Nasa astronauts are crackpots

[musab]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvPR8T1o3Dc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjIObRRKd78&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIXvpjnRws&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pw13F7ahjY&feature=related

REMEMBER DONT LISTEN TO THEM YOUR ONLY MENT
TO LISTEN TO THE SKEPTICS SOCIETY

[Lester]

Interesting.
Back in 1975 I came across a crop circle when harvesting our wheat. Got soil and crop samples from the area, and sent them away for testing with no reply. I don't know what caused the circle of 1.5 metre diameter that layed the crop in the outer 200mm in a perfect anti clockwise direction and in the centre it was strewn around like a mad hair day. In the previous years there had been a number of crop circles found within 80kms of our farm.

I have not seen anymore such circles, or heard of any in this area since.

ps. I am not a believer in UFOs.

[renormalised]

OK....explain, why are they crackpots?? Because they've seen a UFO??. Hardly a good enough reason to call anyone a crackpot. If anything, the noisy debunkers that rant and rave about how these things don't exist and that there's an explanation for everything are the ones who are crackpots. They say where's the evidence....there's plenty of evidence around but you can't get anyone who is so intransigent on their world view to look at it in an objective manner because for the most part they'd rather want to deny it themselves. It's a waste of time arguing with them. As for most scientists....which scientist is going to come out publicly and possibly risk their reputation and career and make a statement publicly supporting the veracity of UFO's. They're not stupid. The ridicule would be enormous and the more stridently arrogant in the scientific community would have a field day being complete mongrels towards the others. Especially those that have well known public reputations and have commented on this. I could go on for ages about this, but I'm not going to bore anyone with the details. Suffice to say that before you go accusing anyone of being a crackpot, you actually take the time to go and find out about whatever they're talking about and have a look at who they are. No evidence....open your eyes. That's not to say there aren't crackpots and fringe dwellers who have all sorts of wacky beliefs about UFO's, but if you sort out the wheat from the chaff you'll see there's plenty to work with. All you have to do is get past your prejudices and preconceived notions and look at the whole subject objectively. Treat it scientifically, not like a religion.

[asimov]

Well yeah, but I'm making allowances in case Musab was perhaps being sarcastic. If not, then I fully agree with you, Carl.

[renormalised]

I think he was too....my post may have sounded like it was aimed at him but that wasn't my intention. It was meant for a more general audience and no one in particular.

The only part that could be meant for him was the challenge to explain why they might be crackpots. If he is serious about that, then why.

[asimov]

Yep no problems. I took your post as how it should be taken, don't worry:thumbsup:

[renormalised]

Just thought I'd cover my rear, in case anyone got the wrong impression:)

[asimov]

One has to do that these days, for sure!:lol::)

[asimov]

BTW I've seen a few crop circles up close like Lester. Very interesting to say the least..!

[CraigS]

Astronaut believing UFOs ? Who says these guys ever understood science in the first place?

Who cares anyway, especially if things like UFOs, aliens and exo-life don't reveal themselves, or influence us, in ways we can all consistently recognise them ?

They are all figments of a human obsession for belief .. and the more disturbing trend, is to see science becoming one such belief system, itself.

[renormalised]

Come off the grass, Craig:):P

Do you understand science?? Are you are scientist???

I think I know the answer to both those questions but I'd like to hear it coming from you.

The scientific method maybe rigorous in its approach (or at least we expect it to be) but science itself has never been the black and white beast you try to make it out to be. Never has and never will be. Not whilst it's being done by people, quite a few of which have rather large egos, reputations and careers to protect.

[renormalised]

Whoever said that anything has to be so obvious that Blind Freddy could even figure what was going on. Reality is not consistent, nor does it have to conform with anyone's idea of how it's supposed to function. That sentence I've highlighted is nothing more than a throw away line used to cover what is basically an ad hominem argument.

[pmrid]

I've read some of Erhardt's stuff and, frankly, don't find it particularly persuasive. The kind of faux wisdom he presents is exemplified by the proposition in quotes above - which is pure Erhadt - a parodox within a paradox. It's just a word game dressed up as cleverness.
Peter

[renormalised]

Who is he, Peter??. Never come across him before, not that I remember, anyway.

[pmrid]

http://www.wernererhard.com/
Peter

[jenchris]

I know nothing about anything that relates to UFOs - since anyone who does is immediately either forcefully debunked or forcefully told to shut their mouths.
I've seen some unexplained things which as an engineer seem unlikely.
I've seen microelectronics go from transistors in the 50s to the incredible array we have today as our ability to reverse engineer UFO remnants gets better. (or did they really INVENT this stuff?).
I've seen NASA try to get us to believe that all the pictures coming from Mars (at the beginning of the lander series) with a red sky haven't been touched up with a PS curve tool.

I'm not a conspiracy theory believer either - I just believe what I have observed, that governments take liberties with the truth - and we shouldn't believe just because we're told.
I'm more likely to believe that this is one of the signs posted outside the Oort Cloud

[renormalised]

Thanks...

[renormalised]

Love the sign, Jen:):):P

Very appropriate too:):)

[Paul Haese]

There are questions that need to be answered when skilled observers of aircraft see something they cannot explain. People in the Apollo program often had science or mathematics backgrounds, All the Apollo astronauts had imput into the designs and systems of the vehicles and methods. Maybe some of them are mad, and that should not be discounted. Maybe just maybe what they say is true. I don't know I was not there.

Having been in astronomy for a long time I cannot ever say that I have seen something that I could not explain, so I find it hard to understand those that claim they have seen UFO's. However, that does not mean they do not exist. It is though more likely that the tyranny of distance is prohibitive of visitations. One day no doubt perhaps thousands of years from now we may find out for sure.

Personally I am ready to be told one way or the other if we are bing visited right now.

[Ric]

That sign is a classic Jennifer. :rofl:

[renormalised]

Good reply, Paul.

I'm in the same boat as you....I've been in astronomy for a very long time and have yet to actually see anything (flying) I can't find an explanation for. However, I have seen crop circles and alleged UFO landing sites. After looking at them, I can see where many of the people who comment on these phenomenon come from. I've seen some rather strange things that would be almost impossible to explain if you weren't willing to consider the possibilities. I can also see where people are coming from when they report seeing a UFO. For what is the strictest definition of the word...Unidentified Flying Object. They can't identify it, so that's what it is. Doesn't mean it's not something rather prosaic, but it also could be the real deal as well.

In so far as the usual reply about the "tyranny of distance" being the biggest obstacle to them being here, that is a rather weak point for argument considering it's only coming from our own limited technological perspective, but it is a valid assumption when coming from that perspective. Have a look at what our technology was like at the turn of last Century. Ask any scientist of the day could we actually ever fly to the Moon. I think you know what answer you would get. Most didn't even believe it was possible to fly, especially with heavier than air devices. Three years later, two bicycle mechanics proved them all wrong. Heck, they were getting that same answer almost right up until they actually did it....1956 was the last time any noted scientist actually dismissed the idea. You see where I getting at with all of this....we don't even know what we're going to have, technologically speaking, in 50, 100 or 200 years time. Let alone 1000 or more years, and as history has so well taught us much of the speculation or dismissal of what might be has proven to be wide of the mark. In all cases, those things we thought we'd never have, or have done, usually ended up happening much sooner than was expected (or unexpected, as the case may be).

[jenchris]

As astronomers, we're not really equipped to see these UFOs are we?
We often have scopes that have a FOV of less than 1degree.
If we aren't looking into that, we're looking into a laptop screen or a star chart - how much time do we spend looking up?
And when it is a bit cloudy, how many of us are out there - not a lot I'd guess.
When it is a bit moony or LP from town is bad? Seeing is bad? we're not there are we?

Overall, I'd lay odds a Taxi driver would spend more time (than us) looking at the sky while having a smoke waiting for his next fare.
I'll bet in reality we're more likely to not see something even if it was there, we're too involved with something else.

[renormalised]

True, Jennifer. An UFO would have to hover right in front of your scope before you even saw it:):P

That's another furphy about it all....the "Astronomers are looking at the sky all the time. Surely they'd be the ones to see an UFO before anyone else". Even astronomers fall for and promulgate that one. It's a load of rubbish. Most professional astronomers spend their observing in front of computer screens and then reducing that data at a later date. 95% have never even looked through a telescope, visually. Many amateurs have a better knowledge of the night sky than most professionals, and as you have mentioned even the amateurs aren't always using "mark1 eyeball" and having a look.

Actually, many astronomers would be considered rather poor observers of sky phenomena, whether it's natural or not.

[Omaroo]

Let's also throw this into the equation. Astronauts of the 50's and early 60's were experiencing environments somewhat new to humans. Super and hypersonic ascent and re-entry speeds play all sorts of atmospheric ionisation tricks at these speeds and altitudes. Liquids do some pretty funky things in zero-g, super cold environments too. Remember Glenn's "pretty fireflies"?

"Unidentified" means just that. I can't seem to recall any astronaut talking about funny green men - and none would. Their place in the programme depends on their level-headedness.

[renormalised]

They could've been green....if the capsules started to tumble wildly and they'd just eaten:):P

[joe_smith]

I have been interested in UFO since I was a kid and many of the early UFO books hinted at Astronauts having knowledge of UFO's and they were silent on the subject. This silence to the sceptics was the proof they used, to say it was a false idea, they had no personal experience with UFO's. But look now some are saying they have had experience’s with some form of alien contact. Now this is a good turning point for the so called sceptics. Here we have the proof from the horses mouth so to speak, That its true!! there is more to the subject then what’s generally known. More and more skilled observers are coming forward, some of these people we put our lives in their hands, they are also telling of their experiences. Take a look at the doco “I know what I saw” to see the full story.

