- Thank you received: 0
Tom - Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter question
18 years 7 months ago #17200
by jrich
Replied by jrich on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
We had a communication disconnect somewhere, but I'm not sure where. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom,
The disconnect has been there all along. There is a continuity which represents the likelihood that a particular feature is artificial or not. Mt. Rushmore would fall and the end of the scale that respresents 100% certainty of artificiality. An impact crater would fall at the other end of the scale. The closer one gets to either end of the scale the more objective the determination can be. Unfortunately, there is a section in between where objective truth gives way to the subjective and indeterminate. To some, the Face falls near the objectively artificial end of the scale. To others, like myself, it is well within the subjective, indeterminate portion. Frankly, I have a difficult time seeing a face in the 1998 image at all. I'm not sure that I would even see as much as I do if not for the 1976 image. That indicates to me that my perception of the 1998 image is biased by the 1976 image. I think this is a good argument for the position that the images are well into the subjective, indeterminate part of the scale. Better images of the Face may expose features that for people like me move it closer to the artificial end of the scale, but it is also possible that it will remain indeterminate. My position is such that better images may move me in any direction. Your position is that, like Mt. Rushmore, it appears to resemble a humanoid face to such a high degree that absent any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed to be artificial.
On the subject of your sucessful hypothesis predictions and their relevence, if the 1976 image had not been noticed (until after the 1998 image) and the face was not discovered until the 1998 image, would the fact that no hypothesis was held and no predictions made and passed have had any effect on your determination, based only on the visual evidence in the images, that the face is artificial? If you answer no, then exactly what was the value of the predictions if they added no weight to the notion of artificiality? If you answer yes, then you must admit that the success of your predictions has influenced (biased?) your interpretation of the 1998 image. I will have more to say on this later.
JR
We had a communication disconnect somewhere, but I'm not sure where. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom,
The disconnect has been there all along. There is a continuity which represents the likelihood that a particular feature is artificial or not. Mt. Rushmore would fall and the end of the scale that respresents 100% certainty of artificiality. An impact crater would fall at the other end of the scale. The closer one gets to either end of the scale the more objective the determination can be. Unfortunately, there is a section in between where objective truth gives way to the subjective and indeterminate. To some, the Face falls near the objectively artificial end of the scale. To others, like myself, it is well within the subjective, indeterminate portion. Frankly, I have a difficult time seeing a face in the 1998 image at all. I'm not sure that I would even see as much as I do if not for the 1976 image. That indicates to me that my perception of the 1998 image is biased by the 1976 image. I think this is a good argument for the position that the images are well into the subjective, indeterminate part of the scale. Better images of the Face may expose features that for people like me move it closer to the artificial end of the scale, but it is also possible that it will remain indeterminate. My position is such that better images may move me in any direction. Your position is that, like Mt. Rushmore, it appears to resemble a humanoid face to such a high degree that absent any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed to be artificial.
On the subject of your sucessful hypothesis predictions and their relevence, if the 1976 image had not been noticed (until after the 1998 image) and the face was not discovered until the 1998 image, would the fact that no hypothesis was held and no predictions made and passed have had any effect on your determination, based only on the visual evidence in the images, that the face is artificial? If you answer no, then exactly what was the value of the predictions if they added no weight to the notion of artificiality? If you answer yes, then you must admit that the success of your predictions has influenced (biased?) your interpretation of the 1998 image. I will have more to say on this later.
JR
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- neilderosa
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 7 months ago #10477
by neilderosa
<i>jrich writes</i>: "would the fact that no hypothesis was held and no predictions made and passed have had any effect on your determination, based only on the visual evidence in the images, that the face is artificial?"
Evidence and data which agrees with (and bears out) previous predictions are immeasurably more significant than original data observed at random. So the "effect on your determination" should be enormous.
<i>and also</i>: "If you answer yes, then you must admit that the success of your predictions has influenced (biased?) your interpretation of the 1998 image."
The main problem with your conclusion here is that "influence" and "bias" are not the same thing. An <i>a priori </i>prediction that is successfully made is not a "bias" because there are now good logical and empirical reasons for an increased confidence in one's conclusion (in this case the artificiality hypothesis). Whereas a biased opinion does not change, notwithstanding evidence pro or con. So a conclusion or "influence" can be based on sound reasoning or it can be the result of predjudice (bias).
Replied by neilderosa on topic Reply from Neil DeRosa
<i>jrich writes</i>: "would the fact that no hypothesis was held and no predictions made and passed have had any effect on your determination, based only on the visual evidence in the images, that the face is artificial?"
