|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2011 : 08:43:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And "proven" is a word I dislike simply because "proof" really only matters in mathematics and whisky. In all other matters, we should use "evidence" since a skeptic's conclusion should always be tentative, and "proof" is a positive and absolute statement which leaves no room for tentativeness. |
Yeah, bngbuck is saying that we need to humble ourselves before the gray areas attendant to empirical questions until they are wiped out of existence entirely by some sort of proof. As you note, however, proof is applicable only to purely logical constructs. And for epistemic and ontological reasons, people are free to simply invent or widen gray areas where none might otherwise exist, and apply such evidence-free philosophical tricks only against criticism of their favored hypotheses. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2011 : 11:37:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And "proven" is a word I dislike simply because "proof" really only matters in mathematics and whisky. In all other matters, we should use "evidence" since a skeptic's conclusion should always be tentative, and "proof" is a positive and absolute statement which leaves no room for tentativeness. |
Yeah, bngbuck is saying that we need to humble ourselves before the gray areas attendant to empirical questions until they are wiped out of existence entirely by some sort of proof. As you note, however, proof is applicable only to purely logical constructs. And for epistemic and ontological reasons, people are free to simply invent or widen gray areas where none might otherwise exist, and apply such evidence-free philosophical tricks only against criticism of their favored hypotheses.
|
So it looks like we are all in agreement that Bill is wrong!
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 12:23:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
So it looks like we are all in agreement that Bill is wrong! |
Nah, I think he's making errors.
See? No lockstep here! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 16:13:30 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Well. at least the turnstile is rotating and the cash flow of the currency of attention has, however briefly, returned. I really do appreciate your unique, if rather primitve, contributions; and the Swedish input is particularly valuable. Kil has provided some really interesting insight now that the subject matter has broadened to something closer to his heart of hearts.
I intend to answer all while I wait for restore discs to arrive. This old friend of mine on the desk is reaching retirement age. I just hope I don't get swamped by too many Davistic assault missles - there are three of four piled up right now, he is prolific! Dave has performed with perfect predicability and excellent application of measured insult and thoughtful insight combined with selective amnesia. (We'll work it out) So, even though there's not much progress in the introduction of new talent, we still have an active discussion group of four or five, and thst is a hell of an improvement over the same old, same old Weiblen versus Buck billing that appears all too often. But I digress. To work:| Your seemingly oracular pronouncements about the regular members here (and me in particular) fail to align with reality. So "attempted pontifications" seems an apt description. |
I must apologize for the Delphinian nature of some of my comment. I have been exposed to so much of that kind of pomposity in high places here, that some of it has apparently infected me. I pledge to perfect my punitive pontification to a more acceptable level of merely pugnacious puffery.
.
I really do understand how unpleasant pomposity can be. Bobby Burns nailed it with his "O wad some pow'r...." gibe, long ago, but no one listens to the wisdom of the ages. | I've said this probably more than a hundred times in these forums. A claim made without supporting evidence isn't a claim at all, its just shit some asshole made up. |
Maybe it would be best to back off from the hundred and second pronouncement of this declaration. Because "A claim made without supporting evidence isn't a claim at all, it's just shit some asshole made up" is, in itself, a claim without evidence. It is an opinion of yours. You present no substantiation that Mitchell's sources are, in fact, spurious. They may very well be, but your simply stating that they are "assholes" that "make shit up" does not demonstrate the truth of those allegations.