When the most famous of Astronauts makes a quote like this ,with close to tears in his eyes we have better take note "Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers" why would he say this?? and what is he referring to?? Or how about Astronaut Edgar Mitchell confesses UFOs exist. He sates disclosure of the UFO story has already begun the truth is already being released all you have to do is open your eyes and see for yourself its there. Most people don’t care about the world or universe they live in ,they are more interested in facebook, x-factor and all of the other mind numbing trash we deal with 24/7. That’s how secrets are kept today, keep the human herd feed on fear and trash media. But most of all keep them away from dreaming their own ideas, their own hopes and wishes. Keep them jumping for the prize of a better life we all dream we will get one day, knowing full well that the 1%'s will never allow it.

Science today is not the science of yesterday its not like the time of Newton, Pastor, Galileo or Darwin. These people were curious about the world we live in, they were lone adventures looking for how they fit in the universe. They were alone against the system they were a 1 man army for the truth. Today's science institution is more like a business institution, and it wants a return on the money invested in the science they fund. This funding and profit motive behind the field of science is open to hidden/personal agendas and corruption and lies. The meaning of this is, to be a scientist in today’s science institution means you play the game by their rules, if you want a slice of the funding pie. You do this whether or not you believe in anything you have to say is true and false, The institution says what’s true and false not the scientists.

Just like the Astronauts that have come forward to say “hang on our world view is not like we think it is - its not like we are being told”. Also remember this, there are many, many scientists that also disagree with the science institution's view of our world a view that forced on us, a view that my be false and they full well know it.

The question of “Where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going?” is nowhere near answered, not even close to any hard core proof. So to upset the hard core Science people, what gives you the right to say what is true and what is not. What makes you king of the universe who gives you the right and power to push your version science as the only truth.... I’m sorry I forgot, its the people paying you to say it. its the money making, profit driven science institution who just happen to be in the 1% club. Just my view of it :)

[xelasnave]

Science is science and people are peope no need to confuse the two.

I spend an unhealthy amount of time under the stars.. all night most nights ..and a lot of time outside ...never seen anything that could not be explained.

I have seen things that looked very strange until I worked out what optical game was being played on my vission.

A reflection from a plan thru a cloud one time had me re thinking my views on ufo,s but after a while I could work out all normal here...I could see such could be seen by others who think they have witnessed ET flying by ...and some like the attention of relating stories that make them the center of attention.

Folk should remeber just because something can not be readily explained that does not give licience to invent a reality to substitue for something that is without answer at the moment...

alex

[PeterM]

Ditto to what Alex said.
It's a stretch that amateur astronomers don't recognise when something different happens in the sky with the naked eye, heck we see meteors, satellites, just a flicker from airplane in the distance, a high beam light reflecting of fog in the distance etc, etc. Especially when amateurs know the sky. I remember reading once that if more people knew about astronomy there would be less UFO reports. As there are now a gazillion people with mobile phone cameras out there, so where is the increase in UFO picks, seems there are less than ever. My god we should be filming the invasion by now.

PeterM

[pmrid]

I like to test ideas by looking at them backwards. If there have been alien visits to earth, encounters between aircraft and alien craft, squadrons and flotillas of alien craft over this city or that, then we have to assume that those visiting aliens observed us more or less as we are - a species with a mastery of materials, construction, flight, telecommunications and so on and so on. Not a bunch of amoeba crawling about on a cave floor.
Why, then, in all those encounters, if you accept for a moment that they were indeed encounters, has there never been any recorded communication, or attempt at communication? In all of those encounters, why has there never been the equivalent of a decent photo-stop, pee break, overmnight solourn, alien dirty weekend or whatever you want to call it.
Are we so unattractive a species that these visitors might have come all thiis way (and presumably from multiple distant places- not just one) and not attempted some form of contact, exchange of messages - why haven't we had a M.O.U with the Sirius B folks?
If an idea is credilble, it generally balances out when looked at from a different perspective. The alien visitation idea does not. At least not to me.
Peter

[jenchris]

Peter - a couple of things occur to me here.
First contact protocols - do not interfere with species that are not yet capable of peaceful intercourse.

Do not wander about with no clothes on - it's bad for your virus status quo.

Avoid learning one of 289 languages.

When you come back in a year, and time dilation has moved you forward 150 years, you're going to get a helluva kick if you made yourself a God last time you were here.

[xelasnave]

If anyone is smart enough to get here they will be smart enough not to be seen by us and as we dont see any that proves they are already here.
alex

[renormalised]

Most people don't even bother to look up anymore, Peter.

Most amateur astronomers don't recognise many changes occurring in the sky because for the most part they're still unfamiliar with it. You or I would, simply because we have a lot of experience behind us. Most of the members here would...or I should hope so. But even we can get bamboozled at times. And many times, we're not outside for whatever reasons at the time. Doing other things, sleeping etc etc.

In any case, any credible researcher looking at UFO's doesn't go chasing what are the obvious cases of optical illusions, "lights in the sky" and such. What they go chasing are those reports where a witness has spotted something very unusual hanging around...like a full blown metallic disk hovering or flying on by, lights that do have something physical behind them etc etc etc. Then they look at those reports and see whether they hold up to scrutiny, or not. Those that do (and there are a lot more than you think), well and good. Those that don't fall by the wayside.

[renormalised]

Yep, you might disturb the neighbours or the people in the next hotel room:):P



And you can get arrested for indecent exposure:):P



Two are enough, English and Chinese. They're the most popular:)



Lord it over the natives...get all the boys/girls, the money and the kudos from all that adulation:):P:P:P

[jenchris]

There was a case a few years back here on the Gold Coast - three large V shaped occultations of the sky - about 14km on a side over M1 at Gaven
At least a dozen people I know saw something but couldn't photo it - it was black on a dark night - just the stars disappeared - and the sky was 'darker'

[renormalised]

Question solved!!!!:):P

[renormalised]

Each "V" was 14km on a side??. That's pretty big!!!.

Was the sky cloudy at all??

Did the "V's" have sharply defined edges??

[pmrid]

Now there it is: that funny-looking guy I saw in the elevator this morning wasn't a Japanese tourist coming home after a night in a Karaoke bar at all - it was Yoda himself. I have had an encounter of the nth kind.
Peter

[pmrid]

I did. But now after 150 years, I forget which one. I'll start again. How will I ever explain this back home?

Peter

[PeterM]

Not admitting anything... trying putting a glow stick in a large white helium balloon on a steady night, let it drift and follow it for ages naked eye and then in binos. In fact do it with several balloons and read/hear about the credible UFO sightings the next day in the paper and on the radio/tv, I mean what else could it be its a spaceship right?

Actually there is an even more convincing way to do this but it involves fire so i wont go there....

About 15 years ago as one of about 30 amateur astronomers near Rathdowney we witnessed 4 incredibly bright pieces of space debris falling back to Earth. In fact seen all over SE Qld. Co-incidentally on the same night in some Brisbane suburbs power went out thanks to a possum committing suicide in an electrical transformer. Next morning UFO "researchers" are on the radio claiming it could be nothing less proof of UFO activity, made the papers as well. We rang the radio stations, rang the tv and the only mention we got was that "astronomers observing near Rathdowney also saw the UFOs" wow we unwittingly confirmed it!

Years ago I was presenting an Astronomy night with others to a group of school students at Marsden, Southside Brissy, who spotted a "UFO" moving towards the oval ....yup someone pulled the old glow stick balloon trick. looked convincing in binos!

Years ago at Warwick while presenting a night sky tour myself and several others were bamboozelled by 3 "stars" slowly travelling in perfect triangle formation, horizon to horizon, Tony (FirstLight) can tell you what that was cause he and others saw it too from considerable distance away..... so what was it? I know exactly (well the next day I did, but I didn't jump to strange light = spaceship = aliens) but I will let you do some internet searching. US military is a good start...
To the kids it was a UFO (like aliens) I mean what else travels in perfect formation through the night sky?

Many years ago I met Robert Schaeffer who had written a book called UFOs the Final Verdict. He researched the historically best known "events" Meticulously tracing the stories as best he could to the source and in every case he came across the stories had grown their own legs even when a perfectly normal explanation had been arrived at.

How many everyday people saw the horizon glow of Comet McNaught and believed they were seeing a UFO - heaps that I met.

How about the farmer who saw the dump and burn of F111s over Riverfire over Brisbane from more than a hundred km away and thought they were UFOs...

I ask again, gazillions of mobile cameras all over the world..... so where are they? Even if you accept the amateur astronomer rarely looks skyward then this more than blows any argument away. Not a shred of hard evidence, nothing.

PeterM.

[marki]

pffftt silly humans still think we need spaceships to get around :rolleyes:. No imagination at all :P.


Mark

[blindman]

Exactly right! And most people do not understand it.

