Theories about aliens

[Kyriakos]

Since the ufology and other related outer cosmic intelligence seems to be always on the rise (definitely is here, sadly, with some massive internet forums dedicated to all things 'metaphysical') i thought i could put, again, the question as to aliens, if they exist in your view.
I once made another poll about aliens, which was whether one wanted them to exist or not, but this solely as to whether you are of opinion they have walked the earth.
Just to be clear: i mean intelligent alien civilizations, either from other stars or autocthonous (from the earth; there are some 'theories' which present such a scenario), non human.
Personally i always dislike talk of aliens. They might exist, science says it is highly likely that some exist in the rest of the universe, and it is at least possible that they have been on earth, although i have yet to see good evidence for that, that is evidence which is so powerful it will negate any scepticism.
Poll will be up in a min, or the alien equivalent of such time.

 

[_random_]

I have no idea, but I have yet to be persuaded by any claims that they have.

 

[Winner]

No. There is no reason to believe they have, and unless there is some compelling evidence (a big black mysterious monolith would suffice ), I am going to discount this as another manifestation of the human need to invent various kinds of supernatural beings. Aliens are just the modern version of fairies.

 

[Kyriakos]

No. There is no reason to believe they have, and unless there is some compelling evidence (a big black mysterious monolith would suffice ), I am going to discount this as another manifestation of the human need to invent various kinds of supernatural beings. Aliens are just the modern version of fairies.

Maybe there are often parallels, but this does not mean ALL accounts of alien sightings are explained by the same logic accounts of supernatural earthly creatures are explainable (if and when they are, anyway).
I think that if you dig into any phenomenon, almost no matter its quality, there is endless ability to analyze and synthesize, for you project your own mental world on it.

 

[peter grimes]

...i have yet to see good evidence for that, that is evidence which is so powerful it will negate any scepticism.

The way you say this makes it seem as if you have see some evidence already, but it's not very good quality evidence. Is this what you mean to say, and if so, what evidence have you seen?

 

[Winner]

Maybe there are often parallels, but this does not mean ALL accounts of alien sightings are explained by the same logic accounts of supernatural earthly creatures are explainable (if and when they are, anyway).
I think that if you dig into any phenomenon, almost no matter its quality, there is endless ability to analyze and synthesize, for you project your own mental world on it.

You know me, I am a cynical rationalist. I am sure a lot of people really believe this stuff, but to me it doesn't matter. I am only interested in what's real, or potentially real.

 

[Kyriakos]

The way you say this makes it seem as if you have see some evidence already, but it's not very good quality evidence. Is this what you mean to say, and if so, what evidence have you seen?

There is a wealth of supposed evidence, going from first person accounts (which must be in the hundreds of thousands pages printed or anecdotal already) to shadowy references in ancient and medieval books which can be made to seem like they have something to do with aliens, to the fact that we still live, no matter the current technology, like someone in a small but lit room, surrounded by vast realms of blackness, which by itself is no evidence for anything but it definitely is reason to keep on examining what is around us.

 

[muhtesem insan]

There's not enough evidence to even think it's probable.

 

[warpus]

Aliens don't walk, they glide.

 

[Winner]

BTW, we really need to get back to the Moon, otherwise we will never find TMA-1. We're late for that already...

 

[El_Machinae]

I hold Pascal's Wager on whether humanity will ever interact with ET. Regardless of the probability, we do not want to be lower on the technological scale than they are. The odds of being 'lower' when we meet are reduced by the faster we progress (because their rate of progress & time-under-development are independent of ours), so we benefit if we pro-actively augment our progress rate. If we're destined to never interact with ET, then faster progress has no ill effect. There's no downside to pushing for 'faster progress'. OTOH, if ET exists and we're 'lower' than them, then we exist at their whim.


As to aliens on Earth, I highly doubt it. The most parsimonious explanation is that people are confused about natural events, independently, but their confusion can be woven into a cohesively convincing tale. Ostensibly, seeing a glowing sphere does not help support another witness's tale of seeing a dark triangle, because the odds of being visited by both 'glowing sphere' aliens and 'dark triangle' aliens is obviously lower than either separate event. However, if I were to get you to read a series of convincing statements, some regarding glowing spheres and some regarding dark triangles, you'd find your suspicions of ET increasing.

I've looked for reasonable evidence of ET visiting us. The best evidence (imo) is the COMETA study, where (seemingly) qualified people went through case reports and chose the ones that had "ET visit" as a reasonable explanation (and where there were not other easier explanations).

Finally, though, I must admit an implicit bias on my part. I experience a bit of an existential dread at the idea of ET life interacting with Earth, because it would seem that we exist at their whim. Because of this bias, I am probably prone against believing evidence of ET life.

 

[Silurian]

BTW, we really need to get back to the Moon, otherwise we will never find TMA-1. We're late for that already...

No need to with TMA-0

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

This is like the teapot in space. It is impossible to prove in any yay or nay. We will always be unsure.

 

[warpus]

This is like the teapot in space. It is impossible to prove in any yay or nay. We will always be unsure.

I believe you have totally misunderstood Russell's teapot..

 

[Winner]

No need to with TMA-0

It's too well hidden. Finding TMA-1 should be easier.

 

[Skwink]

Yeah, me and my alien friends went for a walk yesterday.

 

[GoodGame]

I feel that any evidence to support the idea that aliens have influenced life on Earth is very circumstantial, at best.

I believe you have totally misunderstood Russell's teapot..

No I'd say he got it right. It's like someone saying "Do you believe in <insert proposition>?" instead of devising the experiment and falsifiable hypothesis (and then presenting the experiment).

The hypothesis in this case: Aliens did/did not walk on Earth. So what's the evidence that they did? Some funny cave art, and some people's doubt in native human ingenuity (e.g. to construct the pyramids). The evidence that they didn't? If they did, shouldn't we see some evidence in the form of technologically advanced metallurgy amongst the ancients?

But instead of that we got "Do you believe". So I'd say that is Russel's teapot.

 

[GenMarshall]

In other words, nope.

and it aint Chuck Testa!

 

[warpus]

No I'd say he got it right. It's like someone saying "Do you believe in <insert proposition>?" instead of devising the experiment and falsifiable hypothesis (and then presenting the experiment).

He said it implies that it's impossible to prove, and thus we will never be sure, making it seem like he thought that Russell's teapot was an example of why everything that can't be disproven should be accepted as a potential truth. Which is the exact opposite of what Russell's teapot is meant to imply.

 

[GoodGame]

He said it implies that it's impossible to prove, and thus we will never be sure, making it seem like he thought that Russell's teapot was an example of why everything that can't be disproven should be accepted as a potential truth. Which is the exact opposite of what Russell's teapot is meant to imply.

Basically you are right and Al is right. It's the same concept just looked at from the either end of the idea. You are right that Russel is ultimately attacking dogmatism forcing ideas into people by forcing decisions without evidence. Al is right because dogmatism is about forcing ideas that are non-falsifiable; that is they're forcing the idea without an examination of hypothesis's validity in the light of evidence.

Quoting Russel in Wikipedia

Spoiler :

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]

What Al said was that it's impossible to prove "ufos" which means that it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. If it were possible to determine the truth of "ufos" in a yes/no fashion then it would be a falsifiable hypothesis. So we have the case of someone asking "Do you believe in "ufos" although they are not a falsifiable hypothesis" which is exactly what Russel's teapot was about.


The thread is about asking about the ufos visiting Earth, which is the same as asking if you believe in god, satan, Odin, invisible pink unicorns, life in the other end of universe, etc... It's not falsifiable, yet the poster is asking the reader to commit to an opinion.