If you, or anyone else, will clearly demonstrate that the various people that have allegedly divulged ET information to Mitchell are all liars and frauds, then I certainly will be compelled to join you to some degree in your conviction that ET's do not exist and Mitchell has become a nutcase. That degree would be that ET's are extremely unlikely - about the degree of conviction that Kil has right now.| Mitchell claiming we have been visited by aliens and the government is covering it up? |
Yes, that is a fair statement of Mitchell's position.| that is nothing but a sad and pathetic end to a once respectable man's mind. |
That is an interesting commentary. Some might call it overreaching. I might suggest, if it is not too exhausting for you, that you read the wiki article on Mitchell, and at least a few of the numerous references. I have read every one I could bring up, and much more. I have found there is a great deal more on the Net concerning Mitchell, and relatively little woo. It would take a really intensive investigation (which is not about to happen) to persuade me that the man is a crackpot; altho it is certainly easy enough to dismiss him as such by Instantopinion© I have a correspondence relationship with Randi, I am going to ask his opinion of Mitchell. I have never succeeded in eliciting a response from the Four Horsemen, although I have made numerous efforts.
Although I gather that your "once respectable man" comment was directed toward Mitchell, you have, in your inimitable way, suggested from time to time, that such commentary applies to me. I am aware of your need for one-upmanship in insulting commentary, but at 82, one does start thinking about the efficiency and accuracy of the Apparatus in the Attic. So.....
I apologize for offering an impression that saddens you. If my performance here and in other arenas justifies that conclusion by a high level of agreement between peers here and elsewhere - that my cognitive functions are failing, I will seek medical attention. I understand there is a lot of current research currently being done in these areas of mental health - particularly as affects Alzheimers and age-related dementia. I think I may request evaluation by one or more of the various Minnesota tests at my next annual physical. In any event, I thank you for your concern. | No evidence to base the claim on, so I don't need to disprove it, |
There is no need to prove or disprove anything. Only if you would like to provide something more than a drive-by opinion on this subject. And it certainly is less work to simply dismiss with a patented recorded reply; than it is to read, research, and possibly provide some substantiation for your lively and abundant opinions. That's fine by me, you are at the very least, entertaining. I, too, like to kick back and enjoy the Japanese scotch, and I think I will when this current marathon is finished. However, I asked for it and I am getting it, and, for the time being, I am loving it! | all I have to do is point and laugh. Hope that helps you comprehend. |
It does not.| Now you are just intentionally being an ass, you understood me perfectly |
Why would I intentionally appear to be an ass? Do you think I'm lonely in your company?| I mention those only to illustrate the form of the claim Mitchell is making. |
I don't agree that Mitchell is making any kind of formal claim. I think he has made some provocative statements for reasons I don't completely fathom. He is not a politician and has not really been much of a grandstander in the past, although his astronaut persona is a perfect launch pad for the Palinesque pursuit of money. One more reason, I remain agnostic regarding his "claims". Anyway, thanks for the illustration. I would never have guessed the form of his claim without that assistance! | its just shit some asshole made up. |
I believe you already said that .| So you do agree that Mitchell is just makign shit up. |
No. I am not makign that statement, you are.| Its just too bad that you think his bullshit needs to be proven to be nonsense, that is where you are failing to think critically. |
Well, I haven't had nearly the cognitive practice that a master like you, nor the grandmasters that appear here from time to time have had, so cut me a little slack. In fact, I am not entirely clear as to what "Critical Thinking" really is. From your performances, it obviously involves a lot of profanity and a lot of criticism. The rest of the enchilada, I have to discover! I so hope that I can master this phenomenon someday!| I don't see anything approaching proof positive that little invisible green gravity fairies are NOT responsible for gravity! |
Well, I'm glad for that.| In my view, anyone professing absolute conviction that gravity fairies don't exist is a gullible dimwit! |
A colorful description, but suddenly we are approaching the same wavelength. Do you like pancakes, Dude?| /yawn Whatever. I'm bone fucking weary of shit like this from the religitards, |
Try Ambien tonight. Or spend a couple of hours and a benjamin in Starbucks today, you'll feel better. But you say religitards are currently favoring the Green Fairy theory of God? Are they also invoking Spiderman as the alter ego of Jesus? Very low probability!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 17:32:12 [Permalink]
|
To all of the Funicular Four.....
