What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[Cotter]

@ Drew:

Couldn't your graph and limit equation also be interpreted as mathematically proving that, no matter how many sightings, the probability will indeed never be zero?

Thousands of sightings are a long way from infinity, thusly the probability at this time is quite a distance from zero? (perspectively speaking as compared to millions and billions of sightings)

[slabdog]

OK.

(shaking head with a look of disappointment)

Thread closed.

[slabdog]

OK....by popular demand...we are back open for business.

There has been numerous disciplinary actions issued and posts deleted as a result of some folks inability to keep this thread on topic and instead opting to turn this thread into a personal back and forth.

I stuck to my word in post #244 and trust me when I say I will do it again.

Let's all behave like adults.

This is a popular thread.

Don't ruin it for everyone else.

Tally-ho.

[Guest ajciani]

How many reports have been proven true? zero out of many thousands. (and you would have to agree, I think, that many have been proven false).

And this is where the scoftic and the skeptic will part ways. While there is no body on a slab, or stuffed skin in a museum (then again, there might be, depending on what a BF is), there are certainly reports which came with physical evidence, which is very well explained by a BF and very poorly explained by everything else, except maybe a giant, hairy vagrant (which might be a description of a BF). While there are some few reports which are demonstrably false, and a few others which are questionably false, the vast majority occupy that realm of "unverifiable".

So the possibility still exists that all can be false. According to probability theory, that possibility becomes larger with every false report.

By definition, a probability indicates a possibility. Only if a report is known to be true, can there be no probability for all to be false. While verifying a report as false reduces the number of reports, and thus increases the probability that all are false, there are actually very few reports that can be definitively shown to be false. Conversely, as the number of reports which are investigated, and thrown into the category of "probably true" increases, the probability that all are false rapidly declines.

To restate what I have said a number of times, you cannot assume a probability and then do the (1-p)^n thing. It doesn't apply in this setting, because you don't know p; this is not dice rolling, or shooting baskets, or flipping coins. Evidential probability theory applies, and says regardless of the probability you start off believing, as each trial is negative, the chance that all will be negative, increases.

But assuming a value of p is exactly what you have done. You have assumed that p is zero, and cyclically proved it. All reports are false. As every new report is proved false, because the probability of it being true is zero, the chances that all reports are false increases. All reports are false.

What you have failed to realize from your rejection of Statistics 101, is (1-p)^n tells us that the only way for all reports to be false, is that no report can be true. It is the difference between probability and measurement.

From probability, if we take p to be the central limit, or average truth of a report, and p is neither 0 or 1, then unless an infinite number of reports are collected, there is a probability that all are true and a probability that all are false, even if we have measured that at least 1 is true or false.

From measurement, (1-p)^n becomes the product of the truths of the individual measurements, and while there are some p's which are equal to zero, this does not drive the product to 1. There are plenty of reports which have been investigated, and would throw some p's into that product which are better than 0.9. There are a lot of 0.5's too. At the end of the day, that product has become very small. The only way to make it zero would be to have a 100% true report, but there is very little difference between infinitesimally close to zero and zero.

And that is where the scoftic hates statistics. As more reports are collected, fail to be proved false, and might be true, the scoftic's assumption that all reports are false becomes less and less valid.

As to the opposite, the probability that all reports are true, this is again driven to a small number by statistics, but it would be a pointless exercise, because we have already measured that at least 1 report was false.

Incidentally, when I watch Finding Bigfoot town hall meetings, I see numerous little children claiming to have seen bigfoot. What do[ you think of the likelihood that they are telling the truth? why do you think they are raising their hands?

If the child was 10, and claimed to have witnessed the bigfoot in 1995, I would have my doubts.

[JDL]

It seems to me that there can be no consensus on an answer to this question. Each side has laid out a variety of statistical approaches and models that can be applied to the data set of reports. And each side has successfully applied statisics in a manner that supports their original viewpoint - to conclude that the stats either suggest that some reports are valid, or that they suggest that all reports are false.

The problem with statistical models is that they all require some initial assumptions. We're all familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" in computer analysis, meaning the problem isn't with the computer, but with the data and assumptions on which the computer program is based. In this case, however, it can be phrased as "belief in, belief out".

All of the statistical models require initial assumptions,

And all of the initial assumptions are based on beliefs,

So all of the beliefs are carried forward through the statistical analysis,

And the output of each statistical model simply reinforces the beliefs underlying the initial assumptions.

Belief in, Belief out.

So, until an objective consensus can be reached regarding the initial assumptions to be used in a statistical model, there can be no consensus regarding the integrity of a statistical model's output.

Folks have to agree on what goes into the statistical model first.

