Szydagis' Rebuttal of the "Why no Good UFO Photos" Argument

[FatPhil]

UFO believers commonly have the axiom in mind that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which, while true, fails to note that it is also not "evidence of presence". "Well, it could be true" could also be said of pixies, leprechauns, ghosts, and unicorns, with unicorns being, hands down, the least improbable of the lot.

From a bayesian perspective, which is the only legitimate way of doing science - it you think you're doing science correctly, and you're not using a bayesian approach, then you aren't doing science, you don't understand what you're doing, or you don't understand the bayesian approach - an absense of confirmatory evidence where there has been a search for same that would legitimately be expected to have some chance fo finding it, but which only found evidence to the contrary *is* evidence of absense.

When the ufo-craving crowd claim that their absense of evidence does not provide evidence of absense they are inadvertantly shoting themselves in the foot by implying that there's not been any sensible effort to gather any evidence at all.

 

[Mendel]

which is the only legitimate way of doing science

[citation needed]

 

[FatPhil]

[citation needed]

Well, the most pro-Bayesian academic I can think of is Richard Carrier, but he's, ahem, fallen out of popularity recently. He even extends the bayesian approach to *history*. However, anyone who's ever said "less wrong" has made a statement that supports my case.

There's a good chance you and I have a different understanding of what science is - perhaps if you explain what your interpretation of it is, I can show where the hidden bayesianism is. You're probably less wrong than Paul Feyerabend, whose /Against Method/ is my current toilet-reading (and which has made no mention of Bayes at all).

 

[Ann K]

an absense of confirmatory evidence where there has been a search for same that would legitimately be expected to have some chance fo finding it, but which only found evidence to the contrary *is* evidence of absense.

To be fair to the UFO crowd, they don't have any place to search that "would legitimately be expected" to have a UFO or evidence thereof. With the exception of the occasional apocryphal claim of strange electromagnetic or radioactive effects and the frankly unbelievable "abduction" fantasies, they're limited to unexpected and unexplained visual sightings. Unfortunately for their credibility, fakes and misinterpretations have infested the field throughout the history of their claims.

 

[FatPhil]

To be fair to the UFO crowd, they don't have any place to search that "would legitimately be expected" to have a UFO or evidence thereof. With the exception of the occasional apocryphal claim of strange electromagnetic or radioactive effects and the frankly unbelievable "abduction" fantasies, they're limited to unexpected and unexplained visual sightings. Unfortunately for their credibility, fakes and misinterpretations have infested the field throughout the history of their claims.

I misspoke slightly: "expected to find it" -> "expected to find it if it existed". Good catch.