I genuinely appreciate the participation and contribution to this thread - ressurected from an untimely death. I will attempt to post response to all individually tomorrow if my Machine does not give up its Ghost before sunup. I am about to turn its custody over to The Land of American Opportunity and the Home of Outsourcing for an overnight brain transplant. Hopefully it will be out of Intensive Care by midday - (about the time I normally get home from Church) - so y'all help me pray for Recovery.
May FSM bless Bill Gates and Konrad Zuse and all those who have passed into madness so that we could freely obsess with the acquisition of largely useless knowledge! Proffer burnt offerings of Parmesan, and spill the blood of the tomato in supplication to His sacred son and dumpling!
Otherwise, it may be days before the Ressurection, producing high anxiety in the bereaved! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 20:16:02 [Permalink]
|
bng... I know you enjoy engaging in douchebaggery, but you are outsmarting yourself here with how far you are taking it.
If you honestly think anyone has to allow for the possibility that gravity is caused by invisible green fairies, then you have just joined the ranks of the retarded. Thanks for playing, you win, now make sure you put your helmet on before you get out of bed today!
but at 82, one does start thinking about the efficiency and accuracy of the Apparatus in the Attic. So.....
|
I'm sure your mental faculties are more or less intact. Maybe. Depending on what your real thinking on the subject of gravity fairies is.
| I, too, like to kick back and enjoy the Japanese scotch, |
Maybe the only reasonable thing you have said in this thread.
| There is no need to prove or disprove anything. |
So you don't need doctors to prove they are competent before you let them treat you? Interesting philosophy you have there. I'm not sure you are going to survive it though.
You see, the problem is you are spending too much effort on vocabulary, alliteration, and being a complete dick. If you directed some of that effort towards honest communication just think of how much more satisfying your time here would be.
But you say religitards are currently favoring the Green Fairy theory of God? Are they also invoking Spiderman as the alter ego of Jesus? Very low probability!
|
Your keen intellect has once again allowed you to apprehend what I am saying..... if you really don't understand, then perhaps now would be a good time to call that doctor.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 20:24:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I'm sure your mental faculties are more or less intact. Maybe. |
Well, his memory is shot to hell. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 21:20:07 [Permalink]
|
Thanks folks, but I can't talk to you because my computer is sick as hell! Maybe i'll be able to make contact tomorrow!
If you respect Sunday as a day of rest and respect; well, wait 'til Monday! god/jesus isn't quite as sensitive on Mondays!
I'll talk to India about midnight (it's now 8:15 PM Pacific Time) and enquire as to whether there is any hope for survival of my old, old friend. (Age about 5 years) god! (pardon me) I hope there is some hope!
Are you praying?
To FSM?
Thanks to all four of you! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2011 : 19:09:21 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Dude, you absolutely bewilder me! You said: | No evidence to base the claim on, so I don't need to disprove it, |
I agreed, commenting:| There is no need to prove or disprove anything. |
....meaning, yes, you (Dude) have no need to prove anything concerning the "claim". I mean, your metabolism is not going to suddenly stop if you don't disprove Mitchell's statements. You don't need to prove or disprove anthing!
And then you take off on a wild tangent with......| So you don't need doctors to prove they are competent before you let them treat you? |
WTF? What do my doctors have to do with your not needing to prove or disprove Mitchell's statement? I really don't get it!
And the next Dudism is even more astounding! You state:| [I don't see anything approaching proof positive that little invisible green gravity fairies are NOT responsible for gravity! |
....meaning....| I Dude, do not believe that there is proof that fairies are NOT responsible for gravity. |
and I respond:....meaning, I agree with you Dude, there is no proof that fairies are not responsible for gravity, and there is no proof that they are. There is only a supposition that it is extremely unlikely that such a preposterous situation could exist!
To which your incomprehensible response is:| If you honestly think anyone has to allow for the possibility that gravity is caused by invisible green fairies, then you have just joined the ranks of the retarded. |
.....when I just honestly and courteously AGREED with your position that one can not see any reasonable proof that green fairies are either responsible or not responsible for gravity? I have expressed on many occasions and in many ways here on these forums my conviction that reality is describable (and can be understood) only in degrees of probability. Literally, there is no such thing as impossiblity, except in mathematics, contract law, and theoretical logic.
