Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Fila · #1 by **Fila** » Feb 18, 2019 7:46 am

I assume most scientists would agree that we are not alone in the universe.
So why are aliens considered "not normal" within science?

I understand its not normal for someone to see an alien.., so is that the "paranormal" part?
If so;

1) What types of evidence is required by first hand witnesses.., in order to prompt a scientific investigation in order to gather sufficient data? (Images, video, written account....)

2) What types of evidence would be required by the scientific investigation to form a conclusion?
(I.e. An observation is made.., but it cannot be replicated on demand.)
And how much will be required to form a conclusion?

3) How would this type of evidence be acquired?
(Magnometer, seismograph, geigercounter, IR, radar, laser range finder, spectral readings etc etc)

I'm open to suggestions that credible / reputable UFO witnesses are merely experiencing some mental effect, however I have yet to see any paper forming a solid conclusion on this matter. Rather than dismissing the claims.., my intention is to look into them. I feel citizens deserve to be treated with respect.., and at least some kind of investigation should take place out of decency.

I'm also not interested in discussing previous UFO cases. I believe this is simply one form of early research.., but cannot be used to form conclusions about an entire topic. 80 years of these discussions (assumptions by both "sides") merely keeps the myth alive, with no actual answer. Witness testimony, images and radar returns are not conclusive evidence.., so there's no point in debating them.

Let's be smarter.., and spend the next 80 years trying to find actual answers.., not reading stories and debating them.., as at best.., a good UFO story will only be that. Unidentified.

So at best.., this old way will only yeild inconclusive results at best. AT BEST.
Its an obvious waste of time.

surreptitious57 · #2 by **surreptitious57** » Feb 18, 2019 9:08 am

What scientists agree on is not actually scientific unless there is some evidence for it else it is nothing more than assumption
First person subjective experience is not scientific and nor is an interpretation of what someone thinks they might have seen
Before establishing that something is alien all the other more plausible explanations must be examined first [ Occams razor ]
A UFO is Unidentified which means that it is not known what it is however one must still use Occams razor as a first principle
Any evidence which can be subject to the rigour of the scientific method would be acceptable regardless of what it might be

Cito di Pense · #3 by **Cito di Pense** » Feb 18, 2019 9:35 am

Fila wrote:
I'm open to suggestions that credible / reputable UFO witnesses are merely experiencing some mental effect

No, you're not, really. I think what you're demanding is proof that something doesn't exist. This is a very tired rhyme.

Fila wrote:Rather than dismissing the claims.., my intention is to look into them. I feel citizens deserve to be treated with respect.., and at least some kind of investigation should take place out of decency.

It's not disrespectful to dismiss claims that are not supported by evidence. It is even less disrespectful to dismiss extraordinary claims that are not supported by extraordinary evidence. Decency does not figure into whether a conjecture is a serious one.

Scot Dutchy · #4 by **Scot Dutchy** » Feb 18, 2019 11:03 am

They make the claims they provide the evidence.

Alan B · #5 by **Alan B** » Feb 18, 2019 11:50 am

Science believes that life exists elsewhere in the Universe. It is a logical assumption (or maybe just 'wishful thinking') that 'we' are not alone in the vastness of space. As yet, there is no evidence that this is so. Since there is no evidence, one cannot attach fanciful descriptions - e.g. 'paranormal' - to its properties.

That does not stop science searching for its existence, whether it be a single celled animal (in our planetary system) or something more advanced in the beyond.

Hermit · #6 by **Hermit** » Feb 18, 2019 11:55 am

Thommo · #7 by **Thommo** » Feb 18, 2019 12:52 pm

I didn't know aliens were considered paranormal. I'm not at all sure most scientists would agree that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our universe, and certainly not that has the capability to travel to Earth. Science itself has almost nothing to say on where life can be found, since it's rooted in empiricism and our information about planets is staggeringly limited.

As for what credible/reputable witnesses have to say, I'm not sure there are any, so it's extremely hard to discuss.

LucidFlight · #8 by **LucidFlight** » Feb 18, 2019 12:55 pm

It's the telepathic aliens you have to watch out for.

