[Quix]

You still haven’t dealt with the

fact

that your bias is wholesale vulnerable to a TYPE II ERROR

wayyyyyyyyyyy

disproportionately to a TYPE II ERROR

and very IRRATIONALLY, UNSCIENTIFICALLY SO.

[Quix]

OOPS . . .

that your bias is wholesale vulnerable to a TYPE II ERROR

wayyyyyyyyyyy

disproportionately to a TYPE I ERROR

and very IRRATIONALLY, UNSCIENTIFICALLY SO.

[Sicon]

OK, let's see if we can't straighten this out. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think you actually spelled out what you mean by Type I and Type II errors. I'll assume you mean a Type I error to be a "false positive", and a Type II to be a "false negative". (I'm not even sure there are any other meanings for the terms)

All well and good. The problem is that these errors refer to HYPOTHESES. I think we're still talking about an assertion of FACT ("aliens do exist and are/have visted earth"), so I fail to see what Type I and II have to do with it, as much as you seem to love throwing the terms around.

"A type I error occurs when one rejects the null hypothesis when it is true"

So, in order for me to be committing a Type I error, the existence of aliens would have to be true. Unfortunately, you'll have a hard time convincing me (and many others) that that is true without proof.

"A type II error occurs when one rejects the alternative hypothesis (fails to reject the null hypothesis) when the alternative hypothesis is true."

So what alternative (reality) are you suggesting that I am rejecting, and what PROOF of said reality do you offer?