Good luck.

[Guest]

So, until an objective consensus can be reached regarding the initial assumptions to be used in a statistical model, there can be no consensus regarding the integrity of a statistical model's output.

Folks have to agree on what goes into the statistical model first.

Good luck.

Aye, and there's the rub, as the saying goes. The Skeptics refuse to allow any model that includes "the witness saw a BF" as an optional explanation. That is because, simply put, if the possibility is admitted, then the outcome (BF is real and is being seen) is certain.

[Guest]

I think what was interesting for me was this part...

"When the sun came up they were both there but for some reason I just took it in my stride like, oh there are two suns today. I did actually loose three hours."

I know had I walked outside to see two suns or two moons, I would be slightly confused to say the least. I wonder, why did it seem like nothing to you?

Also, the newspaper article about the mass UFO sighting - would you be able to link to an online version of it? What was the name of the newspaper? I can look for you, if you like.

Actually many reports of abductions come with something like this. I used to see giants ants and owls when I was having these experiences. I didn't really think much about them. No confusion, just a sense that the discrepancy didn't matter much. I have had a lifetime of hallucinations and I suspect temproal lobe epilepsy played a big part in what I was experiencing.

I have never hallucinated bigfoot and the closest I came to that was a giant caveman in my backyard. He didn't look like BF at all really. And I never did figure out what animal his loincloth came from.

[Guest]

Did you even read my post about the UFO (which by the way I clearly stated was not at the time of the encounter fitting descriptor of yowie). Did you even bother to read that after I saw what I saw and the colour of it I went to get a newspaper, and on the front page was a picture of a UFO of that colour and bold headlines about sightings all over the area. Did you bother to read that. I didnt say I was abducted, I didnt speak of aliens, that was kitakaze who just decided everyone thinks the same way about UFO's, BF and the PGFilm.

So you have hallucinations, good for you. I didnt. I didnt see as you have a giant cave man in my big yard or have a lifetime of hallucinations as you say you have had. That is a problem but it is not the problem of everyone who has had a BF encounter or UFO.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest]

You did state that you had lost three hours. This is not unusual for abduction experiences and this certainly seemed to "suggest" an abduction. And as the immediate topic you were referring to was Kit's analysis of the UFO and bigfoot maps I see no actual problem here. The matter of abductees making statements about unusual phenomena that they don't take to be especially unusal is relevent to Kit's query as to why you wouldn't think much of two suns in the sky. I'm not saying you think you were abducted but it did read that way.

[Guest]

Antfoot you write with reason and non accusation and I commend you for that, and appreciate it. Perhaps the lost time element read that way because of the assumption that loosing time means abduction. Its just such assumptions about each individuals encounter or experience that then polorises debate on what is a legitimate phenomina in physicality and what is not . I believe in unlimited possibility in terms of the creative processes of our universe and so when I encounter phenomena that is not the norm I am very open to what it is, except for one thing, I know my interperetation should serve as a pathway to greater wisdom about deeper meanings of existance. I lost three hours clearly but I dont recall anything of aliens nor is it probably in my world view to be victom to some other being in that way.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest]

Actually, I think most abduction "victims" are victims of the hypnotists who tend to draw these stories out. Not that I think the hypnotist does this deliberately. I think they are just as unaware of their influence over the patient as the patient is. Lost time could be due to inattention as much as to anything else. People make much more of it than is warranted.

[Guest]

I agree but at the same time, I also dont have a problem that some people actually do experience abductions. Everything is perception and symbolism. Experiences are spoken of within the parametres of a world view. We experience what we need to experience to some extent. This doesnt actually make the experience of those who say they have been abducted as not real, for them it is very real. Reality cant be prescribed by some outer authority nor can it be given parametres, further to that a group of those who dont experience something due to strongly held assumptions about the limits of their world should not be deemed to be right due to non experience.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest]

Aliens could really be abducting people for all I know. I no longer believe it but hey who knows eh?

[Guest Jodie]

I agree but at the same time, I also dont have a problem that some people actually do experience abductions. Everything is perception and symbolism. Experiences are spoken of within the parametres of a world view. We experience what we need to experience to some extent. This doesnt actually make the experience of those who say they have been abducted as not real, for them it is very real. Reality cant be prescribed by some outer authority nor can it be given parametres, further to that a group of those who dont experience something due to strongly held assumptions about the limits of their world should not be deemed to be right due to non experience.

That is your reality, you forgot to put IMO at the end of all of that.

[Guest]

Right then I mean, IMO. Thankyou also for making my point as my reality in this world is not the reality of Parnasus and yet my experience is no more false than Parnasus's.