Fairies are possible. Barely! At least there is no way of proving them impossible! Consequently, one can only speak of such things in terms of degrees of probability. And there is nothing "retarded" about that position. It is an opinion, I do not claim it as a fact. There is certainly an astronomically higher probability of the NOT position, but there cannot be any "proof". The statistical odds against even the very existence of fairies of any color are enormous - but there are no absolutes!
I really don't understand what it is that you are attempting to say here, Dude!
Maybe you can help me out?
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 10:25:54 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| Maybe you can help me out? |
I am confident that you understand what I am saying already, but what the hell..
| Fairies are possible. Barely! At least there is no way of proving them impossible! Consequently, one can only speak of such things in terms of degrees of probability. |
The bolded part is the only thing you have right. The rest illustrates the core of your problem.
Any claim that isn't falsifiable isn't really a claim at all. If there is no way to prove gravity fairies don't exist, then the claim itself becomes nothing but noise.
You are correct when you say that claims can only be spoken of in terms of degrees of probability. I completely agree. Where we disagree is what actually constitutes a claim of fact. If a claim is not stated in a way that provides potential falsification, then it isn't a claim at all. It's just some shit some asshole made up.
Back to Mitchell- His claim can be falsified, in fact it already has been, its a self falsifyiing claim! Anyone accusing the US government of being able to keep a large scale secret for 60ish years hasn't been paying attention to the US government's history. He has been going on about this crap for years, always claiming "anonymous" or secret sources. He also thinks that he was remotely healed of cancer by some kid in Canada. He also co-founded an institution that "researches" psi, biofields, remote healing, and a bunch of other crap. Apparently he conducted private ESP experiments with some friends on earth while he was participating in Apollo 14. The guy is a fucking crank.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 11:24:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You are correct when you say that claims can only be spoken of in terms of degrees of probability. I completely agree. Where we disagree is what actually constitutes a claim of fact. If a claim is not stated in a way that provides potential falsification, then it isn't a claim at all. It's just some shit some asshole made up. |
I don't think there's any need to go that far.
Because even though claims can only be evaluated in terms of probabilities, bngbuck accepts as "true" claims which rise above a certain level of probability (as does everyone else), but refuses to reject claims which fall below some other level of improbability.
It'd be perfectly fine and dandy to argue where the "cut-off" levels of probability should be, or that they need be determined on a case-by-case basis, but bngbuck is saying (in no uncertain terms) that because we can't ever get to a probability of precisely 0%, agnosticism is necessary.
Falsifiability doesn't enter into this. A test which returns a negative result could have been performed incorrectly, for example. bngbuck is arguing that it's impossible to completely falsify anything, and so we need to remain open to its possibility.
A long time ago, some scientists somewhere calculated (with tongue in cheek, I'm sure) that the probability of a mouse surviving on the surface of the Sun for a week is 1 in 1050. This is a ridiculously small chance, made even more so by the logistical problems, but bngbuck would insist that because it's not zero, we shouldn't simply say, "never gonna happen," or that we shouldn't reply to someone who has claimed to have accomplished such a feat with, "you're full of shit."
From a certain philosophical perspective, this might be acceptable, but we know that bngbuck doesn't hold to such a philosophy because he doesn't apply the same standard to claims with high probability. Instead, he accepts as true (with a small T) claims which are very close to, but not quite at, 100% probable. And when we add into the mix the fact that every negative claim can be restated as a positive claim (and vice versa), we can see clearly that bngbuck is just selectively applying this agnosticism standard to claims that he likes and doesn't want to be dismissed, but which rationality and logic suggest should be rejected.
