💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › ufo › bayes.ufo captured on 2023-11-14 at 12:27:44.

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-16)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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*



  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