Using Bayes to dismiss fringe phenomena

It would be a powerful tool to be able to dismiss fringe phenomena, prior to empirical investigation, on firm epistemological ground.

Thus I have elaborated on the possibility of doing so using Bayes, and this is my result:

Using Bayes to dismiss fringe phenomena

What do you think of it?

It would be a powerful tool to be able to dismiss fringe phenomena, prior to empirical investigation, on firm epistemological ground.

Thus I have elaborated on the possibility of doing so using Bayes, and this is my result:

Using Bayes to dismiss fringe phenomena

What do you think of it?

As a prequel to wiring my article, I looked into studies of UAPs. None of these studies concluded that all investigated UAP's turns out to be either known phenomena, or solely unidentifiable due to insufficient observation data. All studies show that a minor percentage of UAPs resist identification (between 5 and 20 percent).

Thus we cannot say that we currently have a scientific understanding of all aerial phenomena.

When this is combined with Fermi's paradox, how come we don't conclude that we should study them some more?

Hint: what happened to UFO sightings once everyone started to carry a high-resolution camera (in a smartphone) with them at all times?

2Jiro12y

If there's any inaccuracy in the reporting, any mundane event can "resist identification". Eyewitnesses are not as accurate as most people think they are. And while you claim that ones that have insufficient observation data were excluded, I'll believe it when I see a study, because that can mean a lot of things. (If there is enough information to rule out causes X and Y, but not Z or A, is that 'insufficient observation data'? What if they ruled out all sorts of causes but didn't rule out the possibility of, say, a hoax?)