It's an irrational attempt to appear to be open-minded that falls flat once its basis is examined, because it's just picking and choosing, for no logical or empirical reasons, what to be open-minded about. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 15:47:59 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Because of a mild obsessive antipathy to dangling participles, I am compelled to fill in a few gaps in this thread. Also, after so much grinding, one just has to give a bump!
| 1... consistency would demand agnosticism towards all sorts of drivel. |
Fortunately, I'm pretty comfortable with inconsistencies when circumstances demand. Things like the Universal Constant. If things don't work out quite right, massage it until more data (like quantuum theory) offers higher consistency. Expanding Universe, contracting Universe, static universe - whatever fits the theory du jour.
2. What evidence is there that any law of physics discovered in the future will benefit the hypotheses that interstellar or intergalactic travel is practical or that non-human life capable of deliberate interplanetary travel exists in our own solar system?
|
None, really; nor is there any evidence to the contrary. So, in the absence of evidence either way, it seems sensible to remain agnostic about the issue.
3.| There are no speed of light laws to deny the possibility of an interplanetary origin in our solar system, however. |
From where? |
Many possibilities come to mind. I won't go so far as to posit a planet within our solar system forever hidden to view, obviously current astronomical technology makes such a speculation silly; as it does the "far side of the moon" theories bandied about back in the fifties when UFOs were all the rage. We are a bit too sophisticated today for pap like this to be seriously considered.
But the possibility of something astronomers consider an asteroid being something else than a mere hunk of rock always exists, and locations on the moons of some of the giant planets are at least as possible as is our own inevitable moon base. How did they get to these exotic locations? It either took a long, long time; a long, long time ago, or we must consider life processes based on other biological processes than those that constitute our version of "life".
And I have never accepted the absolute necessity of alien life forms being similar or identical to Earth flora and fauna as far having to be carbon/oxygen based. Anerobic bacteria here on our own planet are a reality, as are extremely strange heat-loving Alvinella pompejana organisms in certain portions of the ocean's bottom. Heterotrophic microbes based on silicon/energy rather than carbon/energy processes are by no means impossible. We just haven't encountered any yet. But any biochemist will tell you that it is not a biological impossibility.
I have just personally talked to a marine biolgist (one of my professors and also the department head at NIC,) about these possibilities, and we came to a conclusion that there was a "viable degree of probability" that such "life" processes were, in fact biologically possible within the precepts of the biology we know. Many universities' life sciences departments and even the US Government have studuied this fascinating subject. For example, consider the following citations, most from wiki, all of which I have carefully read and added to my manuscript data base. Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, National Research Council; The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; The National Academies Press, 2007
Early Archaean Microorganisms Preferred Elemental Sulfur, Not Sulfate Science AAAS, by Philippot, et al., (14 September 2007)
"NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical". NASA.gov. 2 December 2010. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html. Retrieved 2010-12-02.
"Physicists Discover Inorganic Dust With Lifelike Qualities". Science Daily. 2007-08-15. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070814150630.htm.
a.b.Tsytovich, V N; G E Morfill, V E Fortov, N G Gusein-Zade, B A Klumov and S V Vladimirov (14 August 2007). "From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter". New J. Phys. 9 (263): 263. doi: |
| 4. The only deliberately space-faring species of which we are aware is not immortal. How could "the date of the origin of life in the Universe" have any bearing on the question, |
First, immortality is not necessary for intergalactic travel, only a very long life expectancy and/or some form of slowed metabolism to permit centuries of travel to pass. The fact that asteroid bacteria are known to exist is in itself a hopeful sign that a higher form of interplanetary life could exist.
Several Martian meteorites have been found to contain what some think is evidence for fossilized Martian life forms. The most significant of these is a meteorite found in the Allan Hills of Antarctica. In 2009, new analyses ruled out earthly and non-biological origins, presenting strong evidence for life on Mars at some point in history. (Not little green men, tho', unfortunately.)
| 5. and why do you think anyone could "prove" such a thing? |
Filthy made the declarative statement that: "Immortality ain't happen', either." Fair enough, but until we can ascertain with reasonable probability the date of the origin of life in the Universe, temporal declarations of what is and what isn't regarding the life span of organisms seems pretty premature to me.
