UFOs and "necessarily proper witnesses"

[xouper]

In the June 27 Commentary regarding UFOs, Randi opines that former astronauts are not his idea of "necessarily proper witnesses".

So here's my question. Regarding UFOs, what is a "necessarily proper witness"?

I can understand why military and government officials may not always be "necessarily proper witnesses", but some certainly could be, especially those who have training in the identification of flying objects. Seems to me that in general, well trained and highly experienced pilots (and this includes most former astronauts) are more skilled and accurate in identifying various flying objects and their flying behaviors. So when they see a flying object they cannot identify, I don't think it's sufficient to dismiss such testimony by declaring them not necessarily proper witnesses.

Or have I missed Randi's point entirely?

[reprise]

Can I suggest that when we start threads related to commentaries, we include a link to the commentary in question?

In this case it's Carter's UFO

I got the feeling that Randi's syntax was a bit sloppy and that what he meant was that professional qualifications in a given field do not necessarily make a person a good/proper witness. There is nothing inherent to the office of President which makes the President a good witness in respect of paranormal phenomena (or in respect of Earthly happenings, for that matter); nor to being a military commander, nor an astronaut. Yet we are very often asked to accept statement at face value because someone holds an office or is in a profession we deem "worthy" of respect - no matter how irrational the statements they might make, nor even whether their qualification bear any relationship at all to the subject on which they are commenting.

I paraphrased the sentence to mean "That's not necessarily my idea of proper witnesses...". Perhaps Hal or Randi could clarify this point for us.

[xouper]

Quote:

reprise: There is nothing inherent to the office of President which makes the President a good witness in respect of paranormal phenomena (or in respect of Earthly happenings, for that matter); nor to being a military commander, nor an astronaut.

Are you saying there is nothing inherent about being a former astronaut that makes them more qualified as an observer of flying objects? I am referring here to astronauts who are also highly trained pilots, which most are.

I agree that presidents and commanders are not inherently qualified UFO witnesses, but most astronauts have training in the recognition of flying objects and I submit this makes them a qualified witness (unless there is something about a specific astronaut that disqualifies him/her).

I could be wrong, of course, which is why I started this thread.

[reprise]

Quote:

Are you saying there is nothing inherent about being a former astronaut that makes them more qualified as an observer of flying objects? I am referring here to astronauts who are also highly trained pilots, which most are.

As it happens, my brother is a highly trained and qualified pilot (formerly a military pilot). There are certainly many flying objects which he would be able to identify on sight which I could not. He would also be more qualified than I am to judge the apparent speed and distance of an object he observed while flying. Nonetheless, his qualifications do not bring to his observations any kind of authority or endorsement of his opinions as to what any given unidentified flying object might be - which is what I interpreted Randi as saying.

[xouper]

Quote:

reprise: Nonetheless, his qualifications do not bring to his observations any kind of authority or endorsement of his opinions as to what any given unidentified flying object might be

Now that's a different claim. There is a difference between saying a flying object is unknown compared with speculating about what that unknown might be. When an appropriately trained pilot says he saw a flying object that he could not identify, why is that inherently an unacceptable observation?

[MRC_Hans]

I think the point here (and that is also how I read Reprise's posts) is that we must be wary of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Especially in UFO observations, this is a common fallacy: "This person is a trained observer, so this observation must be genuine".

From a trained observer, you can expect a better quality of observations, which may in turn provide a better basis for conclusions, than those of an untrained observer. However, the trained observer, in this case astronaut and/or pro pilot (or former president), is not better gualified to make a conclusion, unless he/she happens to an authority on the specific subject too.

To be specific, we could get the following two reports of an object in the sky:

(From an untrained observer)
"Last Tuesday, or was it monday? There was this light coming over the trees, it was late in the evening, fine weather. It moved quite fast, over to the side and vanished."

(From a trained observer)
"Monday, the [date] at 10:35PM, I was standing outside the motel at [address], facing south-east. Weather was mostly clear with some light cumulus, visibility clear except for some ground haze. A lit object, color yellow to white, came in view over a range of trees two miles distant and moved with constant speed, no course changes to the southern part of the sky where it disappeared behind some clouds. It did not reappear within the next ten minutes. The objec took about one minute to traverse from south-east to south, highest angle was about thirty degrees, just before it disappeared behind clouds. The object resembled a small featureless disk, slightly larger than a star. There was no sound."

Obviously, the report from the trained observer is far more useful, but if he adds: "I think it was an alien spacecraft", it has no value at all. Trained observers provide more detailed and more reliable data, but only experts in the exact field provide better conclusions.

Hans

[reprise]

Quote:

Originally posted by xouper
Now that's a different claim. There is a difference between saying a flying object is unknown compared with speculating about what that unknown might be. When an appropriately trained pilot says he saw a flying object that he could not identify, why is that inherently an unacceptable observation?

It isn't inherently unacceptable unless we believe that the pilot's ability to make observations was in some way impaired at the time of the event (if - for example - he observed the UFO from the ground when he emerged blind drunk from the pub).

[xouper]

Quote:

MRC_Hans: I think the point here ... is that we must be wary of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Especially in UFO observations, this is a common fallacy: "This person is a trained observer, so this observation must be genuine".

Yes, of course. But that is not what my question was about. I am asking who is a "necessarily proper witness". A witness in the sense of reporting what they observed.

Quote:

From a trained observer, you can expect a better quality of observations,

Yes, that is what I am saying about astronauts.

Quote:

However, the trained observer, in this case astronaut and/or pro pilot (or former president), is not better gualified to make a conclusion,

Agreed, but that isn't what I was asking or suggesting. I am asking why an astronaut's observations are inherently unacceptable, as Randi seems to be implying.

