160 lines
6.7 KiB
Plaintext
160 lines
6.7 KiB
Plaintext
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I have read through many of the files here on the Crucible
|
|||
|
|
regarding UFO's and the possible involvement of the United
|
|||
|
|
States government with the same. Many of the documents (
|
|||
|
|
such as the statement by John Lear and the Fenwick
|
|||
|
|
interviews) make a number of claims, but seem to offer
|
|||
|
|
little data to support those claims. What data is offered
|
|||
|
|
seems inconclusive to me. With the scarcity of data on one
|
|||
|
|
hand and a number of claims on the other hand, I am faced
|
|||
|
|
with a dilemma.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I can reject the arguments put forth by Lear and others
|
|||
|
|
that the U.S. government is involved with UFO's. To reject
|
|||
|
|
thes arguments I must dismiss some evidence that is both
|
|||
|
|
plausible and has no other explanation. I find this option
|
|||
|
|
undesireable because some of the evidence supports the
|
|||
|
|
claims of Lear et al and is hard to refute.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
My alternative is to accept the claims of U.S. government
|
|||
|
|
involvement with UFO's. To accept these arguments I must
|
|||
|
|
accept some statements that have little supporting evidence.
|
|||
|
|
I find such leaps of faith distasteful.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What other choices do I have? As I see it, I can use an
|
|||
|
|
existing technique for examining the claims and the evidence
|
|||
|
|
supporting them. That technique is Bayesian analysis. If
|
|||
|
|
we convert the Lear statements into hypotheses, we can then
|
|||
|
|
apply Bayes to the data. This process involves several
|
|||
|
|
steps.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
STEP 1
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The only requirement for the hypotheses is that they be
|
|||
|
|
mutually exclusive (one hypothesis can't encompass another)
|
|||
|
|
and collectively exhaustive (taken together, the hypotheses
|
|||
|
|
account for all possible explanations).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For example, the basic argument put forward by Lear is
|
|||
|
|
that the U.S. government has had contact with UFO's since
|
|||
|
|
the late 1940's and is not telling the truth about its
|
|||
|
|
involvement. I would break this into several hypotheses:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. The U.S. government has had contact with UFO's, is
|
|||
|
|
providing no accurate information on its activities, and is
|
|||
|
|
producing disinformation on the subject.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. The U.S. government has had contact with UFO's, is
|
|||
|
|
providing some accurate information on its activities, and
|
|||
|
|
some disinformation on the subject.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. The U.S. government has had contact with UFO's and
|
|||
|
|
is providing totally accurate information on its activities.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4. The U.S. government has had no contact with UFO's,
|
|||
|
|
is providing no accurate information on its activities, and
|
|||
|
|
producing disinformation on the subject.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5. The U.S. government has had no contact with UFO's,
|
|||
|
|
is providing some accurate information on its activities,
|
|||
|
|
and some disinformation on the subject.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
6. The U.S. government has had no contact with UFO's
|
|||
|
|
and is providing totally accurate information on its
|
|||
|
|
activities.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I think these six hypotheses are independent of one
|
|||
|
|
another (mutually exclusive) and cover the range of
|
|||
|
|
explanations (collectively exhaustive). Would anyone care
|
|||
|
|
to add to, modify, or replace these hypotheses?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
STEP 2
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now that we have some hypotheses, we must make an initial
|
|||
|
|
assessment of their accuracy. The hypotheses must each be
|
|||
|
|
assigned a value between zero and one. The sum of the
|
|||
|
|
values for all of the hyotheses must equal one. [If you
|
|||
|
|
aren't familiar with Bayes, most textbooks on statistics
|
|||
|
|
have a section on it.] These values are then used with the
|
|||
|
|
incoming data.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If you want to work on this yourself, use a columnar
|
|||
|
|
worksheet (paper) or a spreadsheet (computer). Assign each
|
|||
|
|
hypothesis on a row of the sheet. In the first column to
|
|||
|
|
the right of the hypothesis, put your initial value. Set
|
|||
|
|
aside the next column for your first piece of data.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
STEP 3
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
With initial hypotheses in hand, we can now take each
|
|||
|
|
piece of data and compare it to each hypothesis. We assign
|
|||
|
|
a value between zero and one to the data for each
|
|||
|
|
hypothesis. A value of zero for a given piece of data means
|
|||
|
|
that it absolutely denies a hypothesis. A value of one
|
|||
|
|
means that it absolutely supports a hypothesis. As you can
|
|||
|
|
see, very few pieces of data will fit either extreme.
|
|||
|
|
Instead, most data falls in between. [An example of a "one"
|
|||
|
|
value piece of data might be the President of the United
|
|||
|
|
States saying on national television that the U.S.
|
|||
|
|
government has been in contact with EBE's and that until now
|
|||
|
|
the government has been lying about it. This would rate a
|
|||
|
|
1.0 for Hypothesis 1 above and a zero for Hypothesis 6.]
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
With six hypotheses, each datum must be evaluated six
|
|||
|
|
times and assigned six value (once for each hypothesis). On
|
|||
|
|
your worksheet (spreadsheet) put the value you have chosen
|
|||
|
|
into the column to the right of the initial value (as
|
|||
|
|
mentioned in Step 2 above). Multiply the initial value (
|
|||
|
|
Column 1) by the new value (Column 2) and place the product
|
|||
|
|
in the next column (Column 3). Add up the numbers in Column
|
|||
|
|
3 and put the sum at the bottom of the column. [As you can
|
|||
|
|
see, a spreadsheet becomes handy very quickly.] Now divide
|
|||
|
|
each of the numbers in Column 3 by that sum at the bottom of
|
|||
|
|
the column and place the quotient in Column 4. What you
|
|||
|
|
should have should look something like this:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Hypotheses Initial Datum Product Revised
|
|||
|
|
Value One Value
|
|||
|
|
Hyp 1 0.2 0.4 0.08 0.24
|
|||
|
|
Hyp 2 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.44
|
|||
|
|
Hyp 3 0.1 0.2 0.02 0.06
|
|||
|
|
Hyp 4 0.1 0.3 0.03 0.09
|
|||
|
|
Hyp 5 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.06
|
|||
|
|
Hyp 6 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.12
|
|||
|
|
___ ____ ____
|
|||
|
|
SUM 1.0 0.34 1.01*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* [Note round-off error. This sum should also equal 1.0]
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This process can be continued for each new piece of data,
|
|||
|
|
using the revised product of the previous datum as the
|
|||
|
|
starting value for the next datum.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
SUMMARY
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I have participated in and led group problem-solving
|
|||
|
|
efforts with these techniques. Bayesian analysis is
|
|||
|
|
particularly useful for this type of problem. I can set up
|
|||
|
|
this sort of spreadsheet in either Lotus 1-2-3 (.WKS) or
|
|||
|
|
Microsoft format (SYLK). I think Tom will welcome this sort
|
|||
|
|
of exchange on the Crucible. Let me know if you are
|
|||
|
|
interested in helping.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I think this approach has considerable merit for the type
|
|||
|
|
of problems that are presented by the Lear/Krill/Fenwick
|
|||
|
|
statements. I welcome any individual or group efforts to
|
|||
|
|
isolate and evaluate the data available. Without the sort
|
|||
|
|
of approach I have described, I believe no serious
|
|||
|
|
assessment and cooperation is possible. Ufology will
|
|||
|
|
continue to spin its wheels with inconclusive data and
|
|||
|
|
unproveable theories.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- Bill Badger
|
|||
|
|
26 Feb 89
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|