Explain to me, oh wise one, how abstract statistical concepts relate to whether a “sighting” in NJ (breathlessly accepted as real) was or was not caused by two punks attaching flares to weather balloons?
I’ll try . . . simply and briefly. Otherwise, it gets far too tedious to bother that much.
1. WHEN one sets up a criteria of proof that becomes outrageously unrealistic—say well beyond what would be needed to convict a murderer to die for murder . . .
2. THEN one has set up a virtual certainty of being bitten by the consequences of insuring a virtual certainty of a TYPE II ERROR.
3. The hoaxes are weeded out—certainly eventually—and what’s left are . . . VERY SOLID TESTIMONIAL AND OTHER EVIDENCE.
4. for example . . . MORE THAN 4,000 TRACE LANDING CASES WHEREIN SOLID SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION HAS PROVEN TANGIBLE EVIDENCE . . . FROM magnetic anomolies; soil anomolies, vegetation anomolies and even trace elements not normal for the terrain.
5. Naysayers seem compulsively addicted to insisting that ALL EVIDENCE IS HOAXED EVIDENCE . . . drum roll, because they say it is. That’s idiotic—AND A SETUP-FOR BEING VICTIMIZED BY A TYPE II ERROR.
6. The above facts and conclusions are EASILY ARRIVED AT by a minimum of thoughtful pondering—even by folks with an average IQ and an average level of fair-mindedness.
BTW,
Evidently you are . . . uninformed . . . to put it charitably and gently . . .
ABSTRACT STATISTICAL TERMS
have served science
AND THE COMMON MAN fairly well for a long time . . .
in analyzing, testing, hypotheses
having to do with hard reality
REGARDING EVERYTHING
from medicine break-throughs
to how to build 747’s safely and cost effectively.
to how to build safer tires
and better water purification systems . . .
and safer foods . . .
Soooooooooo, I guess, IF
you haven’t traveled by planes, or traveled on tires or taken any medicines or drank any water or eaten any foods
in your lifetime,
then you MIGHT not have benefited from such ABSTRACT STATISTICAL constructs and their use.