Evidence and data which agrees with (and bears out) previous predictions are immeasurably more significant than original data observed at random. So the "effect on your determination" should be enormous.
<i>and also</i>: "If you answer yes, then you must admit that the success of your predictions has influenced (biased?) your interpretation of the 1998 image."
The main problem with your conclusion here is that "influence" and "bias" are not the same thing. An <i>a priori </i>prediction that is successfully made is not a "bias" because there are now good logical and empirical reasons for an increased confidence in one's conclusion (in this case the artificiality hypothesis). Whereas a biased opinion does not change, notwithstanding evidence pro or con. So a conclusion or "influence" can be based on sound reasoning or it can be the result of predjudice (bias).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 7 months ago #10480
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />There is a continuity which represents the likelihood that a particular feature is artificial or not. Mt. Rushmore would fall and the end of the scale that respresents 100% certainty of artificiality. An impact crater would fall at the other end of the scale. The closer one gets to either end of the scale the more objective the determination can be. Unfortunately, there is a section in between where objective truth gives way to the subjective and indeterminate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The purpose of designing tests whose outcome cannot be influenced by the experimenters is to move the location of a feature on your scale out of the ambiguity zone. You seem to insist that the location must stay fixed at its ambiguous location because the ambiguous appearance has not changed. But most legitimate tests of natural vs. artificial do not depend on the subjective appearance of the feature.
That is why these tests I described are so powerful -- They are at least objective. You seem unwilling to subject your own bias to the outcome of an objective test. This is probably influenced by already knowing the test outcome. I had the advantage of helping to design the test back in 1997, when no one on this planet had any idea the outcome would be so favorable to artificiality. Can you put yourself into my shoes back then for a moment? Suppose MGS had not yet arrived at Mars and only the Viking images were available. Wouldn't you feel virtually certain that better resolution would *not* reveal secondary facial features with just the right size, shape, location, and orientation, and no other such features elsewhere? You would have been right that the odds against that happening by chance were astronomical.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To some, the Face falls near the objectively artificial end of the scale. To others, like myself, it is well within the subjective, indeterminate portion. Frankly, I have a difficult time seeing a face in the 1998 image at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We all had that difficulty. The image was taken under very unfavorable conditions: clouds over site reducing contrast, Sun at low altitude casting long shadows, spacecraft so far to the west that it could see only the west half of the Face. If you can view the animation I referenced (#1 at metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/animations/animations.asp ), the relation between the MGS and Viking images will become immediately evident, as well as the reason it was not evident at first glance.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm not sure that I would even see as much as I do if not for the 1976 image.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Few of us would have noticed anything but the very regular mesa wall if it had not been for the 1976 image.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That indicates to me that my perception of the 1998 image is biased by the 1976 image. I think this is a good argument for the position that the images are well into the subjective, indeterminate part of the scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Images alone will normally be there in the ambiguous range. That is why objective tests are an essential element in removing that ambiguity, and normally work in the direction that the origin is proved natural. That is the case with every one of the terrestrial face illusions. But to everyone's amazement, the test results went the other way for the Cydonia Face.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Better images of the Face may expose features that for people like me move it closer to the artificial end of the scale, but it is also possible that it will remain indeterminate. My position is such that better images may move me in any direction. Your position is that, like Mt. Rushmore, it appears to resemble a humanoid face to such a high degree that absent any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed to be artificial.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This misunderstands my position. I place little value on subjective impressions such as what an object looks like or resembles. Only objective test results can truly be persuasive about such an important matter.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if the 1976 image had not been noticed (until after the 1998 image) and the face was not discovered until the 1998 image, would the fact that no hypothesis was held and no predictions made and passed have had any effect on your determination, based only on the visual evidence in the images, that the face is artificial?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. The first instance of any statistical anomaly can always be a fluke, and can only be used to formulate hypotheses for testing. If it is based on an obvious prediction (whether articulated or not), the second instance of a statistical anomaly is scientifically significant. As improper as it is to place too much significance on the first instance, it is equally improper to place too little emphasis on the second instance.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you answer yes, then you must admit that the success of your predictions has influenced (biased?) your interpretation of the 1998 image.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The prediction was "If this feature is artificial, then X; if it is natural, then Y." If the result is X, how is it then a "bias" to conclude that artificiality was the more probable answer? Indeed, the bias appears to be entirely the opposite. If X is true, then would it not be pure bias to conclude that a natural origin was still the more probable answer? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of finding an objective test whose outcome the experimenters and viewers cannot influence? Wouldn't that put you in the same boat as the believers who never change their minds even when the evidence has gone strongly against the only outcome they feel comfortable with?