Scot Dutchy · #9 by **Scot Dutchy** » Feb 18, 2019 1:06 pm

They read your mind. Mind you they must have trouble when it comes to Trump and his supporters.

Fila · **#10** by **Fila** » Feb 18, 2019 8:33 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:What scientists agree on is not actually scientific unless there is some evidence for it else it is nothing more than assumption
First person subjective experience is not scientific and nor is an interpretation of what someone thinks they might have seen
Before establishing that something is alien all the other more plausible explanations must be examined first [ Occams razor ]
A UFO is Unidentified which means that it is not known what it is however one must still use Occams razor as a first principle
Any evidence which can be subject to the rigour of the scientific method would be acceptable regardless of what it might be

Thanks for the reply.

Most scientists would agree.., is not a scientific fact no. This is merely a belief. I agree here.
I also agree that other explanations should be examined.., however this does not automatically dismiss the ETH.
I have looked into other explanations.., and no currently known naturally forming environmental or celestial effects match the descriptions given of UFOs that manaouver a certain way.

Yes.., first person experience is not considered scientific evidence or proof. If you re-read my post you will see number (1) explains this.

So far.., (no offence) but this post is adds nothing to the discussion.., or responds to my post.

surreptitious57 wrote:Any evidence which can be subject to the rigour of the scientific method would be acceptable regardless of what it might be

Very broad answer. Would you be able to provide specific examples?

If your unable to.., please at least notice the difficulty and appreciate how hard it is to study anything "new".
Thank you

Fila · **#11** by **Fila** » Feb 18, 2019 8:43 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:No, you're not, really. I think what you're demanding is proof that something doesn't exist. This is a very tired rhyme.

I'm not open to the idea?
Can you please provide more details as to what parts of my post suggests I don't?
Also.., please explain how I am "demanding" proof.., as opposed to seeking information correctly. And please provide an example of how I should have worded the post as not to portray this.
Thank you.

Cito di Pense wrote:It's not disrespectful to dismiss claims that are not supported by evidence. It is even less disrespectful to dismiss extraordinary claims that are not supported by extraordinary evidence. Decency does not figure into whether a conjecture is a serious one.

I believe it is.
A citizen can make an observation.., yet not have the scientific skills, equipment or time to gather sufficient evidence.
You place so much

Again.., I ask what forms of "evidence" is required from first hand witnesses? (Evidence.., not proof)
It seems that no one can make a claim.., or observation.., or even form a hypothesis without 100% conclusive evidence. (i.e. proof).

But therein lies the paradox. It appears that in order to research or study UFOs.., I first need proof.
But to gather proof.., I need to conduct field studies. But to do that.., I need proof. But....., (and around it goes)

Fila · **#12** by **Fila** » Feb 18, 2019 8:46 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:They make the claims they provide the evidence.

Very eloquent..., but vague.
Can you please provide more details.
Thank you.

Fila · **#13** by **Fila** » Feb 18, 2019 8:52 pm

Alan B wrote:Science believes that life exists elsewhere in the Universe. It is a logical assumption (or maybe just 'wishful thinking') that 'we' are not alone in the vastness of space. As yet, there is no evidence that this is so. Since there is no evidence, one cannot attach fanciful descriptions - e.g. 'paranormal' - to its properties.

That does not stop science searching for its existence, whether it be a single celled animal (in our planetary system) or something more advanced in the beyond.

What forms of evidence would be accepted?
Not to PROVE anything. But what types of evidence is required to demote a topic from "paranormal" status?
What would it take.., in order for science to investigate? (As opposed to relying on civilian witnesses for scientific proof)

Thank you.

scott1328 · **#14** by **scott1328** » Feb 18, 2019 8:54 pm

I would settle for someone actually producing an Alien for investigation.

newolder · **#15** by **newolder** » Feb 18, 2019 8:57 pm

... or at minimum it's backpack and un-earthly contents.

Fila · **#16** by **Fila** » Feb 18, 2019 8:59 pm

Hermit wrote:I''m not convinced from witness testimony

So.., being convinced seems to be a major player here.
If I'm not convinced.., then its not worth looking into.

