We Need to be as Intelligence Analysts, not Scientists/The Plural of Anecdote IS Data

  1. sure, but they're doing the science which is hidden from the public. we need investigators to uncover a coverup. like watergate. then we get the science made public.

  2. what you're talking about is more investigation of a crime, and i agree. BUT... we need both. and they're not mutually exclusive. we know science is taking place behind the scenes, we know that scientific data is being withheld. when we get access to that data, or reproduce some in the public sphere, then we can do the science.

  3. Personally, I think the best litmus test to whether or not a anecdote is useful is determining whether anything comes from the anecdote. Does it establish a "UFO hotspot"? Do others who have no relation to the original witness see similarly described UFOs? Do any of these witnesses get a clear photo or recording of the UFO? Etc. If not, there's not much use for the claim. Not to say that witnesses shouldn't tell their stories, just that it's not going to advance the UFO subject unless something can cone from it.

  4. I think many UFO skeptics don't grasp the idea that if UFOs were real, they would most likely be aliens that are billions of years ahead of us. We are at a stage we can start manipulating our genetic code. If we assume aliens can do that and have used goal-directed evolution, in addition to tech development, they will be so far beyond us we can't even comprehend. We are trying to study an intelligence that has us totally outclassed in every category. They can alter our perceptions, make us see things that aren't there, make us not see things that are there, disable our cameras, cars, nukes and jet planes remotely, etc. The skeptics don't get that this is a totally unique case unlike anything humans have every tried to study before.

  5. As a former intelligence analyst this is correct. You don’t just ignore information that is provided without evidence. Well unless you’re an investigator..they almost always ignore intel.

  6. Should we treat anecdotal evidence in the same way as you're prescribing when it comes to ghosts, bigfoot, angels, other cryptid 'sightings' and 'experiences'? If not, why not?

  7. Yes, there are also probably as many stories of reincarnation, and past life memories. Does this mean those things are real? no, but do we know for sure those things are all purely imaginary?

  8. If an anecdote cannot stand on its own as evidence, it should not be used as the foundation of a larger theory. All anecdotes could be wrong. How many old stories of dragons do you think there are? Many thousands? But you don't believe dragons existed, do you? You need to establish that an anecdote is credible before claiming it supports your position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may have missed