This prediction process to test the significance of statistical anomalies is standard science, and is known as "the <i>a priori</i> principle". Here's another example of its application. In 2001, JP Levasseur found this image (left) in an MGS photo[img=left] metaresearch.org/publicftp/Puma1.jpg [/img=left], and wondered if it was natural or perhaps another example of flat art, a puma-like animal, as in this key (right):[img=right] metaresearch.org/publicftp/Puma2.jpg [/img=right]
So he set up an <i>a priori</i> test: If natural, then when future images reveal what's to the right of the strip, it will be plain sand, craters, hills, mesas, irregular lava flows, or countless other natural landforms. But if artificial, the landform will be very specific -- the completion of the animals hind quarters, missing leg, and a tail of the right proportions, uniform shape, orientation, and location with respect to the animal's body. Do you agree that, when the new data is seen, this will be a good test? -|Tom|-
<br />There is a continuity which represents the likelihood that a particular feature is artificial or not. Mt. Rushmore would fall and the end of the scale that respresents 100% certainty of artificiality. An impact crater would fall at the other end of the scale. The closer one gets to either end of the scale the more objective the determination can be. Unfortunately, there is a section in between where objective truth gives way to the subjective and indeterminate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The purpose of designing tests whose outcome cannot be influenced by the experimenters is to move the location of a feature on your scale out of the ambiguity zone. You seem to insist that the location must stay fixed at its ambiguous location because the ambiguous appearance has not changed. But most legitimate tests of natural vs. artificial do not depend on the subjective appearance of the feature.
That is why these tests I described are so powerful -- They are at least objective. You seem unwilling to subject your own bias to the outcome of an objective test. This is probably influenced by already knowing the test outcome. I had the advantage of helping to design the test back in 1997, when no one on this planet had any idea the outcome would be so favorable to artificiality. Can you put yourself into my shoes back then for a moment? Suppose MGS had not yet arrived at Mars and only the Viking images were available. Wouldn't you feel virtually certain that better resolution would *not* reveal secondary facial features with just the right size, shape, location, and orientation, and no other such features elsewhere? You would have been right that the odds against that happening by chance were astronomical.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To some, the Face falls near the objectively artificial end of the scale. To others, like myself, it is well within the subjective, indeterminate portion. Frankly, I have a difficult time seeing a face in the 1998 image at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We all had that difficulty. The image was taken under very unfavorable conditions: clouds over site reducing contrast, Sun at low altitude casting long shadows, spacecraft so far to the west that it could see only the west half of the Face. If you can view the animation I referenced (#1 at metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/animations/animations.asp ), the relation between the MGS and Viking images will become immediately evident, as well as the reason it was not evident at first glance.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm not sure that I would even see as much as I do if not for the 1976 image.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Few of us would have noticed anything but the very regular mesa wall if it had not been for the 1976 image.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That indicates to me that my perception of the 1998 image is biased by the 1976 image. I think this is a good argument for the position that the images are well into the subjective, indeterminate part of the scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Images alone will normally be there in the ambiguous range. That is why objective tests are an essential element in removing that ambiguity, and normally work in the direction that the origin is proved natural. That is the case with every one of the terrestrial face illusions. But to everyone's amazement, the test results went the other way for the Cydonia Face.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Better images of the Face may expose features that for people like me move it closer to the artificial end of the scale, but it is also possible that it will remain indeterminate. My position is such that better images may move me in any direction. Your position is that, like Mt. Rushmore, it appears to resemble a humanoid face to such a high degree that absent any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed to be artificial.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This misunderstands my position. I place little value on subjective impressions such as what an object looks like or resembles. Only objective test results can truly be persuasive about such an important matter.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if the 1976 image had not been noticed (until after the 1998 image) and the face was not discovered until the 1998 image, would the fact that no hypothesis was held and no predictions made and passed have had any effect on your determination, based only on the visual evidence in the images, that the face is artificial?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. The first instance of any statistical anomaly can always be a fluke, and can only be used to formulate hypotheses for testing. If it is based on an obvious prediction (whether articulated or not), the second instance of a statistical anomaly is scientifically significant. As improper as it is to place too much significance on the first instance, it is equally improper to place too little emphasis on the second instance.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you answer yes, then you must admit that the success of your predictions has influenced (biased?) your interpretation of the 1998 image.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The prediction was "If this feature is artificial, then X; if it is natural, then Y." If the result is X, how is it then a "bias" to conclude that artificiality was the more probable answer? Indeed, the bias appears to be entirely the opposite. If X is true, then would it not be pure bias to conclude that a natural origin was still the more probable answer? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of finding an objective test whose outcome the experimenters and viewers cannot influence? Wouldn't that put you in the same boat as the believers who never change their minds even when the evidence has gone strongly against the only outcome they feel comfortable with?
