Identified Flying Objects Passage located in page 92 of How to Think About Weird Things claims that there is too many empirically profound evidence to simply just deny the existence of extraterrestrials. People sometimes say things that seem to suggest that knowledge doesn’t require belief. For example, after reading extraterrestrials’ evidences we might remark, “I understand that they exist, but I still don’t believe it.” What we mean, though, is not that we doubt that what we’ve read is true but that we haven’t gotten used to the fact that they exist. Intellectually we’ve accepted the situation, but emotionally(belief) we haven’t. I’ve SEARCHed this claim to see if we are just not emotionally accepting, but I certainly can say that it is just not an emotional issue. This claim is reasonable and possible to be true. If we take a look at the claim
…show more content…
But they have few different scopes in my alternate hypothesis if true. E.T observer group founder Soylent Green says that “In this instance, the null hypothesis is refuted. It’s false to say that no U.F.O. are controlled by Extraterrestrials. That can easily be refuted based on the mountains of evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis that SOME NOT ALL U.F.O.’s are controlled by an extraterrestrial source. So the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true than false based on the available evidence” (“E.T Observer”).
My alternate hypothesis makes claim unreasonable, but it explains more variety things. I can not say alternate hypothesis is the simplest answer. Since my alternate hypothesis also has a logical fallacy of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”, the argument is not conservative. And guiding principle for this claim is what I learned from the module: to keep an open mid, but that’s different from believing anything we’re told. An open mind means we’re flexible, and we look for evidence to help us make
But they have few different scopes in my alternate hypothesis if true. E.T observer group founder Soylent Green says that “In this instance, the null hypothesis is refuted. It’s false to say that no U.F.O. are controlled by Extraterrestrials. That can easily be refuted based on the mountains of evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis that SOME NOT ALL U.F.O.’s are controlled by an extraterrestrial source. So the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true than false based on the available evidence” (“E.T Observer”).
My alternate hypothesis makes claim unreasonable, but it explains more variety things. I can not say alternate hypothesis is the simplest answer. Since my alternate hypothesis also has a logical fallacy of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”, the argument is not conservative. And guiding principle for this claim is what I learned from the module: to keep an open mid, but that’s different from believing anything we’re told. An open mind means we’re flexible, and we look for evidence to help us make