Perhaps in this case I commented inappropriately. This is the product of frustration with his, and other people’s previous comments that follow the pattern I describe. My point is that our current understanding of physics is incomplete, so you can’t dismiss the experiences of, for example, the hundreds of people in Phoenix, based upon this limited understanding. He suggests that jets in formation is the explanation for what happened in Phoenix. Insisting that every unexplained thing in the sky is an alien craft is as dumb as using incomplete physics to “prove” that they aren’t alien crafts.
But can’t you see? Someone has to argue that they are alien craft so someone else can have the fun of disproving they are alien craft. The way of scientific progress demands it! 😉
Our knowledge of physics, and science, is what we base things on.
Notice, I said "our".....
This doesn't, and cannot mean that some other civilization, say, from afar in the galaxy, uses our system of weights and measures, to put it mildly.
We only know what WE know, here, on Earth.
There could very well be some other "systems" or logic out there that we could not begin to understand, and which makes no sense to us.
Notice, I said "our".....
This doesn't, and cannot mean that some other civilization, say, from afar in the galaxy, uses our system of weights and measures, to put it mildly.
We only know what WE know, here, on Earth.
There could very well be some other "systems" or logic out there that we could not begin to understand, and which makes no sense to us.
It can easily be seen that Physics and its applied branch, Engineering, are doing QUITE well actually.
So much so that they even allow idle/mindless accusations of it being useless or outright Fake/wrong.
Accusations being typed using a plastic keyboard, detected by metallic contacts, processed through Electronics which even exhibit different degrees of AI, such as Operating Systems, Modems of various types, fiber optics, Satellite Transmissions, while sitting on a Human made Chair, dressed in processed fibers clothes, inside of a manufactured house, sipping coffee or tea, (some) reading through Optics, after having travelled in a Car, and so on and on and on.
ALL proof of the POWER of Science.
But some ants look at Pyramids and dare to diss them, with the silly argument : "no, they are not a trillion times larger than us, you do not know if there aren´t larger ones somewhere else".
Besides being ants, they don´t have the slightest clue about Logic, so spout logic fallacies and stand proud thinking they said something.
So much so that they even allow idle/mindless accusations of it being useless or outright Fake/wrong.
Accusations being typed using a plastic keyboard, detected by metallic contacts, processed through Electronics which even exhibit different degrees of AI, such as Operating Systems, Modems of various types, fiber optics, Satellite Transmissions, while sitting on a Human made Chair, dressed in processed fibers clothes, inside of a manufactured house, sipping coffee or tea, (some) reading through Optics, after having travelled in a Car, and so on and on and on.
ALL proof of the POWER of Science.
But some ants look at Pyramids and dare to diss them, with the silly argument : "no, they are not a trillion times larger than us, you do not know if there aren´t larger ones somewhere else".
Besides being ants, they don´t have the slightest clue about Logic, so spout logic fallacies and stand proud thinking they said something.
Pretty sure clothes, homes, chairs & tea all predate the scientific method but please go off
Attachments
Last edited:
If scientists stepped back and said ‘we should not postulate or hypothesize because our understanding isn’t complete’ nothing would get done.
We understand and can predict the behavior of gravity and magnetism with exquisite precision. We don’t have a universally acceptable theory for the underlying phenomena of either, but that does not give you the right to lecture others about what is possible or not possible.
Then what's up with some people in Transylvania securing the corps with wooden stake?
Things did get done. For that matter, shouldn't it be more of "is limited" since what got done are limited?
But haven't we already seen lectures by forum members on what is possible or not possible?
After a year on the nightstand, and too many more years on the bookshelf, I started reading SJ Gould's 'Full House.' I only read the prologue last night. His theory appears to be that life tends toward diversity. Not necessarily a progression towards complexity, eg, intelligence.
That puts a different light on earlier portions of this thread.
And I'm not too keen on an analog of physics with metrology. Just sayin'.
That puts a different light on earlier portions of this thread.
And I'm not too keen on an analog of physics with metrology. Just sayin'.
Last edited:
Things did get done. For that matter, shouldn't it be more of "is limited" since what got done are limited?
But haven't we already seen lectures by forum members on what is possible or not possible?
Exactly. It’s not very scientific.
I say that you can’t judge what is possible and not possible if the theory you are applying is incomplete with respect to the topic at hand. It is absolutely and undoubtably incomplete with respect to the topic at hand. Scientists recognize that it is incomplete and are working hard to create a complete theory. The point is that there isn’t currently a complete theory that explains everything, so we don’t know what is possible and not possible. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp. What is it that I’m missing?
You don’t seem to grasp that you are as equally unqualified to pass judgement on what is possible/not possible as the other side.
Frankly, when scientists say it is highly probable, based on the evidence of how life arose on this planet, that advanced alien civilizations are extremely rare, I’m more inclined to believe them than you.
Can you understand my position?
Frankly, when scientists say it is highly probable, based on the evidence of how life arose on this planet, that advanced alien civilizations are extremely rare, I’m more inclined to believe them than you.
Can you understand my position?
I didn’t say that aliens exist. I didn’t say that aliens do not exist. I’m saying that you can’t make that call based on the limited nature of the theories we have at the moment. Making that call, which is what many are doing on this thread, is not very scientific or sensible. Can you grasp my point?
Yes we can. There is no dispute. But there are legitimate probabilities that can be drawn from the existing science. Probably means not sure. Should I lean in that direction as opposed to your position that we 'know' essentially nothing? Cup half full...🙂
Uncertainty indicates a careful consideration of the situation. Certainty does not. It’s not really about half full or half empty.
I think we can say with certainty that improbable (non-zero chance of impossibility) things exist; the question to me is whether the improbability has a commensurate effect on the ability to gather evidence of the thing itself.
Last edited:
The point is neither of us are certain. The science speaks for itself, or not. What it's really not about is the science itself, it's about personal points of view.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.