This prediction process to test the significance of statistical anomalies is standard science, and is known as "the <i>a priori</i> principle". Here's another example of its application. In 2001, JP Levasseur found this image (left) in an MGS photo[img=left] metaresearch.org/publicftp/Puma1.jpg [/img=left], and wondered if it was natural or perhaps another example of flat art, a puma-like animal, as in this key (right):[img=right] metaresearch.org/publicftp/Puma2.jpg [/img=right]
So he set up an <i>a priori</i> test: If natural, then when future images reveal what's to the right of the strip, it will be plain sand, craters, hills, mesas, irregular lava flows, or countless other natural landforms. But if artificial, the landform will be very specific -- the completion of the animals hind quarters, missing leg, and a tail of the right proportions, uniform shape, orientation, and location with respect to the animal's body. Do you agree that, when the new data is seen, this will be a good test? -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #10481
by emanuel
Replied by emanuel on topic Reply from Emanuel Sferios
Hey Tom?
Hasn't this test already been done? I recall seeing somewhere (forgot where) the rest of the contested area. I just can't remember if it was a new MGS photo or an artists scetch of what the new area *might* look like.
Emanuel
Hasn't this test already been done? I recall seeing somewhere (forgot where) the rest of the contested area. I just can't remember if it was a new MGS photo or an artists scetch of what the new area *might* look like.
Emanuel
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #10486
by jrich
Replied by jrich on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />The purpose of designing tests whose outcome cannot be influenced by the experimenters is to move the location of a feature on your scale out of the ambiguity zone. You seem to insist that the location must stay fixed at its ambiguous location because the ambiguous appearance has not changed. But most legitimate tests of natural vs. artificial do not depend on the subjective appearance of the feature.
That is why these tests I described are so powerful -- They are at least objective. You seem unwilling to subject your own bias to the outcome of an objective test. This is probably influenced by already knowing the test outcome. I had the advantage of helping to design the test back in 1997, when no one on this planet had any idea the outcome would be so favorable to artificiality. Can you put yourself into my shoes back then for a moment? Suppose MGS had not yet arrived at Mars and only the Viking images were available. Wouldn't you feel virtually certain that better resolution would *not* reveal secondary facial features with just the right size, shape, location, and orientation, and no other such features elsewhere? You would have been right that the odds against that happening by chance were astronomical.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think this is the crux of our disagreement. The tests are not really objective. Focusing on specific facial features does not cure the fundamental subjectiveness of the tests. The tests rely on human beings finding certain patterns in images of poor quality relative to what is really necessary for the task. Worse still, those implementing the tests and searching for more detailed features, like eyebrows and nostrels, are the same people who are seeing gross features in the Face images - the eye sockets, nose, mouth - that many people, like myself, simply don't see with the degree of certainty that they do. If my subjective interpretation of the gross features is in such variance with yours, why should I place any confidence in your subjective identification of the existence of the predicted detailed features. If the tests aren't objective, then they don't support the predictions as claimed.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That indicates to me that my perception of the 1998 image is biased by the 1976 image. I think this is a good argument for the position that the images are well into the subjective, indeterminate part of the scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Images alone will normally be there in the ambiguous range. That is why objective tests are an essential element in removing that ambiguity, and normally work in the direction that the origin is proved natural. That is the case with every one of the terrestrial face illusions. But to everyone's amazement, the test results went the other way for the Cydonia Face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Objective tests are not possible without better evidence. The ambiguity remains. There is a psychotropic effect to viewing an image over and over again and I think you would be wise to seriously consider the degree to which this has influenced your perception of the Face in these images.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Better images of the Face may expose features that for people like me move it closer to the artificial end of the scale, but it is also possible that it will remain indeterminate. My position is such that better images may move me in any direction. Your position is that, like Mt. Rushmore, it appears to resemble a humanoid face to such a high degree that absent any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed to be artificial.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This misunderstands my position. I place little value on subjective impressions such as what an object looks like or resembles. Only objective test results can truly be persuasive about such an important matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Subjective impressions are all we have for now.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if the 1976 image had not been noticed (until after the 1998 image) and the face was not discovered until the 1998 image, would the fact that no hypothesis was held and no predictions made and passed have had any effect on your determination, based only on the visual evidence in the images, that the face is artificial?