As to "proof", of course I don't expect any such thing. Only a reasonable approximation with some evidence to substantiate it. Today, we don't literally have a clue. As we begin to firmly define extraterrestrial life and finally, intergalactic life; I hope we will be able to constuct the algorythms necessary to approximate the time, place, and manner of life's origins. That should be enough woo for you to masticate and spit out for a while!....call it "wild imaginings" in your best Andy Williams style
| 6.What is life?" is certainly a sticky question. It's a good thing we can generally ignore it when we're talking about sentient beings in spaceships visiting the Earth. Such beings, from all the evidence we have at hand, aren't immortal, require food and have a limited lifespan. |
I cannot imagine what evidence you are talking about, other than this and that opinion, such as mine expressed here. You have seen evidence of ET "beings" mortality, nourishment requirements, and defined lifespans? Do you mean the bacteria and microorganisms I have mentioned above? Or are you actually in an alienophile closet and just starting to come out? Dave!...really!
In the broadest view, "Immortality" probably is highly unlikely because of the probable mortality of the universe itself! (I really don't intend to get into multidimensionality concepts at this point in the educational process, Later, Much later!)| What is life?" is certainly a sticky question. It's a good thing we can generally ignore it when we're talking about sentient beings in spaceships visiting the Earth. |
Well, here is where our paths must really diverge. It is my opinion that a broader definition of "Life" than our current abbreviated hypotheses is essential to recognition of and response to possible manifestations of ET life. I think we ignore it at the danger of failing to recognize the life phenomenon in any other dress than that which we know well.
7.There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy |
. . That is nothing more than a plea based on ignorance to not dismiss an argument. |
Or a slightly broader view that a poet or an artist might offer - that it is a simple, but profound observation upon the intellectual arrogance of those that think they know, or think they can know, all that can be known. That's what's not about to happen! Even Einstein had to spin things a bit for a while, later remarking that it was a big mistake to have done so. But I certainly understand the many reasons that he did and I think no less of the man's achievements for having forced the mathematics!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 19:46:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Fortunately, I'm pretty comfortable with inconsistencies when circumstances demand. Things like the Universal Constant. If things don't work out quite right, massage it until more data (like quantuum theory) offers higher consistency. Expanding Universe, contracting Universe, static universe - whatever fits the theory du jour |
You're describing the consistent use of science that happens to come to different conclusions over time due to new evidence. I was talking about your inconsistent application of standards of evidence.| 2. What evidence is there that any law of physics discovered in the future will benefit the hypotheses that interstellar or intergalactic travel is practical or that non-human life capable of deliberate interplanetary travel exists in our own solar system? |
None, really; nor is there any evidence to the contrary. So, in the absence of evidence either way, it seems sensible to remain agnostic about the issue. |
It's sensible to remain agnostic as to whether science will ever progress in a certain direction or not, yes, since the evidence we have shows that the paths of knowledge are unpredictable. It is not sensible to base agnosticism about a particular subject on the fact that we don't have any evidence that science will never rule in its favor. That is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. 3.| There are no speed of light laws to deny the possibility of an interplanetary origin in our solar system, however. |
From where? |
Many possibilities come to mind. I won't go so far as to posit a planet within our solar system forever hidden to view, obviously current astronomical technology makes such a speculation silly; as it does the "far side of the moon" theories bandied about back in the fifties when UFOs were all the rage. We are a bit too sophisticated today for pap like this to be seriously considered.
