|
|
|
|
|
by empyrrhicist
1007 days ago
|
|
Notwithstanding that p-values precisely can't tell you about the relative probabilities of different events (they measure the probability of data under a given hypothesis, rather than in favor of a specific alternative), you have it precisely backwards. In this case, we have anomalous observations, but we have a current-best-understanding of the physical universe that makes us skeptical of supernatural claims (a bucket into which I include magic star hopping aliens that only allow us glimpses of them jetting around our atmosphere). So either we have a strong prior that the data needs to overcome, or we have a sensible null position (e.g., UAPs are the result of natural phenomena or human technology - probably both) that would need to be overcome by strong evidence. It's still worth getting more specific and learning more about the bucket of things that get lumped together into "UAP", but that doesn't change the fact that I think people are completely justified in dismissing all the alien BS. |
|