Posted on 11/27/2016 8:15:49 AM PST by BenLurkin
Jacques:
For those who have just discovered the world of “big data” because of the exploits of super-computers winning at chess or GO against the best human champions, the technology seems almost magical: dump unstructured threads of information into a large binary warehouse and let “deep thinking” extract the salient patterns. This technology actually works when the data itself is well-behaved, in particular for consumer trends, industrial maintenance or medical research. When the subject area lacks an ontology, as in the case of unexplained aerial phenomena, the same techniques are problematic because the software is most likely to extract spurious or misleading patterns. Much of my career has been spent developing metadata software and (more recently) investing in Big Data companies, so I am a believer in the relevant techniques but one cannot skip the arduous work of preliminary data “scrubbing.” In particular, we have to keep in mind that the observed data may be the result of multiple phenomena rather than a single source. The problem is one of discernment and intelligence rather than brute-force statistics.
Diana:
Do you have advice for researchers today? How can we use new digital strategies to streamline our research?
Jacques:
The rapid expansion of computer records, as more and more old newspapers and books are digitized, has greatly facilitated access to original records. At the same time researchers are developing ingenious techniques for extracting information across long periods when the meaning of many terms has changed (think of the word “meteor,” which refers to the sighting of a falling aerolithe today but used to mean any luminous phenomenon in the sky). It has become feasible to conduct large-scale research on thousands of records at very minimum cost, without travel or administrative burden...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.oup.com ...
Not really research into new phenomenon. Rather this is looking for new ways to use Monte Carlo techniques to look at old reports
This can lead to very irresponsible conclusions if one is not careful
You can’t consider lights in the sky anomalies, just as we have stealth technology, an advanced civilization that clearly does not want to be seen should have no trouble hiding from us in plain sight.
Vallée kind of rhymes with loony.
Have you read Vallee’s work? I have. He makes more sense than most other researchers.
Looney? Why do you think that? Have you read his work?
He is a credible scholar and not a source, nor has he ever represented himself otherwise. He should be taken seriously because he is skeptical even of his own work.
Yeah, I think he’s a looney.
The whole field is koo koo stuff.
I still have a soft spot in my heart for it because when I was a kid I was interested in it and read a lot of stuff.
Vallée ripped off John Keel’s ideas.
It’s not good when the author, who is supposedly a professor, doesn’t know simple English: “Unidentified aerial phenomena, commonly referred to as UFOs, has been the focus...”
Jacques Vallee’s theory is that UFOs and related phenomena are a cultural phenomenon. Human understanding of the unknown changes with time.
People saw it differently down through the centuries, informed by the constraints of the culture. In other words, we explain the unknown in terms familiar to our beliefs.
Even if its nothing like that at all.
We just don't know. Their spacecraft could be massive and hold thousands on board, yet be so tiny it could land on the head of a pin. So small it could be sitting on the backyard fence and never be detected.
“Vallée kind of rhymes with loony.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t let the Fairy Folk get you Finnegan.
Oh yes, the Fairy Folk.
Thanks. I will be very careful.
:)))
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.