Quote:

Obviously, the report from the trained observer is far more useful, but if he adds: "I think it was an alien spacecraft", it has no value at all.

Agreed. But if a pilot says it isn't anything he recognizes, that does have value. No?

Please keep in mind that my original question is "who is a proper witness," not "who is a proper analyst or investigator."

So - what is a proper witness in the reporting of flying objects, known or unknown? If former astronauts are not among that group, as Randi asserts, then who?

[reprise]

I just thought of another example of the kind of "special" status to which I think Randi refers.

The university which will award the degree for which I am currently studying is in another state. I am not required to travel to the university itself for my exams but rather they are sent to an invigilator whose responsibility it is to supervise my taking of the exam. The invigilator must be a member of one of a range of professions in which people are perceived to have integrity and be responsible - teacher, doctor, police officer, for example. People from these professions are perceived as responsible citizens who will ensure that I take the exam under the specified conditions. A plumber, no matter how impeccable his professional reputation, does not belong to one of the professions which is deemed qualified to oversee my taking of the exam.

Rightly or wrongly, we do give certain people in society an elevated status when it comes to considering how much credibility to their statement regarding events they have witnessed. We do this in the field of law (I am not talking about expert witnesses here, but rather that we are likely to place more weight on the evidence given by people from "respected" professions than we are on evidence given by drug addicts or prostitutes, for instance) and we do this in respect of paranormal events - whether or not that special status is justified.

[reprise]

Quote:

So - what is a proper witness in the reporting of flying objects, known or unknown? If former astronauts are not among that group, as Randi asserts, then who?

Without Randi's clarification of what he intended by that sentence, we're stuck with two different interpretations of its meaning. I interpret him as saying that we should not give the eye-witness reports made by pilots or astronauts more weight simply because they are pilots or astronauts - that we should instead weigh all the circumstances under which the observation was made by that person. Their reports are not necessarily the most reliable reports available in relation to a UFO sighting.

[MRC_Hans]

Quote:

Originally posted by xouper
Yes, of course. But that is not what my question was about. *snip*
Please keep in mind that my original question is "who is a proper witness," not "who is a proper analyst or investigator."

So - what is a proper witness in the reporting of flying objects, known or unknown? If former astronauts are not among that group, as Randi asserts, then who?

I agree. I was somewhat off-topic. In my book, a proper witness is anybody who is not deliberately lying.

If Randi means that some persons are somehow not acceptable as reporters of UFO observation, I disagree, --- with known compulsive liars, and hallucinating persons as possible exceptions.

Since my impression of Mr. Randi is one of a man with a cool logic but a hot temper, I would guess that he was talking about being qualified to make conclusions, not to bear withess.

Mmmm, why doesn't somebody simply ask him?

Hans

[xouper]

Quote:

reprise: ... we should not give the eye-witness reports made by pilots or astronauts more weight simply because they are pilots or astronauts ...

That may be right, but why?

Quote:

Their reports are not necessarily the most reliable reports available in relation to a UFO sighting.

Perhaps their observations are not the most reliable, but certainly more reliable than most witnesses? I guess this relates to my original question, whose reports of flying objects (of the unknown kind) are the most reliable?

Quote:

MRC_Hans: I would guess that he was talking about being qualified to make conclusions, not to bear withess. Mmmm, why doesn't somebody simply ask him?

Well, he did specifically use the word witness. But yes, why doesn't someone ask him. Would he really consider my question if I emailed him?

[walthrup48]

Quote:

Originally posted by xouper
Well, he did specifically use the word witness. But yes, why doesn't someone ask him. Would he really consider my question if I emailed him?

If you want clarification, xouper, just shoot off an email to him. If he doesn't respond or you're dissatisfied with his reply, email him again about the subject during his Thursday night webcast.

Edit: typo

[xouper]

OK, I asked Mr Randi. Here are the emails we exchanged today, complete, verbatim, and with nothing changed or left out (except the salutations):

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">xouper: Greetings Mr. Randi,

In your June 27 commentary you made the following comment:

"What worries me most is the Sci Fi dependence on what they call 'the most reputable of witnesses - former astronauts, military and government officials, topped off by an ex-president.' That's not my idea of necessarily proper witnesses... "

May I ask, who are "necessarily proper witnesses" and why do you feel former astronauts are not among that group?

And may I post your answer on your forum (in the following thread)?
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...threadid=22511</div>

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">James Randi: I cannot imagine that former astronauts, military and/or government officials, or an ex-president would necessarily have the expertise required. If we have a medical, statistical, or chemical claim, would not an MD, a statistician, or a chemist be better respective "experts"?

That Carter "sighting" would have been immediately explained, had an astronomer been consulted -- and had the President given the correct date. No "former astronauts, military or government officials" would have knowledge of the position of the brightest natural object in the sky (except for the Moon).

As it was, Robert Sheaffer -- not an astronomer, but an expert researcher -- solved the matter easily, once he found that Carter's date was incorrect.

Of course you may post my response, anywhere you wish....</div>

OK, that didn't answer my question. Second try, rephrase the question:

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">xouper: Thank you for your quick response. One quick clarification, if I may.

From your answer, shall I infer that when you said in your commentary that astronauts are not "proper witnesses", you meant they are not expert investigators or analysts of other people's reports? If this is what you meant, that makes sense. On the other hand, when reporting first-hand observations, it seems to me that well trained and highly experienced pilots (and this includes most former astronauts) are sufficiently skilled in identifying various flying objects that they see. So if an astronaut observes first hand a flying object they cannot identify, do you mean to say such a report has no credibility because astronauts are not proper witnesses?