By the way if you want some fun viewing UFOs go to Pindz media.
I am not trying to tell that is true, but there are some clips even made in space and VERY intriging !
Cheers all, Neville

[astroron]

Carl, show us real evidence:question:
As a dedicated observer for over twenty five years and having spent great deal of my life outside wether it be in the military or other pursuit's I have Yet to see anything that could not be explaned by rational thought.
As has been noted many times, there has not as far as I know any clear unambiguous photo,image,video or film that is clear,of a UFO that has been proven to be true.
I have yet yet to be convinced of any ET's.
Read "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagen for a good explaination of the UFO phenomena.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[TrevorW]

The universe is infinite, the mind is vast, never believe in the impossible or the finite,

The truth is out there

[renormalised]

Not up to me to show you any evidence....there's more than enough to trawl through on the net if you want to look for it. Have you even looked for yourself or read any books on the subject from credible authors??. It would be better if you did read some of the books as there's a lot of garbage on the net. In any case, how are you going to prove the truth of anything with UFO's. Do you honestly think that unless it crashed that you were going to get any, so called, "hard proof". Even then, the military would be all over it like a swarm of bees and no one else would get a look in. Use some common sense!!!. As for any, clear unambiguous pictures, there are quite a few around. A lot more than you might believe. Many of them can be readily had off the net or found in any credible book about the subject.

I've read all of Sagan's books....despite the fact that he was a good scientist, I would take anything he said on subjects such as this with a grain of salt. He is just as much in the dark as anyone else and all the pontification and scientific posturing about their impossibility or unlikelihood is just a symptom of his ignorance. He can only go by what he knows scientifically, and by what he (and others) want to accept as being a part of the scientific paradigm. He also had a reputation and career to protect. No scientist with Carl's reputation or fame would risk going against what he believes in, or what he professes to acknowledge as the scientific "truth". It would be both professional and personal "suicide".

You want the names of a few books, let me know and I can give them to you. Or at least find them on an online bookstore and point you to there.

[renormalised]

Peter, I'll get back to your post tomorrow....watching some DVD's :):)

[Exfso]

Having been in the Aviation game for 30 yrs, I was in contact with a few pilots, one of whom was a very good friend of mine who had experiences whilst in flight that defied explaination. One British Airways Crew on a flight from Sydney to Nadi reported a very strange object flying in front of them. At the time there were no other official aircraft within 200nm of them. In any case the description they gave me was not that of anything that remotely resembled anything that was supposed to fly at the time. I am talking 1971. The whole cockpit crew saw this object but decided against officially reporting it for fear of ridicule. I also had a very good friend of mine flying a twin engine aircraft from Leigh Creek in SA to Adelaide at night when he was "buzzed" by a silver disc that proceeded to play chicken with him for around 30 mins until he approached the built up areas north of Adelaide, where it disappeared at what my mate called "light speed". This pilot had over 20,000hrs flying time and was obviously extremely competent. This episode literally scared the crap out of him. He was as white as a ghost when he landed in Adelaide. Just a few of the things that I experienced whilst in Flight Service! I know for a fact that some of the Military Air Traffic Controllers in Darwin had similar experiences whilst I was stationed in the NT.
So IMHO, somethings that happen just defy logic, call these things UFO's or whatever, but there are far too many sightings made by extremely credible people to disregard the possibility that higher intelligences may be checking us out. Mind you the fact that there is no known confirmation of this could indicate that they find us dumb, stupid and boring. Who knows?:rolleyes:

[Jen]

Well that explains it Carl Sagan was a pot head wasnt he :rofl::rofl:

[PeterM]

Nothing more to add to this thread from me, there are a few posts here that have just got to be pulling the leg....geez I hope so. The link below may be of some interest. Think I'll chill with the fairies in the garden....
http://badufos.blogspot.com/
PeterM

[renormalised]

He was, actually:)

[Exfso]

Peter, I can assure you I for one am definitely not pulling anyone's leg. I reckon you could ask just about anyone who has worked in the Aviation operations area if they know of any strange happenings, and I would bet they have either experienced or know someone who has experienced something of this nature.

[renormalised]

There would be no point in trying to convince you simply because I know how you think about this from what you've written. In actual fact, it's not my job to even try. You need to come to terms with this in your own time. If you don't or don't want to, then that's fine as well. We all see the world through different eyes.

[KenGee]

Is the obvious answer that people who think UFO = little green men just want to brighten their dull lives with a good probing.

[renormalised]

All that would be a given.

But then again, what could an intelligent amoeba be capable of??:)



How do you know that there hasn't been any communication. Just because no one has come out with a tap recorded message or a book from any encounter that may have happened, doesn't mean to say that nothing has occurred. What was the last thing you heard your Grade 12 teacher say to you as you left school....now, prove it. You can't. It's the same here. Hypothetically, I could come out and say I've had extensive conversations with a group of alien scientists who regularly come here to observe this planet (I haven't, BTW, this is just a "what if") and I've learnt quite a few things. However, they wouldn't allow me to record the conversation or take with me any proof of the encounter. How would I be able to prove any of it, and despite having actually been in that situation, the fact that I had no proof...like a book or a recorded message...would make me look like a certified wacko. It would be my word against everyone else. Every "debunker" and "skeptic" and some scientists would descend down upon my head like a ton of bricks and the media would treat the whole affair as a joke. You can now see why most people would want to shut up and keep quiet about this sort of thing. The few who do have the courage to speak up, even if it's just pure fantasy on their part, still end up having to fall on their own swords and the way that most are treated is utterly despicable. If it were real, I would laugh at those idiots who rail against all of this, if they ended up experiencing an encounter themselves. I can tell you now, a great many of them would curl up into a little ball in the corner of the ship and babble away like demented fools. Their entire world views would come crashing down around their feet and they wouldn't be able to cope with the shock. Strip away a person's identity or a core belief system like that (and not just in a case like this...in any situation) and they go to pot. That's a fact. Only those who already "subscribe" to that world view or have strong enough personal integrity would manage to survive it intact. The same would also be applicable in the other direction as well, for some. This psychological deconstruction goes on when people get attacked for things like this and the guilty parties doing the damage seem to get some vicarious pleasure out of doing it....showing their greater powers of logic, rationality and "healthy skepticism" to the greater audience, most of whom are as ignorant as those doing the debunking, even more so. It's like one huge chest beating exercise as to who has the biggest brain/mouth/opinion/ego/set of qualifications etc etc.

And then you wonder why there's no "open" communication between us and them!!!. A quick look at our TV broadcasts and some judicious snooping on the radio frequencies coming from this planet would be more than enough to convince any intelligent group of explorers from any planet that apart from making a few attempts here and there, it would be pointless to even try and openly contact the species living here. You'd be putting your life in danger nearly every time you tried. They can't even agree to live together in relative peace amongst themselves, let alone with anyone else. The general populace of the planet, in some few areas, might be reasonably well behaved and sensible. But the rest aren't. Nor are their governments and militaries to be trusted. Observe them yes, contact them....only the few deemed appropriate enough to do so, the rest forget about. Let them continue to wonder about our presence and make up stories. And hope that one day they grow out of their petulant childhood and finally open their eyes. More for their own sakes than anyone else.

If I were in a position of finding a civilisation that was very much like us, that's how I'd treat them if I were an explorer from another part of the galaxy. For whatever you might think of the idea, the Prime Directive, of Star Trek ilk, is a very sensible idea and one we ourselves should heed once we become able to travel out amongst the stars.



How do you define "credibility"??. The goalposts for that little definition get shifted around all the time, depending on any number of circumstantial variables that might impact the situation at the time. Beliefs, perspective (world views, etc), emotional states, prior experiences...everything needs to be taken into account. One person's credibility is another's load of nonsense. I haven't seen one case at all, for anything, where someone's personal views and feeling haven't tainted a discussion about this question....or any other, for that matter. Especially with the subject of UFO's, objectivity rapidly goes out the window quite often on both sides of the argument. And, nothing comes of it, except innuendo and slanging matches. Even amongst scientists. If anything can remain objective for any period of time, where people are concerned.

[musab]

Remember now boys and girls your all
to listen to peterm dont listen to that
crackpot who walked on the moon whats
his name edger mitchell and that other
guy who went around the earth 22 times
it doesnt matter how many phd,s they
have or that dutch four star nato general
peterm is the authority on everything.;)

[xelasnave]

I thought you were of the view that PeterM was incorrect and now your post tells us to listern to him and he is the authority on everything...I am confused.:shrug:

There is no need to get so passionate mate:D..the good thing about this site is that we all respect each others views and try and discuss things in a polite fashion reflective of the number of good folk who are members here.

I like the material you post:thumbsup:..it is interesting but never presume you can tell me how to think;)...so chill out:).

You should appologise to iceman in my view..to call him a troll is very silly he is the founder of this site and deserves respect..you havent degraded him but degraded yourself ...see we are friends here... who but a friend would bother to point out that you are being a dill:).... read all his posts before you judge;) ..and in fact dont judge anyone just because someone does not accept what you feel is fact does not mean attack is called for.

Otherwise I take this opportunity to welcome you to iceinspace and look forward to you being a regular interesting contributor.

I try to approach the world that anything is possible but tend to rely only upon my first hand personal experieince... I dont care if the Pope said he has seen an alien..thats ok ..but like I say ..I need to meet one before I rule out the possibility...

Anyways I Hope you have a good day:).
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

I cant find the link but I read about folk being engaged in preparing strategies for a meeting should it occur... to get funding for such means someone knows something if they are working on getting the politics sorted...maybe.

The key is as with anything review the material and when you have a full understanding comensurate with the "experts" retain a view that reality may contain something unexpected which runs in a direction different to all expectations.

alex

[jenchris]

Considering the age of the galaxy and the amount of stars (and so presumably Goldilocks Planets) it would be a little odd if there weren't civilisations older than us and actually civilised enough not to have incinerated their planet.
Having said that, it's unwise to be anthropomorphc and give attributes to others that we have ourselves.