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. The first instance of any statistical anomaly can always be a fluke, and can only be used to formulate hypotheses for testing. If it is based on an obvious prediction (whether articulated or not), the second instance of a statistical anomaly is scientifically significant. As improper as it is to place too much significance on the first instance, it is equally improper to place too little emphasis on the second instance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would disagree with your assertion that there have been two statistical instances. The dataset representing the 1976 image is mostly a subset of the 1998 dataset.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The prediction was "If this feature is artificial, then X; if it is natural, then Y." If the result is X, how is it then a "bias" to conclude that artificiality was the more probable answer? Indeed, the bias appears to be entirely the opposite. If X is true, then would it not be pure bias to conclude that a natural origin was still the more probable answer? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of finding an objective test whose outcome the experimenters and viewers cannot influence? Wouldn't that put you in the same boat as the believers who never change their minds even when the evidence has gone strongly against the only outcome they feel comfortable with?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For the reasons I've previously stated, I don't believe X has been shown. Because of the nature of the tests, the influence of the experimenters cannot be eliminated.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This prediction process to test the significance of statistical anomalies is standard science, and is known as "the <i>a priori</i> principle". Here's another example of its application. In 2001, JP Levasseur found this image (left) in an MGS photo, and wondered if it was natural or perhaps another example of flat art, a puma-like animal, as in this key (right):
So he set up an <i>a priori</i> test: If natural, then when future images reveal what's to the right of the strip, it will be plain sand, craters, hills, mesas, irregular lava flows, or countless other natural landforms. But if artificial, the landform will be very specific -- the completion of the animals hind quarters, missing leg, and a tail of the right proportions, uniform shape, orientation, and location with respect to the animal's body. Do you agree that, when the new data is seen, this will be a good test?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think you can guess what I think of the *flat art* phenomena.
<hr noshade size="1">
Tom, I truly hope that the MRO can provide proof either way, but my own **prediction** is that the Face is inherently visually ambiguous at any resolution and this will remain unsettled for a very long time.
JR
<br />The purpose of designing tests whose outcome cannot be influenced by the experimenters is to move the location of a feature on your scale out of the ambiguity zone. You seem to insist that the location must stay fixed at its ambiguous location because the ambiguous appearance has not changed. But most legitimate tests of natural vs. artificial do not depend on the subjective appearance of the feature.
That is why these tests I described are so powerful -- They are at least objective. You seem unwilling to subject your own bias to the outcome of an objective test. This is probably influenced by already knowing the test outcome. I had the advantage of helping to design the test back in 1997, when no one on this planet had any idea the outcome would be so favorable to artificiality. Can you put yourself into my shoes back then for a moment? Suppose MGS had not yet arrived at Mars and only the Viking images were available. Wouldn't you feel virtually certain that better resolution would *not* reveal secondary facial features with just the right size, shape, location, and orientation, and no other such features elsewhere? You would have been right that the odds against that happening by chance were astronomical.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think this is the crux of our disagreement. The tests are not really objective. Focusing on specific facial features does not cure the fundamental subjectiveness of the tests. The tests rely on human beings finding certain patterns in images of poor quality relative to what is really necessary for the task. Worse still, those implementing the tests and searching for more detailed features, like eyebrows and nostrels, are the same people who are seeing gross features in the Face images - the eye sockets, nose, mouth - that many people, like myself, simply don't see with the degree of certainty that they do. If my subjective interpretation of the gross features is in such variance with yours, why should I place any confidence in your subjective identification of the existence of the predicted detailed features. If the tests aren't objective, then they don't support the predictions as claimed.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That indicates to me that my perception of the 1998 image is biased by the 1976 image. I think this is a good argument for the position that the images are well into the subjective, indeterminate part of the scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Images alone will normally be there in the ambiguous range. That is why objective tests are an essential element in removing that ambiguity, and normally work in the direction that the origin is proved natural. That is the case with every one of the terrestrial face illusions. But to everyone's amazement, the test results went the other way for the Cydonia Face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Objective tests are not possible without better evidence. The ambiguity remains. There is a psychotropic effect to viewing an image over and over again and I think you would be wise to seriously consider the degree to which this has influenced your perception of the Face in these images.