I guess I'm stumbling on your use of the word witness, and just need that clarified. Thank you.</div>

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">James Randi: That was Venus. How would an astronaut have a better opinion than anyone else, when he didn't see it, and it was reported to be in that position on a different date?

An astronomer would IMMEDIATELY know, because he's an expert.</div>

OK, that didn't answer my question either. Third try, pose some hypothetical questions intended to elicit clarification:

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">xouper: I have no reason to doubt it was Venus in that case. And I am not asking whether an astronaut is the best expert to evaluate the president's report. If I may, let me rephrase my question. If, instead of the president, it had been an astronaut that had reported a flying object he couldn't identify, why would you say he was not a proper witness to what he saw first hand? In your commentary you said astronauts don't make proper eyewitnesses. Are you suggesting an astronaut can't tell the difference between Venus and a flying object when he sees it? Are astronomers the only eyewitness accounts you consider credible? Are astronomers trained in identifying flying objects when they see one, like pilots are?</div>

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">James Randi: Please read what I actually wrote:

"In your commentary you said astronauts don't make proper eyewitnesses."

No. I wrote that astronauts don't necessarily make proper eyewitnesses. It's the context that counts.

Answers to your questions are:

1: I wouldn't, and I didn't. You invented that assumption for me.

2: No, not except in exceptional cases, and that has happened.

3: No, nor did I write that, nor suggest it. You have again invented an assumption for me.

4: No, not most. In fact, I'd say, very few.

I don't appreciate this technique of your inventing opinions, statements, and theories for me so that you can knock them down. It's an old technique, and I've experienced it many times, usually from juveniles. I've been around far too long to be led into such traps.

I think this discussion is at an end. I have important things to attend to.</div>

OK, that didn't go well.

I think his closing accusations are unfair and unfounded. I wasn't inventing theories so that I could knock them down. I was posing hypothetical questions trying to get clarification, not trap him or invent assumptions for him. I mean, twice he answered questions I didn't ask and twice he didn't answer questions I did ask. What else could I have done to get clarification of his commentary?

I don't appreciate that he puts all the blame on me for the apparent communication failure here. Come on, I'm not that retarded. And I don't appreciate his insinuation that I have behaved similarly to juveniles. I am tempted to suppose he is judging me based on old baggage.

In any case, now I know better than to ask Randi to clarify his commentary. Apparently I am incapable of asking the right questions.

[NoZed Avenger]

Xouper, I think someone else pointed out the use of the word "necessarily." Maybe its my legal background, but I keyed on that when I first read it. Its been too long now and I am too lazy to refresh my memory, but I thought the phrase was something along the lines of the persons not "necessarily" being better witnesses. That doesn't preclude them from being good witnesses, it simply asserts that by saying John Q. Astronaut, the qualifications or expertise for the opinions that follow have not necessarily been shown.

That seems to be similar to what Randi was saying in his last message, although I agree that you weren't solely responsible for the communications glitch, although phrasing it as the person "not being a proper witness" (removing the "necessarily")does seem to materially change the context -- that is probably what set Randi off.

NA

[reprise]

Ouch, I felt the sting of that exchange.

I pretty much think that syntax was all in inferring the meaning of the sentence in question. I interpreted the sentence as meaning "That's not necessarily my idea of proper witnesses..." even though that is not how the original sentence reads. I just thought there'd been a simple transposition error when the commentary was typed up, because the sentence as written didn't make a whole lot of grammatical sense and Randi is usually fairly precise.

[swellman]

Wow. I mostly lurk, but Randi's last response shook me.

Xouper, you did not deserve Randi's ire.

I can only hope that Randi is jaded from many years of nonsense and lashed out at you from sheer reflex.

But his dismissive attitude speaks volumes.

I must ponder this incident...

[xouper]

Quote:

NoZed Avenger: Xouper, I think someone else pointed out the use of the word "necessarily." Maybe its my legal background, but I keyed on that when I first read it. Its been too long now and I am too lazy to refresh my memory, but I thought the phrase was something along the lines of the persons not "necessarily" being better witnesses. That doesn't preclude them from being good witnesses, it simply asserts that by saying John Q. Astronaut, the qualifications or expertise for the opinions that follow have not necessarily been shown.

OK, well I am still wondering why astronauts are not necessarily proper eyewitnesses. Randi never answered that question.

As pilots (and here I am excluding the small minority of non-pilot astronauts) I believe their training and experience in the identification of flying objects makes them especially qualified to make first hand observations of flying objects, known or unknown.

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by xouper
OK, well I am still wondering why astronauts are not necessarily proper eyewitnesses. Randi never answered that question.

As pilots (and here I am excluding the small minority of non-pilot astronauts) I believe their training and experience in the identification of flying objects makes them especially qualified to make first hand observations of flying objects, known or unknown.

I see your point; I think it may depend on the circumstances -- i.e., a moving light or similar wouldn't fall under that training. I think that you have a valid point in that, on balance, an astronaut is probably a better witness (and should be expected to be), based on their knowledge and training.

As I said, I so not think it was a case where you were solely at fault - to the extent anyone is/was.

NA

[arcticpenguin]

I'd like to point out that many astronauts these days are not pilots, but payload specialists.

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by xouper
Now that's a different claim. There is a difference between saying a flying object is unknown compared with speculating about what that unknown might be. When an appropriately trained pilot says he saw a flying object that he could not identify, why is that inherently an unacceptable observation?

First off, x, I think you are asking entirely reasonable questions; that was a relatively strange correspondence... but as to appropriately trained pilots looking at unidentified objects, yes, there would be a number of very important differences that make said pilot not the best eyewitness (although not necessarily any worse than anybody else).

