[totalZero]

With new research, we are finding caveats and inaccuracies in many of our previously understood "laws" of physics and nature. Chemistry is a good example of this. Several 20th century chemists came up with widely accepted theories/models that were only shortly thereafter disproven by further research.

It's healthy to recognize the limitations of science. Awareness of the limitations of a tool make sure we don't wast time using it where it really doesn't help. Not to mention that a sense of academic humility is often part of the open-mindedness that precedes counterintuitive, surprising findings.

[krapp]

Recognition of the limitations of science only comes after better science provides a more accurate model, and demonstrates those limitations. That's how science works. It's not always wrong, it's incrementally more and more correct.

What's being asked here is not to accept the limitations of science, but to simply assume that science is wrong and that skepticism based on it should be ignored. So let me ask you this, on what basis would you attempt to study or possibly falsify any UFO claim, or even find the truth behind it, if skepticism and science can't be trusted?

[pfisch]

skepticism of science based on the accuracy of prior theories is appropriate. Newtonian physics seemed correct for 99% of observable phenomena, but it was in fact very wrong about some basic underlying ideas of how the universe works. That is basically true of every past scientific theory, so it is probable that our current physics does not accurately describe the universe.

I don't see how you could falsify the ufo claims over o'hare airport in 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27Hare_International_Ai...

It is extremely likely that people did observe an unidentified flying object in the air that day. That doesn't mean it was aliens, but it was something. That seems true for this recent video footage as well. It is more likely that people observed something vs a grand conspiracy.

[krapp]

Unfortunately, there don't appear to be many credible, impartial or first-party sources linked to that wikipedia article. The best appears to be a Chicago Tribune article[0], but that only contains direct quotes from employees who claim not to have seen anything, and indirect (and sometimes contradictory) descriptions by other witnesses.

The common details seem to be that it was "dark grey" and "well defined," and displayed no lights. It can be difficult to correctly estimate the size of an object in the sky, so the disagreement about that doesn't necessarily discredit the story. The conclusion reached that it was a "weather phenomenon" doesn't sufficiently explain it.

Interestingly, there appears to be evidence that airport personnel contacted the FAA about it which turned up in a FOIA request, but I don't know if that audio is anywhere, or verified.

[0]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-01-01/travel/chi-070...

[totalZero]

To respond to your question:

> So let me ask you this, on what basis would you attempt to study or possibly falsify any UFO claim, or even find the truth behind it, if skepticism and science can't be trusted?

You would be unable to conclude anything about a UFO claim if your own methodology is not falsifiable. To believe any one tool of reasoning is infinitely powerful, strikes me as zealous and closed-minded.

By the way, your premise that "skepticism and science can't be trusted" is a straw man. I didn't say that.

Science is an epistemological philosophy coupled with a method of empirical testing. Just because a good scientist comes up with a theory, doesn't make his theory science.

If I observe something and I create a hypothesis, that hypothesis is not "science." It's an idea, a proposition. I have to exhaustively demonstrate its validity empirically, or (if I can't be exhaustive) express the limitations of its validity as demonstrated.

Thus, if I draw a conclusion that is later disproven, I failed somewhere in my reasoning. I drew a conclusion that, while perhaps supported by my evidence, was later shown to be an overreach.

If you support skepticism, you also have to be skeptical of science. A good scientist is a critical thinker, always trying to find holes in his own work and determine how he could disprove his own conclusions.

Since science is empirical, there isn't "better science" and "worse science." There is only a complete demonstration of a phenomenon or method, an incomplete such demonstration, and a totally theoretical conception.

"To the best of my knowledge" is a smart phrase to hear out of a scientist's mouth. It would be naive to assume that everything we believe to be correct, is actually correct. This has never been true in history, and it will not be true for the present set of scientific beliefs.

Thus, we should be skeptical about our own findings and beliefs. Scientists should be philosopher-experimenters, not zealots.

[krapp]

I agree with everything you've said here, and I believe most science and most scientists operate in the way you describe.

>By the way, your premise that "skepticism and science can't be trusted" is a straw man. I didn't say that.

Fair enough, but that does seem to a the general theme of this subthread.

>To believe any one tool of reasoning is infinitely powerful, strikes me as zealous and closed-minded.

Yes, but no one is actually making that claim about science. I'm certainly not, and I doubt most scientists do, either.

So, to the best of anyone's knowledge, the current models of physics appear true enough that photographic or video evidence of UFOs alone are not sufficient to discredit them. Those models may be inaccurate, as all models are, but there's no reason to believe they're entirely wrong.