Do we need to be convinced? To research if pollution has a real affect?
Is there a rule within the scientific community that says "No hypothesis can be thoroughly checked.., unless people are already convinced its real? (I'm seriously asking, and would like a response)

Also.., (from my OP) what forms of evidence (not proof) from witnesses.., would change your mind?
Thank you.

romansh · **#17** by **romansh** » Feb 18, 2019 9:00 pm

I want to see the transitional fossils.

Fila · **#18** by **Fila** » Feb 18, 2019 9:09 pm

Thommo wrote:I didn't know aliens were considered paranormal. I'm not at all sure most scientists would agree that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our universe, and certainly not that has the capability to travel to Earth.

Great post. Got me thinking.
Its interesting. Aliens aren't paranormal.., but if they traverse space and visit other planets.., then that's paranormal.

So.., its starting to get narrowed down to "space travel" being "abnormal".
So based on our current understanding of traversing space.., we 100% conclusively know for a fact that no other intelligence could ever reach us.., ever. Case closed.

Do you think this is accurate?

Thommo wrote:Science itself has almost nothing to say on where life can be found, since it's rooted in empiricism and our information about planets is staggeringly limited.

Interesting. But us scientifically minded people will dismiss UFOs based on the scientific and requirements. Citizens also dismiss UFOs based on a lack of evidence.

However the evidence paradox clearly shows the limitations in evidence types civilian witnesses can provide (images, written report). Yet this is used to dismiss claims. Like a catch 22.

Thommo wrote:As for what credible/reputable witnesses have to say, I'm not sure there are any, so it's extremely hard to discuss.

This is a VERY interesting topic.
What would a reputable witness be.., for any other event or topic yet to be confirmed scientifically?
What makes them reputable or credible in this scenario?
What is the difference when they talk about a UFO?

Fila · **#19** by **Fila** » Feb 18, 2019 9:16 pm

scott1328 wrote:I would settle for someone actually producing an Alien for investigation.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said the same thing.
He requires proof before he'll look into the matter.
Alien DNA, some advanced technology etc etc.

But.., therein lies the paradox again.
In order for science to see if UFOs are real.., or what they are.., scientists require EXTRAORDINARY evidence FIRST.
FIRST. Before looking into it. He wants the conclusive proof (DNA or tech) in order to look into what UFOs are?

In this case EXTRAORDINARY evidence is actually the CONCLUSIVE PROOF. As opposed to evidence.
To me.., evidence is the witness testimony, images, radar returns and trace elements. That's evidence.
An alien body or tech would be the conclusive proof.

Fenrir · **#20** by **Fenrir** » Feb 18, 2019 9:19 pm

Fila wrote:
Thommo wrote:I didn't know aliens were considered paranormal. I'm not at all sure most scientists would agree that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our universe, and certainly not that has the capability to travel to Earth.

Great post. Got me thinking.
Its interesting. Aliens aren't paranormal.., but if they traverse space and visit other planets.., then that's paranormal.

So.., its starting to get narrowed down to "space travel" being "abnormal".
So based on our current understanding of traversing space.., we 100% conclusively know for a fact that no other intelligence could ever reach us.., ever. Case closed.

Do you think this is accurate?

Thommo wrote:Science itself has almost nothing to say on where life can be found, since it's rooted in empiricism and our information about planets is staggeringly limited.

Interesting. But us scientifically minded people will dismiss UFOs based on the scientific and requirements. Citizens also dismiss UFOs based on a lack of evidence.

However the evidence paradox clearly shows the limitations in evidence types civilian witnesses can provide (images, written report). Yet this is used to dismiss claims. Like a catch 22.

Thommo wrote:As for what credible/reputable witnesses have to say, I'm not sure there are any, so it's extremely hard to discuss.

This is a VERY interesting topic.
What would a reputable witness be.., for any other event or topic yet to be confirmed scientifically?
What makes them reputable or credible in this scenario?
What is the difference when they talk about a UFO?

Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Ads by Google

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Ads by Google

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Ads by Google

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Re: Why are aliens considered "paranormal"?

Who is online