One major cue to distance is object size. Familiar objects are relatively easily located this way (in terms of distance, I mean). An unfamiliar object could be small and close, or huge and distant. A small, close object moving relatively slowly can look like a huge object moving incredibly fast at a great distance. Blowing ash has been confused with UFO's for instance.

In other threads here (if memory serves) people have mentioned the effects of g forces on vision. Again, if only familiar objects are in the sky, our perceptual systems have a better shot at adjusting for this, as opposed to the task given by unfamiliar objects.

One unrelated possibility might be (might be, this is speculation) that these highly trained best-and-brightest individuals might also be more certain of their accounts without being any more accurate. (sort of like hypnotized witnesses--more certain, but not more accurate). For instance, even though it is fairly common to mistake Venus for a UFO, an astronaut or pilot who did this might be less inclined to even consider so silly a misidentification.

[reprise]

Astronauts are trained to operate a specific piece of machinery. They are highly trained to make observations which relate to the operation of that piece of machinery (as are pilots in general), but they are not specifically trained to observe and identify flying objects which they are not operating (or indeed stationary objects).

More recently, as arcticpenguin pointed out, more and more people who become astronauts are payload specialists; which reaffirms Randi's point that we have to take all of the circumstances under which a UFO was observed into account.

Do you remember just how many "experts" were appearing on television in the hours after Diana got his in a Paris tunnel; after the WTC towers got hit by planes? In the first instance, none of the experts who were commenting on the accident had observed it firsthand or even been to the crash scene. In the second instance, the few experts who had observed firsthand some of what occured had not observed all that occured and had certainly not had time to gather additional information for themselves before commenting. In both instances, what was essentially conjecture was presented by the media as "fact" because the speculations were being made by "experts".

My son's degree (B. App Chem in Forensic Science, Hon) will ultimately allow him to testify as an expert witness in respect of a very narrow branch of chemistry. If he chooses ballistics as his specialty, he will not be qualified to be an expert witness in toxicology. He certainly won't be qualified as an expert on blood sprays, let alone in respect of the behavioural sciences - even though he'll be a fully qualified "forensic scientist".

Likewise, my degree will only give me expertise in a very specific area of the behavioural sciences and will not make my observations in respect of behaviour related to physical conditions of the brain as valid as those gathered and presented by a criminal psychiatrist would be even though I might well eventually be regarded as an "expert" in the area of criminal psychology.

[MRC_Hans]

Xouper, basically your exchange with Randi has confirmed my view of him as a man with good logic but bad temper. Lets face it: James Randi is a man who works devotedly for a good cause, but he is in no way some "übermensch". He is a grumpy old man (like myself ), and he makes mistakes and dislikes having them pointed out to him in public (like me).

We skeptics too must avoyd the fallacy of appeal to authority: Nothing becomes true because James Randy says it. Only logic will ever do.

Hans

[xouper]

Quote:

NoZed Avenger: I see your point; I think it may depend on the circumstances -- i.e., a moving light or similar wouldn't fall under that training.

I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind with that, but I can tell you from my own first hand experience as a pilot that I have training and experience in recognizing lights while flying at night. It is absolutely essential to my safety to be able to recognize and predict the path of a moving light (or lights) in my vicinity. It would be foolish of me to try altering my flight path to avoid colliding with Venus, for example.

Quote:

reprise: Astronauts are trained to operate a specific piece of machinery. They are highly trained to make observations which relate to the operation of that piece of machinery (as are pilots in general), but they are not specifically trained to observe and identify flying objects which they are not operating (or indeed stationary objects).

That's probably an important distinction to make. Pilot astronauts already have most of their expertise and experience in the identification of flying objects from their pilot training.

Quote:

More recently, as arcticpenguin pointed out, more and more people who become astronauts are payload specialists; which reaffirms Randi's point that we have to take all of the circumstances under which a UFO was observed into account.

That's an important point too. I believe I previously acknolwedged that some astronauts are not pilots. Obviously I would exclude payload specialists from the group of necessarily proper eyewitnesses. And pedantically speaking, they are not NASA astronauts (but I suspect that distinction is meaningless to most people). Still, payload specialists make up only a small percentage of the shuttle crews, usually two or fewer per mission, IIRC.

In any case, Randi's comment was about former astronauts, and the percentage of non-pilots in that group is quite small (don't have the number handy, sorry). And when talking about pre-shuttle astronauts, those guys have sh*tloads of pilot experience.

Quote:

Mercutio: ... as to appropriately trained pilots looking at unidentified objects, yes, there would be a number of very important differences that make said pilot not the best eyewitness

I'm not sure I follow you there. When a pilot can't identify a flying object, he has already ruled out a large number of things an untrained observer may not be able to do. Another part of the recognition process is experience with identifying flight paths. Pilots have a good sense of what maneuvers are reasonable or not for known aircraft.

Quote:

MRC_Hans: Xouper, basically your exchange with Randi has confirmed my view of him as a man with good logic but bad temper. Lets face it: James Randi is a man who works devotedly for a good cause, but he is in no way some "übermensch". He is a grumpy old man (like myself ),

Nonetheless, I still feel bad that I inadvertently triggered some of that grumpiness. It doesn't make either of us look good.

[Cinorjer]

I'd be inclined to cut Randi a little slack. If I received a daily stack of emails from people who thought I was (evil/a crook/stupid not to believe in the tooth fairy) or all three, I'd be less than polite and patient in my replies by the time I got to the end of the pile.