But the possibility of something astronomers consider an asteroid being something else than a mere hunk of rock always exists, and locations on the moons of some of the giant planets are at least as possible as is our own inevitable moon base. How did they get to these exotic locations? It either took a long, long time; a long, long time ago, or we must consider life processes based on other biological processes than those that constitute our version of "life". |
Since we're talking about intelligent life that is intentionally space-faring, all these "possibilities" don't amount to much of an argument at all.| First, immortality is not necessary for intergalactic travel, only a very long life expectancy and/or some form of slowed metabolism to permit centuries of travel to pass. |
Do we know of any such life?| The fact that asteroid bacteria are known to exist is in itself a hopeful sign that a higher form of interplanetary life could exist. |
Is it really?| Several Martian meteorites have been found to contain what some think is evidence for fossilized Martian life forms. The most significant of these is a meteorite found in the Allan Hills of Antarctica. In 2009, new analyses ruled out earthly and non-biological origins, presenting strong evidence for life on Mars at some point in history. (Not little green men, tho', unfortunately.) |
Exactly my point.| 5. and why do you think anyone could "prove" such a thing? |
Filthy made the declarative statement that: "Immortality ain't happen', either." Fair enough, but until we can ascertain with reasonable probability the date of the origin of life in the Universe, temporal declarations of what is and what isn't regarding the life span of organisms seems pretty premature to me. |
All the evidence we have at hand says that species which traverse space have a pretty short life span.| As to "proof", of course I don't expect any such thing. Only a reasonable approximation with some evidence to substantiate it. |
Yet you demand "proof" that things are impossible before you will reject agnosticism. That's the inconsistency I'm talking about.| Today, we don't literally have a clue. |
That's true only if you include all the speculation in with the facts we have at hand, equally. I weigh them differently.| As we begin to firmly define extraterrestrial life and finally, intergalactic life; I hope we will be able to constuct the algorythms necessary to approximate the time, place, and manner of life's origins. |
You think it started only once?| 6.What is life?" is certainly a sticky question. It's a good thing we can generally ignore it when we're talking about sentient beings in spaceships visiting the Earth. Such beings, from all the evidence we have at hand, aren't immortal, require food and have a limited lifespan. |
I cannot imagine what evidence you are talking about, other than this and that opinion, such as mine expressed here. |
We have exactly one example of a deliberately space-faring species: our own. Anything else is speculation at best, and can't be used to justify agnosticism over whether or not we're being visited by ETs.| Well, here is where our paths must really diverge. It is my opinion that a broader definition of "Life" than our current abbreviated hypotheses is essential to recognition of and response to possible manifestations of ET life. |
Yes, I do not share your faith that there's anything different out there.| I think we ignore it at the danger of failing to recognize the life phenomenon in any other dress than that which we know well. |
When we're talking about sentient beings deliberately visiting us, I think we can ignore it quite easily. If we're talking about distinguishing ET microbes from dust particles, then we need to be careful.| Or a slightly broader view that a poet or an artist might offer - that it is a simple, but profound observation upon the intellectual arrogance of those that think they know, or think they can know, all that can be known. |
Who here has been making such a grand claim?| That's what's not about to happen! |
Of course not, but that has no bearing on what we do know, now.| Even Einstein had to spin things a bit for a while, later remarking that it was a big mistake to have done so. But I certainly understand the many reasons that he did and I think no less of the man's achievements for having forced the mathematics! |
Einstein died thinking quantum mechanics was a mistake, but it wasn't arrogance that drove him to that position. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 20:52:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Or a slightly broader view that a poet or an artist might offer - that it is a simple, but profound observation upon the intellectual arrogance of those that think they know, or think they can know, all that can be known. |
Also: this warning against arrogance is still not something which increases our estimations of the probability of any particular hypothesis being true. At best, it's an observation that people have been wrong before, and will be wrong again, but it's not predictive of how or why people will be wrong. It cuts equally in all directions, and so adds nothing to any discussion. It's nothing more than arrogance to think that someday we'll understand how ETs can visit us, since someday we might understand precisely how it is impossible.
And again, consistency demands that if the warning justifies agnosticism towards UFOs, then it justifies (even requires) agnosticism towards atomic theory, Relativity, etc. If Horatio were arguing in favor of evolutionary theory, then the "simple, but profound observation" becomes a defense of creationism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Moon-walker claims alien contact cover-up
