course.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      "Extraordinary" is absolutely a scientific "category", used to describe ideas that not only lack explanation given current understanding, but also substantially upend that current understanding. These "objects" do not exist simply because recorded measurements could be explained by their existence. Without also providing a way to fit the existence of these objects into reproducible, falsifiable explanations that globally conform to all other theories of physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc., what you have is nothing more than a wild claim. In other words, "extraordinary" is a euphemism for lazy pseudoscience. Do the work before making the claim.
- NotACop182 3y ago
  You never assume a claim as just real. You take the approach of a skeptic and attain all information before coming to a factual conclusion. If no conclusion is reached it is put in the pile of I don’t know.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    You are describing ignorance, not skepticism. A scientist's occupation is examining that very pile of "I don't know". I said, you assume the observation to be real. That does not say you already knew what it was.