I don't see what the big problem is in his commentary. In context, it was obvious Randi was saying that even being trained to be an astronaut doesn't necessarily make you a more reliable witness in a UFO siting. I agree. Astronauts are trained for many things, but recognizing lights in the night sky is not one of them.

[xouper]

Quote:

Cinorjer: I don't see what the big problem is in his commentary.

That's a good point. It's not a big problem. Just a minor one.

Quote:

In context, it was obvious Randi was saying that even being trained to be an astronaut doesn't necessarily make you a more reliable witness in a UFO siting.

The ambiguity arises from Randi's use the word "witness". Is he talking about people who evaluate other people's sightings? Or is he referring to people who make their own first hand sightings? In Randi's emails to me, he seemed to be making both claims, but I am not certain.

I agree that astronauts are not "necessarily proper evaluators" of other people's sightings, and that for certain kinds of sightings, astromoners are necessarily qualified. On the other hand, there are also many kinds of sightings for whcih astronomers have no relevant expertise in evaulating other peoople's sightings.

But if any profession can be considered "necessarily proper witnesses" of their own sightings, then I would certainly include former astronauts, and I am uncertain about including astronomers. Randi seems to agree that astronomers are not trained in the identification of flying objects, but I confess I don't know enough about astronomers to make that call. I would tend to trust (bad astronomer) Phil Plait's opinion on that, however.

I am certainly willing to be wrong about what are or are not "necessarily proper witnesses", if anyone can explain why.

If no profession (or other general classification of people) can be considered "necessarily proper witnesses", then the word "necessarily" is redundent, a meaningless qualifier. Who then can be considered "necessairly proper witnesses"?

Quote:

Astronauts are trained for many things, but recognizing lights in the night sky is not one of them.

I disagree. Pilots are indeed trained to recognize lights in the sky. Their safety depends on it, as I commented previously. And most former astronauts are pilots.

[Diamond]

Quote:

Originally written by Randi
I don't appreciate this technique of your inventing opinions, statements, and theories for me so that you can knock them down. It's an old technique, and I've experienced it many times, usually from juveniles. I've been around far too long to be led into such traps.

No xoup, that's pretty accurate. You do have a tendency of inventing opinions, statements and theories from people, setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. I've seen it quite a few times from you and its tiresome and unworthy of your intellect.

[xouper]

Quote:

Diamond: No xoup, that's pretty accurate.

Please read my email questions again. I tried to carefully phrase them as hypotheticals designed to elicit clarification of Randi's meaning. To say they were straw men I set up to knock down is a ridiculous assertion that contains an erroneous assumption of my motives.

Let's take a detailed look at the questions in my third email to Randi:

1. If, instead of the president, it had been an astronaut that had reported a flying object he couldn't identify, why would you say he was not a proper witness to what he saw first hand?

Randi says this contains an invented assumption for him. No it doesn't. It contains a hypothetical for him to agree or disagree with.

Keep in mind that his previous comment was "I cannot imagine that former astronauts, military and/or government officials, or an ex-president would necessarily have the expertise required."

I did not ask "why DID you say ..." I asked "why would you say". That seems like a significant difference to me, asking about a possible future scenario.

But for someone who doesn't read it carefully, I guess they could get the wrong impression. Or maybe I simply asked it badly. I make no claim to be an expert questioner, but at no time was my motive to set up a straw man to knock down.

2. Are you suggesting an astronaut can't tell the difference between Venus and a flying object when he sees it?

Another hypothetical question for him to agree or disagree with. Again, no assumpetion assigned to Randi.

3. Are astronomers the only eyewitness accounts you consider credible?

Another hypotheical question for him to agree or disagree with. Randi again says this contains an invented assumption for him. I don't see how anyone who reads that question carefully can think I have invented a straw man to knock down. Recall that previously I had asked him who he would consider a "necessarily proper witness" and he never answered that quesiton. He did mention astronomers as being necessarily proper investigators of Carter's sighting, but said nothing about whether they are qualified to be a witness to their own sightings.

4. Are astronomers trained in identifying flying objects when they see one, like pilots are?

No assumptions in this question either. Randi gave a straight answer to it.

My intent was, and still is, to get clarification of Randi's meaning, not to argue against a position he doesn't hold. Can you say for certain, after having read this thread, including Randi's three emails, that you know what Randi meant when he said former astronauts are not necessarily proper eyewitnesses? If so, please share that with us. I would like to know.

Quote:

You do have a tendency of inventing opinions, statements and theories from people, setting up a straw man and then knocking it down.

I disagree that I tend to do this. You infer a motivation on my part that is simply not true. You are doing here exactly what you accuse me of.

I admit that I have on occasion misunderstood someone's position and argued against what I thought their position was. But it was not done deliberately as a straw man fallacy, nor is this a tendency of mine.

[Diamond]

Quote:

Originally posted by xouper
I disagree that I tend to do this. You infer a motivation on my part that is simply not true. You are doing here exactly what you accuse me of.

I admit that I have on occasion misunderstood someone's position and argued against what I thought their position was. But it was not done deliberately as a straw man fallacy, nor is this a tendency of mine.

I did not say you did this deliberately, but you do do it often enough.

To the point of what Randi meant: I think that what Randi had in mind was a certain particular astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, who performed a paranormal test while on a space mission (it failed) and has since demonstrated when it comes to evidence-based reasoning, astronauts are no more infallible than anybody else.

In point of fact, astronauts, because they are pilots, should be better observers. The fact that large numbers of UFO reports originate from pilots (including the original "flying saucer" story) disproves this idea.

