Is there a “UAP phenomenon” worth studying?

[Gary C]

That actually supports my point.
"Dark matter" refers to observed/inferred gravitational effects; a new particle is one unconfirmed explanation.
Yet nobody says dark matter particles are "Santa Claus" just because they have not been proved.

"not proven" does not mean "epistemically equivalent to Santa Claus."

In the same way some serious investigators, after looking at cases and associated data, have concluded that while extraterrestrial visitation is not proven, some cases are puzzling enough to justify scientific study.

Still no.

In the first case the demonstrated physical effect is real to the limits of our ability to make relevant measurements. Several proposed solutions have been ruled out based on experimentally or observationally collected evidence.

In the second case there are no unknowns. The cultural antecedents in Northern European folklore and religious practices are well known and firmly documented. The first use of the actual term "Santa Claus" is known. The cultural norms surrounding parental use of the trope have been thoroughly examined both popularly and professionally in the sociological and psychological literature.

If you are saying that people who think UFOs are some form of NHI cannot or will not admit to this distinction, then we agree.

 

[Andreas]

The analogy fails because studying UAPs does not mean assuming the conclusion.
Studying Bigfoot as a confirmed animal would be premature; studying Bigfoot reports would not be.

The point of scientific study is precisely to determine whether any genuinely anomalous objects are present in the data. How could that be established without studying it?

Yes, it does. It means assuming there is a UAP phenomenon that can be studied. If not—if it's just clutter in the LIZ and system malfunctions—then there's simply nothing there to study.

And the comparison with Bigfoot isn't that far-fetched, I think. People claim to have seen her, people have taken pictures and videos of her, and heck, there are even footprints and fur that have supposedly been found and collected. Using the same logic, doesn't all this evidence require a thorough government research program? Or perhaps even a dedicated task force?

Sorry for sounding sarcastic, but the point remains:
1. Establish whether there's a phenomenon.
2. Study the phenomenon.

Some people want to skip the first step, or they mistake the first step for "studying UAP."

 

[Todd Feinman]

So the scientists here don't want to study UFOs and repeat / copy and paste it over and over again as a hobby. I get it. Your words here will last and be referenced in the future.
Some other scientists do. I don't care.
Do you think I would ever be convinced that what I and others saw didn't happen because you tell me it couldn't have? Go pound a sand dune. It's your confirmation bias. I've known engineers, doctors, computer scientists. Sorry. Not as smart or good at seeing patterns. Kinda blinkered. Know a lot about a slice of something. The people you hate ARE scientists. And a wacky lot. I think they are and….others.. too. People still see UFOs. Up close.. You are losing the battle in the minds of the public. Bummer. Scientists claim stupid stuff all of the time.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-within-20-30-years-nasa-chief-scientist-says

Then there's Dyson spheres solar sails. More confirmation bias based on current paradigms and technology. Sigh. Scientists. And then the pareidolia around the Calvine photo. An island! A secret craft! Good lord.

 

[Andreas]

Do you think I would ever be convinced that what I and others saw didn't happen because you tell me it couldn't have?

This is not about dismissing people's personal experiences or questioning anyone's credibility. Nor is it about what someone does or does not believe. Everyone's right to their own beliefs is important to me. Rather, the point is that if a phenomenon is to be studied scientifically, it must first be identified and defined.

I am not claiming that everything we have not yet documented scientifically is therefore imaginary. Science will continue to make new discoveries in the future, some of which may challenge the prevailing consensus. But UAPs and UFOs do not constitute a homogeneous or clearly defined field of study.

Some people claim to have encountered extraterrestrials in dreams and visions. Others say they have traveled aboard flying saucers. Some report seeing small orbs floating through their living rooms, while others point to blurry videos showing objects they cannot explain. Yet when taken together, these claims provide very little—if anything at all—in the way of concrete evidence that science can meaningfully investigate.

Moreover, I see no reason to assume that these experiences are connected. Why should someone encountering large-eyed grey beings in their sleep be related to a distant, blurry dot captured on an infrared video released by the Pentagon? Before we can study a phenomenon, we first need to establish that there is a coherent phenomenon to study.

 

[Todd Feinman]

This is not about dismissing people's personal experiences or questioning anyone's credibility. Nor is it about what someone does or does not believe. Everyone's right to their own beliefs is important to me. Rather, the point is that if a phenomenon is to be studied scientifically, it must first be identified and defined.

I am not claiming that everything we have not yet documented scientifically is therefore imaginary. Science will continue to make new discoveries in the future, some of which may challenge the prevailing consensus. But UAPs and UFOs do not constitute a homogeneous or clearly defined field of study.

Some people claim to have encountered extraterrestrials in dreams and visions. Others say they have traveled aboard flying saucers. Some report seeing small orbs floating through their living rooms, while others point to blurry videos showing objects they cannot explain. Yet when taken together, these claims provide very little—if anything at all—in the way of concrete evidence that science can meaningfully investigate.

Moreover, I see no reason to assume that these experiences are connected. Why should someone encountering large-eyed grey beings in their sleep be related to a distant, blurry dot captured on an infrared video released by the Pentagon? Before we can study a phenomenon, we first need to establish that there is a coherent phenomenon to study.

Well, I'd take a look at historical accounts if you are trying to understand something so fugitive, as with ball lightning. It is how one would proceed in court. But you've isolated yourselves as a bunch of fanatics here with a hobby; not science. And you aren't helping your cause. Everything has gone the other way for y'all; and it's not just because many of you are poor communicators, and not especially outgoing. By automatically dismissing circumstantial evidence and witness testimony as 1000% unreliable in EVERY case —even with corroborative evidence, you do yourselves a great shooting to your feet and look silly to many.
You are in court. You refuse to listen to witnesses at ALL. You will not use them in a case. Only physical evidence will work. And it must have the DNA of the perpetrator on it.. Need I go further?

 

[Andreas]

By automatically dismissing circumstantial evidence and witness testimony —even with corroborative evidence, you do yourselves a great shooting in your feet and look silly to many.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm sure some people think my worldview is silly, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[Todd Feinman]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm sure some people think my worldview is silly, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

Me too. Other scientists have other views. Fine. That's what scientists think. I'd suggest using your real names so your colleagues know who you are. I use my name for precisely that reason.
I'd go further. I think other scientists can see how much bias is here. Statements are so dismissive that if you are shown to be wrong, no one will ever take you seriously again.