The radio waves from this planet will only have proceeded into space 100 light years - not many planets will have picked up the signals and considering that we now no longer use commercial radio that penetrates the atmosphere (it's energy wasteful) most of what we transmit is just beacon stuff.

Other civilisatios would I think progress similarly and it would be difficult unless we had the right frequency (which in fact may be out of our normal band) to find them - SETI hasn't found anything yet.

So we find ourselves having just reached, in real terms, the radio/electromagnetic age. And all of a sudden we expect the air to be full of amazing transmissions.

As Prof Brian Cox noted, "all the radio telescopes in all the world have together over the period of their working lives picked up a total of energy that is the equivalent of the kinetic energy of a snowflake falling." In other words - b****r all.

Why do we expect to get such red carpet treatment to have visitation by 'others'? - personally I don't think our civilisation is anything to crow about and as the years pass, I despair of what we've failed to accomplish with the tools we've managed to 'invent'.

If things continue as they are, we'll be back to the stone age in a few years and have no way of producing the energy to progress to real civilisation, having learned the lessons we need to.

[xelasnave]

If we are alone and that could be proved beyond doubt to me (and that would seem impossible) I think I would go for the Popes version of history...

But I doubt if the whole place came into being (if you subscribe to a big bang rather than a static infinite universe) so life could be found only on Earth and that humans could be alone...
AND if a steady state model there is infinite time available for anything to happen...
Reasonable but proves zip.

The attempt by Drake to provide a formula, if it does nothing else, makes one consider the possible opportunities but any "life presumption input" will provide high probabilities ..still high probability is not proof and may be entirely misleading.

We simply dont know one way or the other in real terms and for my money any strong position folk take is meaningless other than it is interesting to hear out opinions and views..

alex

[Zaps]

Advanced beings with the ability to traverse interstellar/intergalactic space, voyage to Earth and make crop circles and frighten some low-IQ hicks.

Compelling.

[renormalised]

Zaps, ol' buddy....can you prove that any of these "hicks" have low IQ's??

[musab]

Advanced beings with the ability to traverse interstellar/intergalactic space, voyage to Earth and make crop circles and frighten some low-IQ hicks.

Compelling.

another sagan android parroting what he was told carl sagan was
a good man but was dead wrong their new god is Neil deGrasse Tyson
both have done good work to advance astronomy thats about it but both
are not fit to lick the boots of dr edger mitchell or gordon cooper.

[jenchris]

Goodness, you don't think they'd bother to come by space do you?
Much easier to slip into dim 7 there and then slip out here than mess about traveling LIGHT YEARS!
No need to exceed the speed of light and no need to waste all that energy.

[TrevorW]

Must agree dimensionnal travel would be much simpler although energy requirements would still IMO be high to create a dimensional rift large enough for a craft to pass through :question:

[renormalised]

The only way to find out is do the experiments.....scientists pontificating on theory have never solved any problems, only created more questions in need of answering. Use theory as a guideline and then run the experiments to either confirm or reject the theory.

[jenchris]

I already did Earthling - :D

[astroron]

Hey Mister ,if you cannot have a discusion without talking C*** and calling people names then don't bother posting :mad2:

[xelasnave]

Here is one list of UFO reports.

http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/unknowns.htm

If on the level it seems some reports have been made by folk you would be inclined to take seriously with curious radar observations to boot, and yet we still have nothing "solid" it seems.

However as strange as some of these report may be the fact is there is no explaination which means just that...no explanation so until there is one for folk to conclude aliens provides an explanation is unreasonable.

I think answers are more likely to be found by studying human behaviour rather than alien behaviour;)

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

Who said I was from this planet:):P:P

[renormalised]

What do you want as "solid" evidence. A piece of the craft???. Photo opportunities with the bugs themselves???. A book explaining why quantum physics is taught in alien kindergarten???. This insistence on ridiculously impossible procurement of evidence is nothing more than an attempt to get out of looking at the evidence that's already there by those that don't want to take the time to actually look at it. Mainly because their points of view don't include the possibility that something extraordinary is happening. Basically, they don't want to upset their little sandbox of reality by upsetting the applecart.

You think that science deals with evidence any more reliable than what we see with many UFO reports??? I have some very bad news for all of you that think so. Have any of you ever seen an atom, or experienced a neutrino passing through your body???. How do you know that stars are powered by nuclear fusion processes....ever seen it happening first hand???. Think everything you see is solid???. Think that galaxy you stare at in the eyepiece each night looks like it does now, or is even in the same place as it appears to be??. Don't for one minute think that just because a scientist says so, that something is on the up and up. In some cases, they know no better than you do what's going on. Only what they think they know. Theory doesn't make it right, or gospel anything. All a theory happens to be is an idea of what they believe to be occurring. There's nothing wrong in listening to and taking notice of what a scientist tells you. In general, they have a better handle on the workings of their chosen field than the general person on the street. Even the interested "amateur". However, they're not the paragon of all knowledge nor are they even necessarily correct in their assumptions they keep as part of their scientific paradigm. Use the brains you were given and think for yourselves, with the advice you're given or find for yourselves. Do cultivate a logical and rational approach to whatever you're interested in, but don't let yourself fall into the trap of being anal about sticking to the accepted ideas and/or methods of doing things. Be a critical thinker, not a skeptic. There is a very big difference between the two. One that really has to be learnt through experience and example.

[xelasnave]

Yes Carl a piece of craft would go a long way to convince me, but I would want to see the craft flying before you cut off a bit;)...and even then would I be convinced and not wonder if I was being mislead.

I find no difficulty in being both a critical thinker and a skeptic which probably has to with being on the planet too long:). I have little faith in an eyewitness from a lifetime of disappointing experience that even the best witness can be mistaken.

You are talking to a man who is only half on with most of what you would call accepted science so as far as UFOs etc go I have no plans of applying critical analysis to this matter ... I do enjoy reading others thoughts on the matter looking at reports etc but I choose to remain unconvinced of anything.... yet...:D

As you said it is not up to you to prove anything but on reading your advise following that statement earlier I did take time to read anything I could find..hence the blue book find.

Whether they are here have been here etc does not worry me one way or the other....

Funny I went to the movies on Monday night to take in "Cowboys and Aliens" I enjoyed it actually but I am pretty sure it is not a true story:D but am happy to entertain even such an extreme possibility as possible:).

The final reality is I suspect there is still a great deal we are uninformed upon, and as you have mentioned in the past..who knows what will be correct and accepted science in a century or two.

We have achieved so much in a short time but we forget just how short a time we have been at it....the concept of the photon is not yet a century old (and of course the wave particle duality less again).
It was not long ago the atom was really considered a fundamental particle of course we have moved past that point.. and my point is history is always unfolding..one man after another one civilization after another...there have been many of each with little trace as time errodes memories and buildings etc.

Still there is little with twich I would disagree upon in your observations and enjoy your passion when talking about the matters that pop up:thumbsup:.

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

Alex....a critical thinker is open minded and will consider the possibilities. A skeptic is not. Skeptics invariably jump at the gun to dismiss what they hear without considering anything apart from their own version of reality through the lens of their egos. Critical thinkers take a subject on its merits and will not judge it on ego or perceived paradigm. Critical thinkers never attack the messenger, skeptics pretty much thrive on ad hom attacks.

That's just some of the differences between the two.

"Gunfight at the O.K Space Station":):):P:P Looks like a good movie, actually. Only seen the previews, but it's got some good actors in it:)

I don't think those flying it would appreciate anyone chopping their mode of transport into pieces just to sate someone's curiosity!!!!:):P

Needless to say the only way you're ever going to get that proof is if you see one crash and go grab a piece. However, you'd never keep it for long. The military would inevitably find out and come and get it, just as they would descend on the crash very quickly and clean up the area almost like they'd hoovered everything up. You might be lucky and find some bits lying around, but given the subject matter, I doubt it. The area would've been gone over with a fine toothed comb.

If after all that you still had a feeling you were being misled, there'd be nothing anyone, not even the aliens themselves, could do to convince a person like that, of otherwise. What would be the point.

You know what would be funny...if you out at somewhere like Coona' or anywhere out west looking through your scope, one night, and then you felt a tap on your shoulder. Only to turn around and see a Grey standing there and have it ask could it take a look through your scope:):P:P

[TrevorW]

Whether they exist or not is mote, the thought that they may exist alien or not opens my mind to the realms of what may be considered impossible and improbable with wonderment.

As another said

"Tha age of space travel is no longer and age of secrets. Space travel which aspires to suns and stars also plumbs the abysses of our past for us. Gods and priests, kings and heroes emerge form the dark chasms. We must challenge them to deliver up their secrets for we now have the means to find out all about our past and what may be our future"

[Kevnool]

Funny thread i love it.

Keep me laughing.

[KenGee]

Proof you can't handle the proof....what's next astrolgy can find lots of people who thinks that works.

[xelasnave]

Well I live in a very remote place in a forrest no one knows I am there really and I suppose I could have a shed full of space craft ..who would know...mayby they live further down the road ..who would know:shrug:.

I am being open minded in the extreme:D.

But if there is substance to any of these reports and something is going on er down whatever then where do they come from:shrug:...