The only other part that Randi points out is the regular one: that advanced academic achievement does not make one a better observer, nor a better critical thinker, nor less likely to be taken in by fraud or trickery or just plain foolishness and in point of fact makes you less likely to admit error. Intelligent people, in Randi's eyes, are more likely to be deceived by trickery than say, children. This is possibly due to ego or arrogance but is rooted most likely in the nature of what intelligence is, highly developed pattern recognition, and the ability of such a complex apparatus to be fooled, or to fool its possessor.

I've bought interesting and exciting magic tricks. I've never failed to be chagrined by how simple is the trickery and how basic are the tools involved to deceive the mind into making a wrong connection between events.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diamond

In point of fact, astronauts, because they are pilots, should be better observers. The fact that large numbers of UFO reports originate from pilots (including the original "flying saucer" story) disproves this idea.

How does this disprove the idea that pilots should be better observors? Are you saying that anyone who reports a UFO has somehow proven they are not good observors? Please help me understand.

Quote:

The only other part that Randi points out is the regular one: that advanced academic achievement does not make one a better observer, nor a better critical thinker, nor less likely to be taken in by fraud or trickery or just plain foolishness and in point of fact makes you less likely to admit error.

That's an interesting opinion, do you base it on any studies you could reference?

Quote:

Intelligent people, in Randi's eyes, are more likely to be deceived by trickery than say, children. This is possibly due to ego or arrogance but is rooted most likely in the nature of what intelligence is, highly developed pattern recognition, and the ability of such a complex apparatus to be fooled, or to fool its possessor.

This doesn't make sense to me. Can you point me to the studies that support that statement?

Thank you.

[tamiO]

Randi said:

Quote:

I don't appreciate this technique of your inventing opinions, statements, and theories for me so that you can knock them down. It's an old technique, and I've experienced it many times, usually from juveniles. I've been around far too long to be led into such traps.

I think this discussion is at an end. I have important things to attend to.

I find it the way he dismissed you to be ironic. You did not invent opinions, statements, and theories for Mr. Randi so that you could knock them down; you asked him questions. He made the accusations up and declared them a reason to dismiss the discussion and not answer your questions.

[xouper]

Quote:

Diamond: I did not say you did this deliberately, but you do do it often enough.

Really? Are you saying you've been on this board long enough to know this? Where's the evidence that I do this "often enough"? And how many posts is "often enough"?

Quote:

To the point of what Randi meant: I think that what Randi had in mind was a certain particular astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, who performed a paranormal test while on a space mission (it failed) and has since demonstrated when it comes to evidence-based reasoning, astronauts are no more infallible than anybody else.

You got all that from his June 27 commentary? I'm amazed. Are you claiming it's valid to to generalize to all astronauts based on one example? Based on that logic, no profession can be considered a "necessarily proper witness" and so it would be meaningless to single out astronauts and government officials for this "honor".

Quote:

In point of fact, astronauts, because they are pilots, should be better observers. The fact that large numbers of UFO reports originate from pilots (including the original "flying saucer" story) disproves this idea.

Non sequitur. How does reporting a flying object as "unidentified" prove that pilots are not better observers?

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diamond


No xoup, that's pretty accurate. You do have a tendency of inventing opinions, statements and theories from people, setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. I've seen it quite a few times from you and its tiresome and unworthy of your intellect.

I am still learning how to spot these types of debate techniques. Would you please link to some posts that example xoup using this technique known as "The Straw Man?"

Thank you.

[Diamond]

Since you and xoup are going for full troll mode, I won't bother.

For evidence of that statement see above.

[xouper]

Quote:

Diamond: Since you and xoup are going for full troll mode, I won't bother.

How disingenuous. Your claims and logic have been legitimately challenged and you call that trolling? Get real.

[Diamond]

Quote:

Originally posted by xouper
How disingenuous. Your claims and logic have been legitimately challenged and you call that trolling? Get real.

No. Trolling is where you attack the argument through excessive pedantry and setting up straw men (yet again) to knock down. You have not "legitimately challenged" anything, because you have not brought one fact or one piece of disconfirming evidence to the discussion.

That's trolling.

To the point: I opined that pilots, who are claimed to be better observers of aerial phenomena, are also the authors of much mis-sightings of natural phenomena as anyone else. Now if you have disconfirming evidence of that opinion then post it for the record. I already pointed out that the original Flying Saucer story was from a pilot's testimony of what he saw (although he only said they moved like a saucer skipping across water). In the second world war, pilots reported phenomena called "Foo Fighters" which were observations of things which did not exist.

Randi posted his opinion that astronauts were no more and no less likely to make mistakes in observation of phenomena than any one else. He took this from his experience that they too can be fooled by simple trickery.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diamond
Since you and xoup are going for full troll mode, I won't bother.

For evidence of that statement see above.

I am sorry you see it that way.

Thank you

[xouper]

Quote:

Diamond: No. Trolling is where you attack the argument through excessive pedantry and setting up straw men (yet again) to knock down.

That is not the definition of trolling. Not even close. And name the straw man you claim I set up. I don't see one.

Quote:

You have not "legitimately challenged" anything, because you have not brought one fact or one piece of disconfirming evidence to the discussion.

Challenging your claims means asking YOU to provide evidence for YOUR claims. It does not mean I need to provide any evidence.

Quote:

That's trolling.

Not in any dictionary on THIS planet.

Quote:

To the point: I opined that pilots, who are claimed to be better observers of aerial phenomena, are also the authors of much mis-sightings of natural phenomena as anyone else.

Perhaps some are, but are you claiming that it's valid to generalize to all pilots based on a few examples?

Quote:

Now if you have disconfirming evidence of that opinion then post it for the record.