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Better images of the Face may expose features that for people like me move it closer to the artificial end of the scale, but it is also possible that it will remain indeterminate. My position is such that better images may move me in any direction. Your position is that, like Mt. Rushmore, it appears to resemble a humanoid face to such a high degree that absent any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed to be artificial.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This misunderstands my position. I place little value on subjective impressions such as what an object looks like or resembles. Only objective test results can truly be persuasive about such an important matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Subjective impressions are all we have for now.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if the 1976 image had not been noticed (until after the 1998 image) and the face was not discovered until the 1998 image, would the fact that no hypothesis was held and no predictions made and passed have had any effect on your determination, based only on the visual evidence in the images, that the face is artificial?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. The first instance of any statistical anomaly can always be a fluke, and can only be used to formulate hypotheses for testing. If it is based on an obvious prediction (whether articulated or not), the second instance of a statistical anomaly is scientifically significant. As improper as it is to place too much significance on the first instance, it is equally improper to place too little emphasis on the second instance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would disagree with your assertion that there have been two statistical instances. The dataset representing the 1976 image is mostly a subset of the 1998 dataset.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The prediction was "If this feature is artificial, then X; if it is natural, then Y." If the result is X, how is it then a "bias" to conclude that artificiality was the more probable answer? Indeed, the bias appears to be entirely the opposite. If X is true, then would it not be pure bias to conclude that a natural origin was still the more probable answer? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of finding an objective test whose outcome the experimenters and viewers cannot influence? Wouldn't that put you in the same boat as the believers who never change their minds even when the evidence has gone strongly against the only outcome they feel comfortable with?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For the reasons I've previously stated, I don't believe X has been shown. Because of the nature of the tests, the influence of the experimenters cannot be eliminated.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This prediction process to test the significance of statistical anomalies is standard science, and is known as "the <i>a priori</i> principle". Here's another example of its application. In 2001, JP Levasseur found this image (left) in an MGS photo, and wondered if it was natural or perhaps another example of flat art, a puma-like animal, as in this key (right):
So he set up an <i>a priori</i> test: If natural, then when future images reveal what's to the right of the strip, it will be plain sand, craters, hills, mesas, irregular lava flows, or countless other natural landforms. But if artificial, the landform will be very specific -- the completion of the animals hind quarters, missing leg, and a tail of the right proportions, uniform shape, orientation, and location with respect to the animal's body. Do you agree that, when the new data is seen, this will be a good test?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think you can guess what I think of the *flat art* phenomena.
<hr noshade size="1">
Tom, I truly hope that the MRO can provide proof either way, but my own **prediction** is that the Face is inherently visually ambiguous at any resolution and this will remain unsettled for a very long time.
JR
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- neilderosa
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 7 months ago #17067
by neilderosa
Replied by neilderosa on topic Reply from Neil DeRosa
I don't believe that someone like jrich, who appears to be an educated person, is ever going to be convinced by logical arguments, let alone scientific ones. He seems to be saying that if we can not attain some absolute degree of certainty that there is no hope of ever gaining any real knowledge of artificiality (in this case of the Face at Cydonia).
If I read Tom right, he is saying that the objective tests are scientifically preferable (indeed necessary) over intuitive statements that such and such a face looks "artificial" as opposed to "natural." And for the purpose of proposing any viable scientific theory that will be taken seriously by the scientific community he is right.
Even after such objective tests are made and the results are positive, one still needs to go through the process of verification, and confirmation, whether on the ground, or by better imaging, spectroscopic readings, or whatever. Why? because even objective tests don't give us the degree of certainty required to know for certain.
I get the distinct impression that jrich is not really arguing science, but epistemology. How do we know what we know?
Neil
If I read Tom right, he is saying that the objective tests are scientifically preferable (indeed necessary) over intuitive statements that such and such a face looks "artificial" as opposed to "natural." And for the purpose of proposing any viable scientific theory that will be taken seriously by the scientific community he is right.
Even after such objective tests are made and the results are positive, one still needs to go through the process of verification, and confirmation, whether on the ground, or by better imaging, spectroscopic readings, or whatever. Why? because even objective tests don't give us the degree of certainty required to know for certain.
I get the distinct impression that jrich is not really arguing science, but epistemology. How do we know what we know?
Neil
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.245 seconds