Mars of course:eyepop:

They live under the surface and come here for ...I resist the urge to mention anything covered in the abduction stories;)...lets say holidays:)... and they are actually the Neandathals we thought we had wiped out years ago:rolleyes:... but they just got smarter and moved next door:)...Mars that is:P. The methane observed comes from the under ground cities...mmm as fanciful as this is at least we have some methane to observe which is more than any credible documented explained verified reviewed reports about UFOs etc.

I am trying to fight the urge to be sckeptical and have thought a fair bit about it so as not to dismiss it too fast and qualify as a thinker in this case...still I dont want to be remembered for giving any time to this subject really;)... its fun I guess:D...mmm I remember what fun is:eyepop:...

I defy anyone to prove the underground Mars idea wrong but please treat it with extreme scepticism:lol::lol::lol:.

alex:):):)

[firstlight]

There was a time that I believed most of what is purported to be "factual" and "eye-witness accounts" and I have since learned that what one person sees and perceives is not necessarily the same as the person next to them. A case in point: At an astrocamp in the early 90's a group of about a dozen amateurs witnessed one heck of a fireball. One of the witnesses stated that he observed it split into a least 2 pieces before extinguishing. I was standing next to him and watched it disappear and I did not see this but about half of our group agreed with him. Anther group of amateurs were observing 50 or so km away and after we spoke to them we discovered about the same ratio of split or no split. I know it is a simple story but shows that anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all... our brains interpret everything we see to make sense of the world. Mick viewed the fact that some saw one thing and that others saw another in two separate groups as evidence that in fact the meteor did break up overhead, and I do believe he is right. However in Brisbane another story was developing, witnesses also saw this slow moving meteor and reported it to radio stations and the like and it was immediately seized by the local UFO nutters as obvious evidence of UFO activity... these guy didn't witness it, most got their info 2nd and 3rd hand, yet they ruled the airwaves and print media as authorities. When we contacted the newspaper who printed the story and let them know that what was seen was not unidentified, had creditable witnesses who knew what it was, we got a response like "Oh, it was not a spaceship?" Their faces dropped and they didn't want to know us.

This year at the Queensland Astrofest Charlie Lineweaver spoke about "Are we Alone" and his argument was pretty convincing that there is no reason at all for the rise of intelligence. Over 200 million years the dinosaurs ruled the Earth with out the need for a superior intelligence. No other intelligence has arisen on this planet other than homo sapiens from Africa, despite the fact that several continents have been isolated for tens to hundreds of million years. The expectation that if there is no superior intelligence occupying the top of the tree then one must arise he referred to as the "Planet of the Apes fallacy" or some such. The only place that we know that intelligence arose appears to have only occurred once, and "trawling through material on the internet for proof" shows that that is very much in debate. Getting back to Charlie, he is very much of the opinion that non terrestrial (that is Earth) life is not a foregone conclusion because there is no reason that it should or has to occur.

I myself cannot believe that there is so much universe out there that life, even intelligent life, does not exist or did not exist or will not exist. I do find his arguments pretty convincing that there may be less that I had previously thought. Sadly this may mean that it is extremely unlikely that any other intelligence may visit us. I can hope, but I fear that he is on the right track.

BTW, I do remember those satellites Peter, and it was one of the coolest things I have ever seen.

I know a bit of a rant and gum flapping, and I expect many indignant responses and finger pointing. However that doesn't change the facts... No other intelligent life on this planet (yes, yes I know, dolphins and whales are clever and have large brains, but they have not filled that empty niche as supreme intelligence of the oceans), either now or any evidence there existed in the past and there has been ample opportunity.

[firstlight]

I'm just a bit puzzled how to measure something in the sky... 14km object 14 km away would take up a sizeable chunk of the sky, but you would have to know the distance to calculate the size, and if it were closer, bigger again. How did they measure the size? And if they blocked the stars wouldn't startrails shown exactly what was in the sky?

You know a mate has an astronomy education site and got a couple of calls that the "Moon disappeared then reappeared then disappeared" earlier this month. I saw it too, it that really strange and rare phenonoma that amateurs hardly ever see... I believe it is called clouds :lol:

[renormalised]

Unfortunately, they're all too common these days. Especially in summer.

[renormalised]

With respect to Prof Lineweaver...everything he may have said at Astrofest on this matter was nothing more than supposition and conjecture, based on very little or no evidence. He can't verify any of the assertions he has made, so all he has proffered is nothing more than opinion. It's not even based on theoretical grounds.

Of course he can spin a convincing argument, and gain a captive audience simply because he has the educational background and reputation behind him. But that doesn't make anything he has said correct. Once you've developed a good background in science and understand how science works, you will come to understand that despite what you're told, nothing is a clear cut as it seems. We are far from knowing anything about the possibilities of life, and even intelligent life in the universe. We barely even understand how it came to be on this planet, yet we do know that not very long after its formation, life appeared. That's really all we know, for the most part. Yet you hear scientist make statements that, in all honesty, they know they can't hold up to the glare of objective scrutiny. But they still make them because they, themselves, are trying to make sense of what they see, and/or to hide from the truth that they don't know as much as they'd like to think they do. Especially from those that hold them to their word as someone who has answers.

A scientist who was honest with themselves would know that they don't know the answers, and would say so. Proffering opinion as fact is not honest. Even if it's unintentional on the part of the person offering that opinion.

[Barrykgerdes]

Well
I am absolutely sure that alien life forms have invaded earth. They regularly start up controversial threads on this forum (and other forums I suspect till they get banned), and always sign their names with pseudonyms.

They seek to take over by introducing selected topics that have two schools of thought that are diametrically opposite with no mean ground and no hope of one side or other convincing the other.

It goes under the general heading of "Divide and Conquer":thumbsup:

There! That should stir the pot a little.;):lol:

Barry;)

[firstlight]

You are exactly right Carl, but I think you miss the point. There is no evidence that other intelligences do not exist, the opposite holds as well there is no evidence that they do or have. In fact the evidence from an experiment that has run for 3.5+ billion years, intelligence appears to have only arisen once, and only in the past 2 million years.

His opinions are only conjecture based on evidence that can be tested. Remember that a theory ALWAYS remains a theory. It is NEVER treated as fact by any scientist. the theory is used to make predictions of the universe and if the observations do not fit the predictions, or evidence that he theory is not correct, it is either scrapped or modified. The only people who say that scientists state facts are the people who have a view of the world that cannot be explained by any rational theory and cannot be backed by predictions. Then the scientists are "stifling free thought"? Because the crackpots cannot prove there theory with predictions.

I came away from Charlie's talk with the distinct impression that like any scientist, if the predictions are not met, evidence is produced to the contrary, his views will change. To do otherwise is contrary to science.

[CraigS]

Good onya, Tony. :thumbsup:

I am absolutely dumb-founded by the frequency of long postings here, which seemingly serve no other purposes other than the continual 'teaching' of scientific cynicism, and therefore, the propagation of political agendas.

I thought the purpose of this site was to propagate and proactively support the development of the skills of rational thinking, embedded within the scientific process, on behalf of the field of astronomy.

Regardless of the rather obvious intent of deliberate mischief by the OP, what has emerged is a serious conflict of interest for some ... so I actually think the OP has done us all great service !

The 'strawman arguments', which attempt to assert the existence of what is unobjective and independently unverifiable in the first place, and is therefore only supportable by faith-based beliefs or internally inconsistent conjecture … is simply ludicrous within astronomical and scientific communities.

Cheers & Rgds

[PeterM]

Good onya, CraigS
I wasn't going to post again in this thread but your post, Tony's, and Barry's
word for word, make sense.
So much long winded waffle has been posted in this thread.
PeterM.

[TrevorW]

The 'strawman arguments', which attempt to assert the existence of what is unobjective and independently unverifiable in the first place, and is therefore only supportable by faith-based beliefs or internally inconsistent conjecture … is simply ludicrous within astronomical and scientific communities.

Cheers & Rgds[/QUOTE]

Is not this the dogma for one of the greatest beliefs humans have that can not be mentioend because of TOS rules and is still supported by a large number of people who exist within the scietific community :question:

The mere lack of proof does not in itself negate probability to an open mind.:D

[CraigS]

Trevor;
There is no 'proof' involved in the scientific process .. it is simply not needed.

Because 'belief', and hence 'truth', varies amongst human beings, when practised in accordance with the principals and guidelines of the process, these varying biases are more or less 'smoothed out' (ever tried to publish 'truth' thru a peer-review process) ?

We all know this is not perfect, and no-one has ever said it is .. but why harp on about the infinitesmal instances of sloppy science .. and can you suggest another process which minimises the 'belief' humans bring into such a process ?
This process also does not exclude people with beliefs partaking in the quest .. and this is clearly a benefit !

What I'm seeing here, (not yourself), is an active demonstration of how to be cynical.