The number of UFO reports and mis-identifications by non-pilots is far greater than those from pilots. Non-pilots are less skilled in identifying known flying objects. So unless you can back up your claim that pilots make as many mis-identifications as anyone else, I remain skeptical of your claim.

Now, please explain how the mere fact of reporting flying objects as unidentified means that pilots are not any more observant than non-pilots? You made the claim, let's see how you justify that conclusion.

Quote:

I already pointed out that the original Flying Saucer story was from a pilot's testimony of what he saw (although he only said they moved like a saucer skipping across water).

So how does that prove your assertion that he is no more qualified to observe flying objects than anyone else? And how do you justify generalizing to all pilots based on this one example?

Quote:

In the second world war, pilots reported phenomena called "Foo Fighters" which were observations of things which did not exist.

A few pilots reported them, agreed. And what do you mean it was a non-existent phenomenon?

Quote:

Randi posted his opinion that astronauts were no more and no less likely to make mistakes in observation of phenomena than any one else. He took this from his experience that they too can be fooled by simple trickery.

So those are the words you are putting in Randi' mouth? You can say this with sufficient certainty? That's a bit iroinc coming from someone who falsely accuses me of inventing assumptions about what he meant.

[Diamond]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond: No. Trolling is where you attack the argument through excessive pedantry and setting up straw men (yet again) to knock down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xouper: That is not the definition of trolling. Not even close. And name the straw man you claim I set up. I don't see one.

Just because you don't see one, doesn't mean there isn't one. Look below as yet more straw men are identified

Diamond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have not "legitimately challenged" anything, because you have not brought one fact or one piece of disconfirming evidence to the discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xouper: Challenging your claims means asking YOU to provide evidence for YOUR claims. It does not mean I need to provide any evidence.

Legitimately challenged what claim? That pilots are not flawless in their assessment of aerial phenomena? It's a straw man argument. I have not said that studies show pilots to be no more or less competent witnesses than any other. I have said that it is demonstrable that pilots can be and are, unreliable witnesses just like anyone else, and it is a mistake to trust them to be authoritative on such matters

Diamond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's trolling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xouper: Not in any dictionary on THIS planet.

Unless you have access to every dictionary on this planet, I'd say you'd overreached yourself with that claim


Diamond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the point: I opined that pilots, who are claimed to be better observers of aerial phenomena, are also the authors of much mis-sightings of natural phenomena as anyone else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xouper: Perhaps some are, but are you claiming that it's valid to generalize to all pilots based on a few examples?

Straw man. The claim was that pilots and astronauts can be authoritatively trusted, which can be shown to be untrue, even in areas, such as aerial phenomena

Diamond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now if you have disconfirming evidence of that opinion then post it for the record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xouper: The number of UFO reports and mis-identifications by non-pilots is far greater than those from pilots. Non-pilots are less skilled in identifying known flying objects. So unless you can back up your claim that pilots make as many mis-identifications as anyone else, I remain skeptical of your claim.

That's a straw man. You've done it again xouper and you don't appear to notice. I have not said that pilots are more or less likely (and neither has Randi). What I have said is the assumption that pilots or astronauts can be authoritatively trusted to interpret aerial phenomena (or any other phenomena) correctly is an assumption without empirical foundation. Rather different from what you claim.

You also made a claim that "The number of UFO reports and mis-identifications by non-pilots is far greater than those from pilots.". Can you back that up with any data?

In any case, the claim was not about numbers but about authority with regard to reliability of witness. Entirely different.

xouper: Now, please explain how the mere fact of reporting flying objects as unidentified means that pilots are not any more observant than non-pilots? You made the claim, let's see how you justify that conclusion.

Straw man. I have not made such a claim. Nor has Randi.

Diamond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already pointed out that the original Flying Saucer story was from a pilot's testimony of what he saw (although he only said they moved like a saucer skipping across water).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xouper: So how does that prove your assertion that he is no more qualified to observe flying objects than anyone else? And how do you justify generalizing to all pilots based on this one example?

Yet another straw man. The argument is whether astronauts or pilots can be authoritatively trusted to report phenomena correctly. History shows (in Randi's books, as well as others by Robert Sheaffer and Philip Klass for example) that pilots can and do misreport phenomena because they are human like the rest of us.

Diamond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second world war, pilots reported phenomena called "Foo Fighters" which were observations of things which did not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xouper: A few pilots reported them, agreed. And what do you mean it was a non-existent phenomenon?

I mean that foo fighters did not exist as living entities that were buzzing aircraft. It implies that pilots can and do misidentify natural phenomena (or even nothing at all) as something paranormal


Diamond:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randi posted his opinion that astronauts were no more and no less likely to make mistakes in observation of phenomena than any one else. He took this from his experience that they too can be fooled by simple trickery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xouper: So those are the words you are putting in Randi' mouth? You can say this with sufficient certainty? That's a bit iroinc coming from someone who falsely accuses me of inventing assumptions about what he meant.

I have not put any words in Randi's mouth. I have read his books, met him, heard him lecture on the subject of human fallibility of observation and spoke to him more than once on the phone. I interpreted what I believe is Randi's central argument about trusting the reliability of reports simply based on the job title or acedemic qualifications of the person making that report.

In any case, Randi has not accused me of putting words in his mouth and inventing arguments that he has not made. But he has with you, and looking back I can clearly see why.

[xouper]

Quote:

Diamond: Just because you don't see one, doesn't mean there isn't one. Look below as yet more straw men are identified

If you think those are valid examples of straw men fallacies, then just as you have misused the word "troll", you clearly have no idea what an actual straw man fallacy is.

I'll just point out one of the more obvious examples of your mistaken concept of a straw man:

Quote:

xouper: Perhaps some are, but are you claiming that it's valid to generalize to all pilots based on a few examples?

Diamond: Straw man.

Pardon, but a question intended to elicit a clarification of your position is NOT a straw man. Since you can't even grasp this simply example, I see no point in wasting my time refuting your other claims of straw men, excpet to point out that you didn't get a single one of them right. The only straw here is the stuff you are grasping.

Quote:

xouper: Challenging your claims means asking YOU to provide evidence for YOUR claims. It does not mean I need to provide any evidence.

Diamond: Legitimately challenged what claim?

Sheesh. Apparently I'm talking to a fekking brick wall. How about this claim you just repeated:

Quote:

I have said that it is demonstrable that pilots can be and are, unreliable witnesses just like anyone else, and it is a mistake to trust them to be authoritative on such matters

OK, then demonstrate it. That, my friend, is called challenging you to justify your claim. It is not a troll and it is not a straw man.

Quote:

Diamond: That's trolling.

xouper: Not in any dictionary on THIS planet.

Diamond: Unless you have access to every dictionary on this planet, I'd say you'd overreached yourself with that claim

Apparently you didn't know that I do indeed have a copy of every dictionary on the planet that has a definition of the word "troll".

Quote:

xouper: ... unless you can back up your claim that pilots make as many mis-identifications as anyone else, I remain skeptical of your claim.

Diamond: That's a straw man. You've done it again xouper and you don't appear to notice. I have not said that pilots are more or less likely ...

Really, you never said that? ROTLFMAO. [sorry, please excuse my sense of humor] Have you already forgotten these:

• Elsewhere in that same reply you just said, "... it is demonstrable that pilots can be and are, unreliable witnesses <span style="background-color: #ffc">just like anyone else</span> ..."
  
• And then farther down this same reply, you said, "History shows (in Randi's books, as well as others by Robert Sheaffer and Philip Klass for example) that pilots can and do misreport phenomena because they are human <span style="background-color: #ffc">like the rest of us</span>."
  
• And in your previous post you said, "To the point: I opined that pilots, who are claimed to be better observers of aerial phenomena, are also the authors of much mis-sightings of natural phenomena <span style="background-color: #ffc">as anyone else</span>."
  
• And in a post before that you said, "astronauts are no more infallible <span style="background-color: #ffc">than anybody else</span>."

Quote:

Diamond: What I have said is the assumption that pilots or astronauts can be authoritatively trusted to interpret aerial phenomena (or any other phenomena) correctly is an assumption without empirical foundation.

Wow, you really are out of touch with reality. That "assumption" has a solid empirical foundation. Pilots are specifically trained to identify and avoid colliding with flying objects. Most non-pilots are not. And as a pilot, I know this first hand, quite empirically.

Quote:

You also made a claim that "The number of UFO reports and mis-identifications by non-pilots is far greater than those from pilots.". Can you back that up with any data?

Sure can. Go to any decent sized bookstore and count the number of books on UFOs written by pilots compared to non-pilots. And then go to the library and count the number of articles on UFOS written by pilots compared to non-pilots. I'll wait while you go verify the data.

Quote:

xouper: Now, please explain how the mere fact of reporting flying objects as unidentified means that pilots are not any more observant than non-pilots? You made the claim, let's see how you justify that conclusion.

Diamond: Straw man. I have not made such a claim.

Yes you did. You said, "In point of fact, astronauts, because they are pilots, should be better observers. The fact that large numbers of UFO reports originate from pilots (including the original "flying saucer" story) disproves this idea."

You very clearly made an assertion that because pilots make large numbers of UFO reports, this disproves the idea that they are better observers. Not only is your accusation of a straw man clearly refuted by your own words, but your conclusion about pilots is a non-sequitur.

Quote:

The argument is whether astronauts or pilots can be authoritatively trusted to report phenomena correctly.

Some can't, but most can. Moreso than non-pilots. Of all the professions that have half a chance of making trustworthy reports of flying objects, what group would you put at the top if not professional pilots? Just as astronomers are automatically presumed qualified to identify the planet Venus (a claim made by Randi), I submit that likewise, pilots can be presumed qualified to make identifications of flying objects. I know you don't want to believe that, but frankly I don't care. We will have to disagree on this point, because I'm not going waste any more of my time arguing with you about it.

Quote:

Diamond: In the second world war, pilots reported phenomena called "Foo Fighters" which were observations of things which did not exist.

xouper: A few pilots reported them, agreed. And what do you mean it was a non-existent phenomenon?

Diamond: I mean that foo fighters did not exist as living entities that were buzzing aircraft.

OK, I accept that you mispoke. It can happen to the best of us occasionally.

Quote:

Diamond: Randi posted his opinion that astronauts were no more and no less likely to make mistakes in observation of phenomena than any one else. He took this from his experience that they too can be fooled by simple trickery.

xouper: So those are the words you are putting in Randi' mouth? You can say this with sufficient certainty? That's a bit iroinc coming from someone who falsely accuses me of inventing assumptions about what he meant.

Diamond: I have not put any words in Randi's mouth.

That is sooo laughable. I can hardly believe anyone would make such an obviously falsifiable comment. Did you not just say, "Randi posted his opinion that ..." and then you proceeded to tell us what Randi posted. I'd say that qualifies as putting words in his mouth.

Quote:

In any case, Randi has not accused me of putting words in his mouth and inventing arguments that he has not made.

This objection is irrelevant unless Randi has read your comment and agreed with your interpretation of his position. Has he done that?

Quote:

... But he has with you, and looking back I can clearly see why.

Considering your demonstrated inability to properly use the concpets "troll" and "straw man", I hardly think your perception counts for anything here.