Other than the seemingly dying need to win an 'internet argument', and bolster individual egos, (which is a complete waste of time, in my view) can anyone explain the purpose and benefits of cynicism for me ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

No, Tony, I wasn't missing the point. I am fully aware of what the point was. I just hadn't added to what I wrote, which I could've easily done but I would've busted this forum's word limit very quickly. Taking you up on the point of the evolution of intelligence....what evidence???. Are you so certain that intelligence appears to have only risen once in 3.5Ga???. What is intelligence in the first place??. Scientists have argued this point till the cows come home for decades and have gotten nowhere. And, by what standards is it going to be measured by???. You mentioned dinosaurs in your first post (as did Prof Lineweaver in his talk). How much do you really know about them??. Some genera of dinosaurs, especially the Dromaeosaurs and Troodontids were exceptionally intelligent animals. Troodontids had even evolved semi-oppossable "thumbs" as the species could grasp and manipulate objects. They also had rather advanced brains, excellent eyesight and smell, and their neocortex was a lot more advanced than even the mammals of the time. However, we'll never know just how much further they might've gone because they had their water cut off by a large lump of fast moving rock. Then you talked about dolphins and their cousins. You're talking about a creature whose neocortex is even more complicated than ours, and larger. Their brain is also very closely matched in size to body weight as compared to ours. In reality, we don't know how intelligent they really are. Just because they can't manipulate objects or produce tools doesn't mean they're not intelligent. They have their own complicated language (which we can't even figure out how to decipher), their social structures are as involved as ours and their lifespans are comparable. All this in a creature that has been this way a long lot longer than we have.

To say that intelligence has only arisen once on this planet in 3.5Ga is nothing more than anthropocentric twaddle, based on both misinterpreted, misunderstood and misrepresented science.




Tony, there's no need to remind me of how science and scientists operate. I am one:)

What evidence does he have...actually very little. For a start, scientist have no evidence at all about the presence of extraterrestrial life. None that they would care to actually look at, in fact. And, what little they can speculate on is all based on one example of life that they do know about, the Earth. Anything they care to talk about is pure speculation and based on a statistically insignificant sample. The only thing they can take away from knowing about the Earth is only applicable to here and possibly the Solar System. Extrapolating it to other planetary systems is speculation (basically a hypothesis) until it can be tested on those systems. I wouldn't even call it a theory until it had been thoroughly tested on a good sized sample of systems.

A theory is never treated as a fact by scientists....that is a somewhat misleading statement. Take a look at Relativity, for instance. How many scientists would take as sacrosanct the speed of light barrier. Nearly all of them....well at least that's the impression you get from what many of them express as fact in the general public. However, the situation is a lot more complicated than that. For a start, the barrier only applies to a material object in motion through space. It says nothing about an object moving along with space, nor outside of normal space and time. Then you have the factor of time....here we are pontificating about time and yet we haven't a clue about what it is in the first place!!!!. All we know is that we experience it and that it appears to be linear and one way. Yet even in Relativity, there is no preferred direction to the passage of time and nothing preventing you from traveling in either direction. Except the limitations of our own technology and understanding.

So far as crackpots are concerned and the "stifling of free thought", most of those that quote scientists as stating fact, or believe that they do, are the general public. Which means they must, by definition, all be crackpots:):P. A lot of scientists also make statements of "fact" as well, when they know full well that what they're saying isn't. It's done in order to avoid having to explain to a general public the details of the theories involved and to make it easier on themselves. Most people would lose it the moment a scientist opened their mouth to speak if they went into the details of their subjects. Why do you think most treat scientists as geeks and too smart for their on good. Especially by the media. As for free thought...don't for one minute think that the stifling of ideas and new paradigms isn't occurring within the scientific community. Either in the past or now. There's an old saying..."new ideas in science are only ever accepted once the previous generation dies off", meaning the old guard keep a tight reign on what's acceptable and what's not so far as the scientific paradigm is concerned. It's usually a generational change that sees new ideas become accepted as part of the changed paradigm. Like anyone else, scientists are very precious when it comes to their own pet ideas and explanations. Even those that aren't supported by the evidence, they cling onto them for dear life. Just for one example....Halton Arp and his non cosmological redshift mechanism for quasars and galaxies. Another...Fred Hoyle and the Steady State Theory. Scientists should never be seen, or treated as being infallible or all knowing. Yet, they have been on many occasions. Or, at least they've been promoted in that air on many occasions. Whether wittingly or not, by both themselves and the general public.

Some crackpots can be safely ignored, but in some instance they can come up with valid points of contention or ideas, despite the nature of the rest of their "fields". Most are dreamers....if their dreams aren't hurting anyone, then why not let them dream on. The word crackpot is a horribly abused one and quite often appended to people who do not deserve to called as such. It's usually used to put people down where those people are threatening the accepted paradigms of the day. Quite a few have turned out to be heroes of science and technology...the Montgolfier Brothers, Tesla, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Einstein, to name a few. All dreamers...all willing to think outside the prevailing little box of ideas and to take a risk that what they were doing was right. Despite any ridicule, misunderstanding or indifference on the part of everyone else.




I should hope so.

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Yes well count me in on the skeptic's side of things. At a minimum, 95% of so called "U.F.O" sightings are mundane objects that the observer is seeing for the first time or in a new or novel way. Of the remainder, many are hoaxes. The N.A.S.A astronauts are not necessarily crackpots. Some are (I can think of one in particular who rode on Apollo 14) some of the others might well be mistaken, have misinterpreted evidence or even deliberately misled. Making a mistake does not make one a crackpot.

Yes, I agree there are some instances where there is no apparent explanation for the sighting/photo/video, but that does not in any way prove in my books that it is an "object" being "flown" by L.G.M.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I hate the term "UFO", for in the vast majority of instances for there is little or no evidence at all that it is an "object" or that it is being "flown". I really do wish they were called "Unidentified Aerial Sightings" or U.A.S for short -- it would take a lot of heat out of the subject. Until there is evidence that they are "objects" and are being "flown", that is what they are.

I do want evidence before I can be convinced. I want empirical evidence that leads to no other rational conclusion, not some wobbly out of focus video. If it is a visual sighting I want a stack of independent corroboration -- and I want testable proof.

I won't be convinced by the "It's not A or B or C or D or E so it therefore must be LGM" argument.

I would prefer "It's not A or B or C or D or E so at this stage we don't know and will keep looking for an an explanation".

There is simply very little to no credible evidence that there are spaceships being flown around the Earth by intelligent beings from another planet. Hoax videos/pictures produced to deliberately deceive/delude others into that belief are legion. Because of both their large numbers and in many cases technical sophistry, if another "no apparent explanation" video/picture/sighting comes up I'd be much more inclined (via Occham's razor) to conclude: this is a "particularly good hoax" rather than "these are LGM" -- for the former is the most simple explanation surely?

I am not the be-all and end-all by any stretch of the imagination, but I have been watching the sky for more than 40 years with (for most of that time) a knowledgeable eye. I've seen nothing I couldn't explain. A substantial majority of experienced long-term visual observers world-wide are the same.

I am perfectly happy to accept the notion we are being visited by aliens if sufficient credible, empirical proof is produced. I neither "want to believe", nor do I "need to disbelieve" -- I want convincing empirical evidence.


Best,

Les D

[renormalised]

Craig, you're not even a scientist, so why are you trying to make out like you know something profound about the subject and how it's supposed to operate. You're digging your own grave here mate. You're not arguing about the mechanics of science, but about it's philosophy. Ask 1000 scientists about the philosophy of science and you'll get 1000 different opinions on the subject. There's no cut and dried answer.

I have no agenda to push, despite your protestations to the contrary. All I have ever argued for was treat the subject with an open mind and with scientific rigour. Not to dismiss what's there out of hand just because it doesn't live up to your preconceived notions of what is acceptable or not. If that's the way you want to treat things, especially subjects that may be somewhat difficult to manage and/or study, then you're not a scientist or can't claim to be one if science was your chosen field.

I just highlighted a piece of text above which from all the evidence that I have seen in this forum, you have fallen way short of doing, especially of late. All you have done is proffered opinions of your own which you have somehow convinced yourself as being acceptable in accordance with what you perceive as the known scientific thought, and yet with little or no evidence to back yourself up. In fact, you've misinterpreted or read into articles ideas and/or assumptions that weren't even there. You say that you were impartial in your opinion, yet it was blindingly obvious that you weren't. So who was fooling whom??.

At no time have I ever proffered anything I have said as nothing more than my considered opinion on a subject and only where theory had to be spoken of have I actually done so. You know this full well from our dealing with the twits over at T'bolts and their supporters who have been members here. And on many other occasions. All I have ever done with articles that you've posted (or anyone else for that matter) is considered what they've said and offered my take on the subject. I have very rarely made a point of disagreeing with any of the subject matter. What I have disagreed with is some of the positions taken by others who have interpreted the articles in another light, especially where I've thought they were in error or where I thought they may have misinterpreted something. Nothing more or less. I have never intentionally been dogmatic or intransigent and you know this. All I have ever done was to say "consider the possibilities", no matter how unorthodox your own opinion labeled them or whether you understood them or not. You didn't have to understand them, just consider them.

As far as the last highlighted paragraph is concerned, that is a strawman argument in itself...to dismiss something because you believe it to be unobjective and and not verifiable independently. Have you even bothered to really look at the subject at all, or have you done nothing more than maybe taken a cursory look and then parroted the usual party line that most who dismiss this subject repeat in public. Most likely not. Then you fall back upon the argument of the integrity of the scientific community and its perceived position on the subject. You haven't a clue what they really think. Have you ever polled them in private as to what their views on the subject are, or found out if such a poll has been taken?? Ever asked any of them first hand??? No, I guess not. Then all you're doing is repeating the party line. Where's the objective, scientific approach in that???

I have my own opinions about the veracity of UFO's, alien life and whether they coming here or not. They're neither here nor there when it comes to actually doing an objective analysis of the subject. Something which has been sadly missing and much overdue. Instead of dismissing the whole subject out of hand, which in the light of how that's been done is nothing more than hubris, arrogance and ignorance, it would serve the scientific community and science as a whole if it was taken onboard as a subject to be looked at and studied. Not to dismiss it, or prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, but to study it to find out what is happening and how we can come to understand it. That's all science ever should be asked to do as that's what science is ultimately about.

[renormalised]

Agreed, Les, although I'd lower the percentage a little myself, but that's just my opinion. That would still leave 5-10% of sighting that not only have defied explanation, but are in need of one. If it can be proffered at all. Even if out of all of them, maybe 1% were of the LGM variety, then that's what they are. The others could be anything you like. But that's still not to say what we'll find. We may find nothing.

However, to be dismissive of what's there is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand and hiding from what's occurring.

Study what's there and then make a decision based on what you find.

You can't ask for nothing more or less.

[TrevorW]

The reason I'm posting these here is I consider Einstein one of the greatest minds ever

Some Quotes from Albert Einstein



"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
"...one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever-shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from the personal life into the world of objective perception and thought."
"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

[renormalised]

Ick...another acronym!!!!!. Let's come up with a word or words that can describe them properly. Like "widgets" or "flying thingies":):):P:P

[renormalised]

That's an universal law!!!:):P

Einstein's Law of Income Tax Irrelevancy:):P:P

[avandonk]

We are all searching for that ultimate mountain of 'truth'. The trouble is most people occupy a tiny hillock even smaller than the foothills and loudly proclaim they have the mountain! They then proceed to defend their 'mountain' against all others occupying similar irrelevant self proclaimed 'mountains'.

We seem to be no better than bacteria in a cesspit wishing to inhabit the biggest turd preferably with a view overlooking all the other turds. Smug in our own superiority we can then proceed to judge all others.

Sad really.

Bert

[renormalised]

Peter, who are you to make that judgement call. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if that opinion makes sense, then to call it waffle is nothing more than a derisive opinion set out to try and make light of their posts.

I may write a lot on occasions, but then again I have a lot to say when it comes to expressing myself on various matters, and when the situation warrants it.

[xelasnave]

I certainly respect the man behind these quotes however even a statement made by a great man need not be followed doggedly. They (quotes etc) are often cute and appropriate but should not be elevated much higher than that in my view.

I would not bother to discuss the merits of each quote but many of the statements (quotes) are rather silly and unsupportable.

So many wise men believing themselves wise try to say wise things and sadly because an author enjoys such recognition from his peers nonsence can be interpreted as wisdom merely because the words represent another way of presenting an often old notion.

For example to say "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
may be a wise comment from a wise man but the reality is to a greater degree that probably the reverse is more the case.

The danger of "sayings" is they are used so often to qualify something that deserve more thought than the application of a throw away line...and the throw away line becomes sort of "the rule"...

Anyways my main reason for posting was to say I absolutely enjoy reading posts more than writting posts;) I love to witness the engagements of mind and wit...its all good.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

AND thats the truth Bert.

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

You know why Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge, Alex???

He said that because ultimately it is.....knowledge is derived from imagination. You can have all the knowledge you like but if you can't see beyond what you already know, you go nowhere. All the great inventions and scientific leaps forward in our time came from the imagination of those people who dared to think outside the box. Incremental progress in those areas then came from those who did the hard graft, and the long plod.

[avandonk]

An inanimate book is full of knowledge to those that can read. The book does not know any of this.
The best computer you will ever own is called a necktop. It is your brain.
I urge you to use it.

Bert

[TrevorW]

Alex matie it's not a case of believing verbatim his words but the underlying impetus for those words.

without imagination and belief in the impossible being possible man would not have progressed much, we'd probably still be living in caves and eating raw meat.

[PeterM]

Carl, I have enjoyed and no doubt will continue to enjoy many posts you have made in all manner of threads. But here you seem determined to "win" and I just don't get it. You talk about having an opinion but in your passion you have sidelined others with opinions, perhaps totally unintensionally. As you keep reminding us you are the scientist here and I get impression we are being lectured to and I simply don't like it.
The last thing I want is bad blood here as we are all brought here by our enjoyment and love for this great hobby. If I may, I will agree to disagree with your views contained in this thread.

This thread started with an intentional double meaning that only pointed to a couple of links, it has probably achieved what it appears to have set out to do. The thread author tried another similar double meaning designed to draw in both sides and Mike was quick to nap that one in the bud.
To the thread starter, I say this, research your stuff (you haven't) and you will see much of that is just hand me down stories, years old, old hat and largely yawned at. Seems I touched a raw nerve with the CAPITAL LETTER reply you originally posted - after your derogatory remarks about the late great Carl Sagan then I'm glad I did.
I am not an expert in anything but I do have lots of life experience and believe me that is as good and as standing as any degree anyone will ever get anywhere.

PeterM.

[xelasnave]

It is more than obvious why he said it Carl.
On a personal level I am happy to support such a notion and use it in defence of my lack of knowledge in certain areas however that seems a grab driven from ego rather than a reality that you really need to know stuff.

I can imagine a whole universe working whichever way...GR:), push:D electric:D or even one with God:eyepop:...means zip really other than I could hold a conversation with anyone in their universe limiting myself to their approach and belief...but at the gutz of it my imagination needs many facts (knowledge)... I could not hold a view of any universe in my mind without knowing a great deal or rather imagination wont get me all the way.
I am very happy to have a good imagination... one can invent things, make up movies and run them in your head, or imagine multiple senerios without much more than thought...

Actually we should post each quote separately and discuss its merit or inconsistency within reality...using various realities of course;)

Keep up the great work:thumbsup:
alex:):):)
As you know and demonstrate there is a great deal to understand before you can even comment upon even the existence of pop 1, 2 3 starsz etc and as you well know one needs a great deal of knowlegde before you can "imagine" the next step.

Maybe I take for granted that I enjoy a powerful imagination and I could see how one not blessed with such could see it as more important ..and I am not suggesting that you have anything other than a wonderful imagination..I have noted you enjoy aq powerful imaqgination but suggest your knowledge is what pays the bills finally.

Really our ideas are similar I think it is imagination that takes things forward but in our world the reality is imagination is feared to a degree and something we dont want in our workers, or our subjects... in fact we dont want them to have any more knowledge than they need to do their job or fit their role in the system.

I like the fact your posts are lenghty by some folks standards...it shows you give matters considerable thought...

alex

[CraigS]

Carl, mate, you have taken my words out of context in order to discuss another topic which relates to the philosophy of science. Let me explain ...

My following words are simply referring to the UFO sightings topic:


A different, third-hand (informationally) proposed ‘over-and-done-with strawman’, was made to criticise a respected scientist, who most surely, is clearly aware of the issues surrounding intelligent-being-driven UFOs ...


You have subsequently put your position forward on this, and I have no particular further comments to make.

Let’s just drop the personal stuff and appeals to authority .. no one else wants to see it, and I assure you, it will make no difference to UFO sightings, nor their implications.

Back to the topic ... my above comments apply to the observational/empirical science of astronomy. My underlined word: ‘existence’, in an observational science, requires hard evidence. I’m not the only person attempting to let this be known here.

Observational astronomy is as far removed from the philosophy of as science as it gets .. and that’s why UFO sightings are discarded. I agree with you that philosophy and theoretical science bridges this gap.

I’d be happy to discuss science philosophy, but this thread is clearly about the impacts of UFO sightings on observational astronomy.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

I can not disagree but hold to my observation and comments upon same.

I am lucky it is of no concern that arguement devides into black and white I can entertain opposite views similtaneously with no problem... such is driven by a recognition that truths are not necessarily absolute... and mostly that being right is unimportant ..learning of others views etc is important (to me) and grasping an understanding why so many folk need to be right is interesting. I enjoy folk telling me I am wrong so I can consider my thoughts with exterior input...

Lets pick another...God does not play dice:lol::lol::lol:
a throw away acceptable to the audience of the time providing an assurance that reason prevails etc (fitting the world as it then was)
alex:):):)

[jenchris]

Oh Dear, it seems there's a bit of reflux going on.
On another note. My brother is a lawyer - he's very intelligent and is about as narrow in his head as it is possible to be.
Imagination he has not - common sense he has not - wisdom that he has is derived from others.
I am a scientist and move freely in the world as an acceptable version of a human - my brother is stuck in UK unable to be anything but a tourist in any other country.
This cartoon is what I feel my life is about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw

[renormalised]

I'm not in the business of winning, Peter. Never was. What I have been trying to do is to show that there's more to science and to anything else which maybe (even indirectly) connected to the subject than what meets the eye. What gets to me is when I try and explain something and then someone totally ignores what I've said, or doesn't seem to follow what I've said then continues on to deride mine or others comments and opinions. Whether that is unintentional or not. Especially when those others (not yourself, though) have gotten into their heads that they have some profound take on what the subject of science is about, when they've had little or no training or a background in any of the fields that have been discussed. You can read all you like from a book or get info off the net, but that doesn't make one an expert or insightful into any subject. Just means they read a lot and pick up a few things.

Nor am I in the business of lecturing people, either. This isn't a classroom, for a start. And I'll only offer my knowledge if someone asks me to provide it. However, I won't dictate word and verse to them and expect a paper back from them to see if they've been listening. I'm more interested in their opinions on what they learn from me than anything. That's why I like letting people here bounce questions off of me:)

Yes, I agree, this thread was loaded right form the start. But I can also see the other intentions of the poster, even if they were understated in his initial post. The idea of accusing men who have distinguished careers and reputations as being crackpots being the height of ridiculousness. However, he was getting carried away in some of his replies and it wasn't warranted.

Like I said to your earlier in the piece....we have differing views and that's perfectly fine by myself. I'm very happy with that:):)

You just repeated the goodwill:):)

[renormalised]

Good one:):) (the cartoon, that is:):))

Geez, if they think that of engineers, what would they think scientists have!!!!!:P:P

"Aaaarrrgghhh....it's a SCIENTIST!!!!!. Send them out to Area 51 for analysis, stat!!!!!!":):P:P

[renormalised]

Actually, he plays poker and mahjong. I could never beat the bugger!!!!!. Must've marked the cards and loaded all the chips:):P

[renormalised]

They build upon one another, Alex. Imagination fires the mind to create the knowledge which leads forward to, and acts as a template for further imagination. But ultimately it all boils down to having that imagination to begin with:)



Yes, but that imagination allows me to dream of a world where bills have never existed, and how much more satisfying an existence is that:):).

[jenchris]

My imagination allows me to lie about why I can't pay my bills.....;)
My dog ate my homework was never ever close to the mark.
My Latin teacher said to me "If you spent as much time doing your homework as inventing reasons not to do it, you'd be top of the class."
The only subject I didn't get an A in was Latin
Semper somnare

[xelasnave]

Quoting Carl.....Yes, but that imagination allows me to dream of a world where bills have never existed, and how much more satisfying an existence is that

Minimising ones outgoings is the smartest thing you can do in my view.
I live most humbly, eat simply pay cash or go without...it was tuff to change from where I once was with monthly outgoings (business etc) that if you could hold on to would mean you would be well off. Not owing anyone is the key...if I had my time over I would sleep on the ground rather than take out a mortgage and without one its peace at last. I could mortgage and buy whatever really but never tempted.

But simple brings a clearness of mind, for me, I really enjoy having less to look after maintain etc.... but thats old age for you.

I can spend my time thinking about nothing which is the most complex matter I have ever engaged upon..strangely.

I have found what I imagine will happen does happen...that indicates to me that imagination in a very real thing in terms of outcomes...

Ok whilst still asserting knowlegde is important I agree with the quote with minor reservetions as outlinned.

alex:):):)

[PeterM]

[QUOTE=jenchris;765355]Oh Dear, it seems there's a bit of reflux going on.

Good one Jen, not reflux, more like an antacid .. to settle things down. After all we are all in this (hobby) together and together we get more out of it.
PeterM.

[TrevorW]

Always respect anothers point of view, rightly or wrongly

Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

I care not that we do not have proof of thier existence, I fear not that they may or may not exist, the universe is a wonderous place its vastness and diversity beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals.

Philosophical ain't I :P:D

[renormalised]

[QUOTE=PeterM;765384]

I have a box of Losec tablets, if we all need any. Just don't take too many....I won't have any for later!!!!:P:P

[renormalised]

Well, only if their last name isn't McDonald. I have Campbell blood in me and the McDonald's and Campbells (especially my side, the Argyll Campbells) are sworn enemies:):):P:P

Gotta go grab me claymore:):):P:P

Just in case:P

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol: on ya Baz :P

[firstlight]

Carl, I just pointed out there was no evidence that such intelligence existed, conversely, there is also no evidence that it did not exist. If you have the evidence then that would be a revolution in our understanding and should be celebrated. When are you publishing?

I am in no way that could be considered a scientist, not even an academic, so I can't flash my Phd and stand on a pedestal above the great unwashed. I do have an understanding of what the scientific method is, and how it is used to advance the greater knowledge.

You said that some scientists act like the theories they work with are facts, "or that is the impression the give" I think was your quote. Do they do this deliberately, do you think? Or simply this is how it appears when reported? As a scientist you know that any theory that cannot be supported with predictions and observations WILL be discarded, because to ignore it will make any subsequent conjecture collapse like a house of cards. SOME scientists find it hard to let go of their theories and perceptions, those that held the Steady State Theory come to mind in the face of the Big Bang Theory. But their position is unsupportable, whether you subscribe to the BBT or not because for the main it works. Einstein is another that some believe has it all wrong. No problem, come up with another theory that works, the can make prediction that run counter to the prevailing theories and yours will prevail. A scientist will also use theories as basic assumptions so that they might further their own research and theories, I don't think that means they hold them up as immutable laws, does it? It just means they need to use the best foundation to base their work on, undermine it by proving the basis is wrong, again our knowledge is advanced, and again their own research may show the flaws in the accepted theory. I think I would be correct in saying that there would be a considerable number of scientists trying desperately to dismantle the current best theories, also a lot of people who would say "Einstein is wrong, I'm right" without any evidence to support either conjecture.

I know that you understand all this, I just wanted to show that others understand that as well. I also wanted to say I don't know what non-terrestrial or other terrestrial intelligence would look like because I have not seen any evidence of it, nor I suspect has anyone else. If we have evidence let us celebrate it, but I suspect my anniversary port will mature for quite some time yet :). I was a bit concerned that the thread had become somewhat heated, and I'm glad to see that there seems to be a bit of cooling in the postings.

Cheers
Tony

PS There's a word/character limit? How does Jen get away with all her emoticons?

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol: its a secret Tony :P

[renormalised]

I'll get back to your post tomorrow, Tony. But, yeah....there's a character limit on the textbox you use to write your replies. 12000 characters, I believe. I maxed it out one day when I was replying to a thread:):P

[renormalised]

I have no more evidence than you have, so you won't be reading anything anytime soon:):)

Wish I did though:)

Mind you, I don't know what good it'd do me. So I'd probably be better off without it.

[CraigS]

Hi Tony (and all);

The point Carl has been making is quite a legitimate aspect of how philosophy interacts with Science. The only issue I have, is that it should never become mixed up with interpretation of the results of the observational testing components of the process.

For example, you could take any of the big questions in philosophy say, Zeno's paradoxes about motion vs. placement, the tree falling in the woods question, the issue of whether sensory input or rational thought provide the "true" path to knowledge, whether the universe is inherently subjective or objective, etc, and find a fairly direct link to various physics theories.

There is much historical evidence of how philosophy interacts with science: Mach’s philosophies helped Einstein formulate General Relativity, and even the postulates themselves have strong philosophical components. Einstein probably wouldn’t have faced up to the counterintuitiveness of relativity, if he didn’t feel confident that all observers should be able to observe the laws of physics in a uniform way. Quantum Mechanics requires one to become comfortable with counterintuitive ideals and in this case, Einstein’s philosophies become an impediment.

Newton’s third law: he noticed that momentum is conserved in closed systems if forces come in equal and opposite pairs, But what makes this a Law ? Newton only had the chance of testing a tiny fraction of all the possible forces and situations, in which those forces appear, and yet he generalised what he saw, into a Principle. Was it a philosophical stance that gave the idea its wings?.. So does philosophy always precede theory? I suspect that most philosophical propositions, probably precede in science before they become formalised into theories by successful testing, so in this sense, philosophy translates into creative imagination in formulating theories.

However, if a carefully designed test returns a negative result, (when compared with the original postulation), under the same philosophical stance and for the sake of consistency, one has to equally face up to the consequences of that result, and alter the philosophical postulation accordingly.

I have no problems with UFOs, exo-life intelligent or otherwise, ‘existing’ within a philosophical postulate. This should never be confused with the outcomes of an objective, verfiable test, designed to translate this into evidence for a scientific theory (or hypothesis, or even informed conjecture), and a single ad-hoc observation, in an uncontrolled environment, does not come close to what is required to do this.

If it was me who saw such a thing ? .. Well I’d probably revel in the moment, ponder the possibilities, laugh it off ... and get on with an attempt at a productive life. Becoming obsessed with what I’d seen, and then going on assuming that others should believe in ETs as a result, would then be counter to this entire above philosophy, which is intertwined, but entirely separable, within science.

Cheers & Rgds to all.

[renormalised]

Craig, trying to divorce the philosophy of science from the "mechanics" of it is like trying to separate the milk from the tea after you've poured it into it. One affects the other. Unless you want to change about half a dozen laws of physics, you can't separate them....easily, at least.

Whoever said it was an easy coexistence, between the philosophical and the empirical aspects of science. No marriage is perfect and neither is this one. That's why you have to work at it in order to make progress in both areas.

I have no problems with what you have written there, except with your stance of where UFO's/aliens should be considered within science and the results of a negative return of a study where that study is based on only one example and then trying to extrapolate that out into a meaningful test for other situations (being in relation to your Mars life confusion post). UFO's/aliens are more than just a philosophical exercise in polite company. There is a phenomenon happening around us and if we hold true to the ideals of science we have an obligation to not just sit on our backsides and pontificate about the merits of the possibilities and probabilities. That phenomenon must be studied and put to the test through the scientific method. Not dismissed and ridiculed on the basis of scientific hubris, arrogance, ignorance and sheer bloody mindedness.

So far as the negative result is concerned, you're trying to extrapolate the results of that test on the basis of only one example. It's meaningless, both statistically and practically. Anyone who understood statistics would realise this. You can't even say how it will impact on your base philosophy, either. All it can be used for is a generalisation with which to formulate a very broad, but not very far reaching hypothesis which will be rather limited in scope. Any theory you based upon the results of this study would be standing on almost thin air. In reality, it wouldn't even really be worth it's own salt. It would still be nothing more than pure speculation based on the flimsiest of results.

[jjjnettie]

:rofl:

[astroron]

Very clever :lol:
Cheers:thumbsup: