Famous astronaut: - Aliens are visiting us?

[kasse]

Famous astronaut: - Aliens are visiting us

Normally it's not a good thing to start with the conclusion, but can we in this case pre-conclude that Mitchell is just a stupid nutcase?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwE0vDuTm48&feature=related (also see the rest of this Larry King show)

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/6692/Astronaut_Dr__Edgar_Mitchell_on_Roswell/

http://www.p4.no/player/VideoPlayer.aspx?id=280591&mmoid=218753

 

[CEL]

Dr Mitchell's diction is so atrocious as to be almost unintelligible for a foreigner like me. Anyway, from what I understood, he limits himself to the proverbial governmental conspiracy.
Since aliens have supposedly being visiting all countries on Earth, this is a huge conspiracy. The only subject in which governments all over the world are in agreement.
I wish they would agree in that manner for solving the financial crisis.

 

[kasse]

I think we can conclude that Mitchell is a nutcase. EOD.

 

[CEL]

I think we can conclude that Mitchell is a nutcase. EOD.

That's my opinion, but without specific claims it is difficult to dismiss what he thinks.

 

[russ_watters]

Huh. I'd think scientific principles demand that without specific claims we have no choice but to dismiss what he thinks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He claims to be repeating what he was told, so in this sense he isn't making any claims - he doesn't claim any personal knowledge of ETs. But he is one of many formerly high-ranking military or intelligence people telling the same story.

The French COMETA reports concludes that ET is most likely here. But, after over twenty years of following this stuff, I have never seen evidence convincing enough for me to conclude the same. On the other hand, IMO, to dimiss it all as outright nonsense is an unjustified leap of faith. In fact, I see absolutely no justification for doing so.

Is Mitchell a nut? Maybe. Is he telling the truth? Maybe. Could both be true? Maybe. But I don't see how we can label him a nut based on this story. After all, he only claims to be relaying the stories of men who wanted their stories told.

One thing is certain: Anyone telling such a story gets labeled a nut. And I'm sure that makes a lot of people sleep better at night. It is a scary prospect to consider the alternatives.

 

[kasse]

to dimiss it all as outright nonsense is an unjustified leap of faith.

Yes, but we should remain agnostics with respect to alien visitors just in the same way that we are toothfairy agnostics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I appreciate that sarcasm creates a sense of security. But there is no need to be afraid.

 

[kasse]

Afraid of what? Aliens? If there were unfriendly aliens on our planet, they would have defeated us long ago. The thing is, faced with a phenomena that we can't yet explain; why assume that there are little creatures from other stars in them? THAT is a leap of faith. There's no more evidence for that than there is evidence for toothfairies or God.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no scientific evidence for aliens, but there is plenty of evidence for UFOs, and plenty of anecdotal evidence for aliens. There is by far more direct anecdotal evidence for aliens than the tooth fairy. Your statement is nonsense.

As for God, I won't touch that one because I don't know the rate of alleged God contacts, but I can't recall any recently.

There are certainly some well documented UFO encounters, including military encounters, that are suggestive of an advanced technology and that seem to defy prosaic explanations.

 

[kasse]

Yes, there is evidene for unidentified flying objects. But visitors from other stars? IMO aliens are todays fairy tales. People have always come up with irrational explanations to phenomena they didn't understand.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. You can say the same thing about ghosts.

You can't disprove ghosts, nor can you disprove alien visitors, but the very fact that you can't disprove a certain thing, doesn't make it realistic.

When it comes to (the Christian) God, it's evident that he doesn't exist if you read the Old Testament. But that's OT.

I remain a sceptic here. Even if there is intelligence behind the UFOs, it doesn't mean there are intelligent beings INSIDE them. I think it's far more realistic that they are part of a military spy project.

At least we agree on Obama :-) Shame I can't vote.

 

[pftest]

I don't think the alien option is necessarily irrational. I agree that, after establishing that a craft is flying around, first thing that should be considered is whether it is human technology.

But, suppose you saw the giant independence day ufo (http://www.thearchetypalconnection.com/images/IndependenceDayMovieLow.JPG ) flying over your head, it would not be irrational to suppose that it's probably alien. Even though you can't see the occupants, you can compare the crafts properties with human technology and reach a conclusion.

 

[CEL]

I don't think the alien option is necessarily irrational. I agree that, after establishing that a craft is flying around, first thing that should be considered is whether it is human technology.

But, suppose you saw the giant independence day ufo (http://www.thearchetypalconnection.com/images/IndependenceDayMovieLow.JPG ) flying over your head, it would not be irrational to suppose that it's probably alien.

The problem is that nobody has seen that vessel. We only have personal testimonies and blurred photos.
Despite the thousands of alleged alien abductions, nobody was able to bring back at least an ashtray stolen from the spaceship.
As for the supposed cover up from all world governments, I mistrust governments in the same level as anyone else, but the fact that governments lie constantly does not mean that they lie about the evidence of alien visitors. A broken watch gives the right time twice a day. Governments say the truth once in a while.

 

[pftest]

The problem is that nobody has seen that vessel. We only have personal testimonies and blurred photos.
Despite the thousands of alleged alien abductions, nobody was able to bring back at least an ashtray stolen from the spaceship.

People claim to have seem some extremely weird UFO's, including giant ones. Unfortunately they didn't bring back conclusive evidence, but for eyewitnesses of such craft, if they did see what they claim they saw, then it is not irrational for them to believe it was aliens.

If you watch the first minute and 15seconds of this video, you see an example of someone (B-52 copilot) judging a craft to be alien based on what he saw:

 

[russ_watters]

There is no scientific evidence for aliens, but there is plenty of evidence for UFOs...

So what does that mean? As you often point out, UFO stands for "Unidentified Flying Object", not "flying saucer", so the existence of UFOs is a trivial fact, but at the same time the existence of UFOs tells us nothing whatsoever of value when it comes to the possibility of the existence of aliens.

The fact that you trust someone who thinks they saw a flying saucer doesn't alter the problem at all.

...and plenty of anecdotal evidence for aliens.

As you appear to understand with your statement above, anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. So the existence of anecdotal evidence doesn't alter what you said above: there is no scientific evidence for aliens. The only possible thing a scientific minded person could believe is that there is no reason to believe that aliens could be visiting us.

As for God, I won't touch that one because I don't know the rate of alleged God contacts, but I can't recall any recently.

They happen on a nearly daily basis, Ivan, you're just not paying attention (they don't always make the news anyway). The evidence is in the news and on sale on Ebay all the time. Here's evidence of God so compelling that it sold on Ebay for $28,000: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/

There are certainly some well documented UFO encounters, including military encounters, that are suggestive of an advanced technology and that seem to defy prosaic explanations.

And as you said: they don't meet the standard of science. So scientifically minded people such as yourself have no choice but to choose not to believe in aliens or alien spacecraft . Choosing to believe that they do exist is nothing more than a religion of a different kind.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think the alien option is necessarily irrational. I agree that, after establishing that a craft is flying around, first thing that should be considered is whether it is human technology.

But, suppose you saw the giant independence day ufo (http://www.thearchetypalconnection.com/images/IndependenceDayMovieLow.JPG ) flying over your head, it would not be irrational to suppose that it's probably alien. Even though you can't see the occupants, you can compare the crafts properties with human technology and reach a conclusion.

Your logic is fine, but the problem is that no one as yet been able to "establish" as fact that a flying saucer was seen.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, there is evidene for unidentified flying objects. But visitors from other stars? IMO aliens are todays fairy tales.

Just remember that is only your opinion.

People have always come up with irrational explanations to phenomena they didn't understand.

That is true. And some of the most ardent ET believers will tell you the same thing. In the UFO community, it is known that 90-95% of all "UFO sightnings" can be easily explained. However, some of the most interesting reports defy the notion that people were mistaken. Either they are lying or not, and sometimes the corroborating evidence suggests they are not lying. These are the cases the most interest serious investigators.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all.

False. I think you are assuming that scientific is the only form of evidence. While it is true that accepted scientific doctrine only recognizes scientific evidence, the breadth of human experience often does not enjoy the luxury of reproducibility on demand.

Given that people are convicted of crimes in part based on anecdotal evidence, it is in fact the law of the land that anecdotal evidence is evidence. Now, if you choose to consider only those assertions supported by scientific evidence, that is your right, but it doesn't change the fact that there are many types of evidence. Scientific evidence is the most rigorous form. Others are: Experimental evidence, photographic and video evidence, RADAR evidence, trace physical evidence, as well as eyewitness testimony. Note that photographic, video, and RADAR evidence, are really just measurements.

The weight given any evidence can depend on corroborating evidence.

You can say the same thing about ghosts.

Your assumption that ghosts do not exist does not serve as proof of your position. It is circular logic: There are no ghosts because we have no evidence. All evidence if false because there are no ghosts. Now, if you want to limit the discussion to scientific evidence, then please tell me what specific evidence could qualify. What evidence of ghosts [if they exist] could serve as scientific evidence?

You can't disprove ghosts, nor can you disprove alien visitors, but the very fact that you can't disprove a certain thing, doesn't make it realistic.

Nor does it make something untrue.

When it comes to (the Christian) God, it's evident that he doesn't exist if you read the Old Testament. But that's OT.

That is a leap of faith.

I remain a sceptic here.

GOOD! You should be. I'm not trying to convince anyone that ET is here. But I am saying that there are very good reasons why people believe such things. I have said this many times and I will say it again. After over twenty years of following this subject with great interest [thinking that I could figure it all out], I don't know what to think, but it isn't all nonsense. Is ET here? I have no idea! But based on the evidence, I can't rule out that possibility.

Even if there is intelligence behind the UFOs, it doesn't mean there are intelligent beings INSIDE them. I think it's far more realistic that they are part of a military spy project.

In some cases this is almost certainly true. It has also been suggested by scientists that remote probes would be the most likely alien technology that we might encounter.

At least we agree on Obama

Then you are obviously a very intelligent and highly perceptive individual.

 

[pftest]

I thought anecdotes were evidence in science too. They use it in neuroscience fMRI experiments. Its just the lowest form of evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Generally, scientific evidence requires duplication and peer review. Even experimental evidence is not automatically scientific evidence. Something like an MRI image might serve as legal evidence, medical evidence, or as scientific evidence. The standards for the three situations would be different.

 

[my_wan]

Personally I don't find the notion of aliens that far out of the realm of possible. Even given the light speed limitation you can get anywhere in this galaxy in 20 years with 1G constant acceleration. The notion that returning home wouldn't be possible due to the hundreds of thousands of years passing back home presumes their home is a fixed location. It may well be their home they came in. Even weirder notions like they seeded life here to see what would happen isn't impossible. We have a good handle on evolution but abiogenesis remains speculative. However far fetched such an alien hypothesis is I'm curious as to how the odds of abiogenesis compares. It's reasonable to presume it's not very likely given that it seems to have occurred only once on Earth and all life branched out from there. Unfortunately the data is simply not there. Just a few tantalizing guesses.

That said it remains dishonest to claim any of it to be so, no matter what people think they saw. Even if a bunch of greys took me on board and told me all this it remains a leap of faith that someones not pulling a big psych experiment at my expense. Even if they were real aliens I have no knowledge of their social structure to assess the honesty of what's said. Giving me some neat toys might help a lot. Just showing them to me wouldn't.

The fact is the evidence for aliens is nil. No, anecdotal evidence is no evidence of aliens whatsoever. Even to take the sightings I personally witnessed and make a simple presumption of UFO implies too many assumptions to make any reasonable bet on what it was. Even if your 90% sure on any given assumption if you stack enough assumption you are nearly certain to be wrong. Does unidentified mean unidentified to all humans? Does flying mean that it is self propelled? Does object mean a solid object? Intelligence, artificial intelligence, non-human, and extra terrestrial are all completely separate assumptions. Even those considerations bypass assumptions about visual acuity of translations against a background of stars, etc. We tend to grossly underestimate the number of assumptions we make in even everyday mundane observations. Our bias is compounded greatly when we are contemplating the unknown. We also tend to massively underestimate the number of possibilities that we fail to consider.

The notion that anything we have to date is evidence is intellectually dishonest. Belief in such conjecture as factual is just nuts.

 

[CEL]

Personally I don't find the notion of aliens that far out of the realm of possible. Even given the light speed limitation you can get anywhere in this galaxy in 20 years with 1G constant acceleration.

The Galaxy's dimensions are 100,000 ly in diameter and ~2,000 ly thick. How can you go anywhere in 20 years?

The notion that returning home wouldn't be possible due to the hundreds of thousands of years passing back home presumes their home is a fixed location. It may well be their home they came in. Even weirder notions like they seeded life here to see what would happen isn't impossible. We have a good handle on evolution but abiogenesis remains speculative.

Even if life on Earth was seeded by visiting aliens, this only transfers the problem of abiogenesis to another world. The only alternative hypothesis to abiogenesis is the religious one.

However far fetched such an alien hypothesis is I'm curious as to how the odds of abiogenesis compares. It's reasonable to presume it's not very likely given that it seems to have occurred only once on Earth and all life branched out from there. Unfortunately the data is simply not there. Just a few tantalizing guesses.

Who says that abiogenesis occurred only once? It may have happened several times, but natural selection kept only the most successful one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The notion that anything we have to date is evidence is intellectually dishonest.

False. What is intellectually dishonest is to define evidence according to personal beliefs. We have no scientific evidence for ET, but there is evidence.

It may be completely reasonable to reject all evidence, but the defintion of evidence is not subject to the whims of whomever happens to be talking.

 

[pftest]

That said it remains dishonest to claim any of it to be so, no matter what people think they saw. Even if a bunch of greys took me on board and told me all this it remains a leap of faith that someones not pulling a big psych experiment at my expense.

I think you're taking it a bit too far, disqualifying your own experiences. If you witnessed aliens you could have the same certainty of their existence as you have when witnessing humans. After all, your entire knowledge of planet Earth inhabited by humans is also based on your senses and experiences.

Does unidentified mean unidentified to all humans? Does flying mean that it is self propelled? Does object mean a solid object? Intelligence, artificial intelligence, non-human, and extra terrestrial are all completely separate assumptions. Even those considerations bypass assumptions about visual acuity of translations against a background of stars, etc. We tend to grossly underestimate the number of assumptions we make in even everyday mundane observations. Our bias is compounded greatly when we are contemplating the unknown. We also tend to massively underestimate the number of possibilities that we fail to consider.

I think you'd be shocked about what possibilities the UFO community considers

And that's not just the alien possibilities, but also objects circling airplanes being 'the moon'.

 

[my_wan]

I think you're taking it a bit too far, disqualifying your own experiences. If you witnessed aliens you could have the same certainty of their existence as you have when witnessing humans. After all, your entire knowledge of planet Earth inhabited by humans is also based on your senses and experiences.

Yes I do discount my own experiences as evidence. Real experiences that I did in fact experience. Even personal experiences require a degree substantiation outside the moment of experience. That's not to claim the experience itself was false, it's the notion of evidence in question. I listened to the notions of many standing right there with me and their perceived experience was certainly distorted compared to what I was witnessing. Not only that their memory of the experience tended to morph the more they talked about it. Evidence? No... I liked my Uncles suggestion the best, "Drunk Russians, they've been hitting the vodka a little too hard and can't figure out which way is home". People make attrocious witnesses. Including me, in spite of the fact that I attempted to use my fingers and nearby trees to get a perspective of what motions were real.

I think you'd be shocked about what possibilities the UFO community considers

Yeah right... You can't even invent a parady that a google search wouldn't find somebody taking seriously.
http://www.irelandseye.com/leprechaun/webcam.htm"

And that's not just the alien possibilities, but also objects circling airplanes being 'the moon'.

My point exactly. If the possibility even existed for me to cover them all it would essentially invalidate my point.

 

[f95toli]

I think you're taking it a bit too far, disqualifying your own experiences. If you witnessed aliens you could have the same certainty of their existence as you have when witnessing humans. After all, your entire knowledge of planet Earth inhabited by humans is also based on your senses and experiences.

my_wan is correct. You can't be sure that something is correct just because you experienced it; our brains are extremely unreliable "measurement instruments" and has a tendency to come up with all sorts of nonsense given the right circumstances.
The reason most (well, nearly all) scientists dismiss anecdotal evidence for UFOs etc is not because they dismiss the people who claim to have seen the event is question as unreliable (or lunatics), the reason is simply that they don't trust people; and that includes themselves.
There is a very good reason why e.g. double blind tests are used in medical research: the researchers involved simply do not "trust" themselves any more than they trust their patients.

 

[pftest]

But there is no way to circumvent your own experiences in the quest for knowledge. You cannot get any knowledge without experience.

My_wan mentioned the scenario where an alien experience was actually a big psych experiment done by humans. How do you know the human world isn't a big psych experiment done by aliens?

Ultimately you have to trust some of your experiences.

 

[Grogerian]

I don't think it's really possible for aliens to do as we think... come to earth, leave come to Earth leave, for that to be possible they would have to be relatively close :/ and from probes space shuttles lander's we haven't seen any of this sure there was and is water on Mars (frozen) but saying aliens visit us, idk a bit hard to believe as we understand physics today.

however I do think aliens exist, it's highly unlikely that we are the only "gifted" planet in even our own solar system other than the universe, It seems that we can't just say for example *jupiter* it does have a storm on it, and just because it's "too cold for life" doesn't mean one thing. It's too cold for OUR life, but nothing has ever left us unshocked before finding single cell organisms that can withstand mad amounts of heat or cold or anything, why couldn't they "evolve" to let's say a super heating skin. getting a bit off topic...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

my_wan is correct. You can't be sure that something is correct just because you experienced it; our brains are extremely unreliable "measurement instruments" and has a tendency to come up with all sorts of nonsense given the right circumstances.

All true, however there comes a point where you have to cross the street. Do you trust your observations or not? We can all be fooled, but this does not explain the most interesting cases - esp cases with corroborating evidence.

The reason most (well, nearly all) scientists dismiss anecdotal evidence for UFOs etc is not because they dismiss the people who claim to have seen the event is question as unreliable (or lunatics), the reason is simply that they don't trust people; and that includes themselves.

Actually, according to Dr. Peter A. Sturrock - Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University - the problem is that most scientists know little to nothing about the subject.

"Although... the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant. Such views have been presented in the Hearings of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics [and elsewhere]. It is also notable that one major national scientific society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, set up a subcommittee in 1967 to 'gain a fresh and objective perspective on the UFO phenomenon.'

In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data." (Sturrock, Peter A., "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987.)"

Note also that in their COMETA report, an elite group of scientists and other academics conclude that some UFOs may in fact be ET crafts. One of the contributors to this report was the head of the French space agency - their NASA equivalent.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note also:

When Prof. Peter Sturrock, a prominent Stanford University plasma physicist, conducted a survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society he found that astronomers who spent time reading up on the UFO phenomenon developed more interest in it. If there were nothing to it, you would expect the opposite."

- Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Director of the California Institute For Physics and Astrophysics

 

[LightbulbSun]

One thing is certain: Anyone telling such a story gets labeled a nut. And I'm sure that makes a lot of people sleep better at night. It is a scary prospect to consider the alternatives.

Or maybe it's because a lot of people don't wallow in every single claim being made?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Hmmm I've noticed Russ gave a well reasoned response to Ivan, and Ivan chose to ignore it and address someone else. Very interesting.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Note also:


- Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Director of the California Institute For Physics and Astrophysics

So people's interest being peaked now equals validity?

 

[paw]

Note also:

When Prof. Peter Sturrock, a prominent Stanford University plasma physicist, conducted a survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society he found that astronomers who spent time reading up on the UFO phenomenon developed more interest in it. If there were nothing to it, you would expect the opposite."

- Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Director of the California Institute For Physics and Astrophysics

I've spent time reading, and developed an interest in, Tolkein's LOR. That doesn't mean I believe in Hobbits.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've spent time reading, and developed an interest in, Tolkein's LOR. That doesn't mean I believe in Hobbits.

First of all, I didn't see anything in the quote about belief.

Your assertion is that scientists find that they enjoy reading UFO reports for their literary value. Have you ever read a NSA UFO report, for example? The quote was they they gain interest in the phenomenon, not the stories. You are taking the quote out of context.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hmmm I've noticed Russ gave a well reasoned response to Ivan, and Ivan chose to ignore it and address someone else. Very interesting.

Oh my, I will have to take a look.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Or maybe it's because a lot of people don't wallow in every single claim being made?

It was a joke.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So people's interest being peaked now equals validity?

Did I say that, or are you once again trying to put words in my mouth?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I essentially responded to Russ in my post to kasse. Which point would you like me to address?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So what does that mean? As you often point out, UFO stands for "Unidentified Flying Object", not "flying saucer", so the existence of UFOs is a trivial fact, but at the same time the existence of UFOs tells us nothing whatsoever of value when it comes to the possibility of the existence of aliens.

Since some UFOs, as described, would almost certainly be technology beyond our level of understanding, the suggestion of aliens is inseparable from some UFO reports.

The fact that you trust someone who thinks they saw a flying saucer doesn't alter the problem at all.

That depends entirely on the nature of the claim.

As you appear to understand with your statement above, anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. So the existence of anecdotal evidence doesn't alter what you said above: there is no scientific evidence for aliens.

We agree so far.

The only possible thing a scientific minded person could believe is that there is no reason to believe that aliens could be visiting us.

Incorrect. Any scientifically minded person would realize that we don't understand how any mode of travel could allow aliens to traverse such great distances, but any rational person also realizes that science is not complete. Do you have some kind of crystal ball that allows you to see the ultimate limits of science?

Scientifically minded people usually don't claim omniscience.

They happen on a nearly daily basis, Ivan, you're just not paying attention (they don't always make the news anyway). The evidence is in the news and on sale on Ebay all the time. Here's evidence of God so compelling that it sold on Ebay for $28,000: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/

So an apparent image on a piece of toast is an encounter with God? WOW!

And as you said: they don't meet the standard of science. So scientifically minded people such as yourself have no choice but to choose not to believe in aliens or alien spacecraft . Choosing to believe that they do exist is nothing more than a religion of a different kind.

Your position is that scientists far more accomplished than you or almost anyone on this forum are not scientifically minded? I didn't realize that engineers like yourself had such rigorous training. It seems that my training in physics taught me to be a bit more humble in my assumptions.

If you feel the need to believe that which can't be known, that is your choice. Some of us don't assume that we have all of the answers. We don't need to. We are willing to consider that there may still be a few mysteries. Some of us can live with "maybe", when that's as good as it gets for now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no law anywhere stating that scientific evidence is the only evidence that is logical to consider. Science is a tool, not a religion. What's more, every discovery began with anecdotal evidence.

 

[my_wan]

Sorry I somehow missed this post.

The Galaxy's dimensions are 100,000 ly in diameter and ~2,000 ly thick. How can you go anywhere in 20 years?

The distance across the Galaxy is a function of your speed relative to it. If you are traveling through this Galaxy at 86% the speed of light then the distance across the Galaxy is only 50,00 ly rather than 100,000 ly. The spectators back home say your clocks are running half speed giving you the impression that distances are cut in half. At 1 G constant acceleration it only takes about 6 months to reach 50% the speed of light with a distance traveled of about 0.1 ly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_and_space_flight"

Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel as far as light has been able to travel since the big bang (some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime.

The speed of light is only a limitation of the observers watching the trip and the number of years that must pass back home.

Even if life on Earth was seeded by visiting aliens, this only transfers the problem of abiogenesis to another world. The only alternative hypothesis to abiogenesis is the religious one.

Yes but if abiogenesis is exceedingly rare enough and civilizations advanced enough are likely to want to study the process for real which is more likely to be what started life on any given life bearing planet? Unfortunately the complete lack of data leaves such a question a purely rhetorical one.

Who says that abiogenesis occurred only once? It may have happened several times, but natural selection kept only the most successful one.

Very good point, but I said, "seems to have occurred only once". We can't even be certain that there's not life on this planet that we don't even recognize as life for various reasons. Does self replicating Paxil qualify? One manufacturers patented version began replicating itself by converting another manufactures version. There was even a patent lawsuit because a patent existed on the form that the other version was being converted to.
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/11/patent-goo-self-replicating-paxil.html"
It doesn't qualify as life by my definition on the grounds it doesn't posses a mechanism for evolution but it does point out the issue. We are simply lacking too much data to even discuss meaningful odds at the moment.

This lack of data applies directly to the OP question. The evidence is nil.

 

[my_wan]

There is no law anywhere stating that scientific evidence is the only evidence that is logical to consider. Science is a tool, not a religion. What's more, every discovery began with anecdotal evidence.

You seem to presume "scientific evidence" has this well defined property called X,Y, and Z. This is not the case. A better way to state your first sentence is: Any evidence that is logical to consider is by definition scientific evidence. It doesn't even matter how much it deviates from traditional notions of scientific evidence, so long as it is logical with testable consequences.

When you say every discovery began with anecdotal evidence it appears that you are conflating hypothesis and evidence. Some discoveries began as pure imagination devoid of even anecdotal evidence. Even a hypothesis that is well supported scientifically is not evidence in itself. The evidence is provided by the testability of the consequences.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You seem to presume "scientific evidence" has this well defined property called X,Y, and Z. This is not the case. A better way to state your first sentence is: Any evidence that is logical to consider is by definition scientific evidence. It doesn't even matter how much it deviates from traditional notions of scientific evidence, so long as it is logical with testable consequences.

Absolutely false! Scientific evidence requires repeatability, duplication, and peer review. Only after exhaustive verification by many people can evidence be considered scientific evidence.

When you say every discovery began with anecdotal evidence it appears that you are conflating hypothesis and evidence. Some discoveries began as pure imagination devoid of even anecdotal evidence. Even a hypothesis that is well supported scientifically is not evidence in itself. The evidence is provided by the testability of the consequences.

False. Discoveries are made through evidence. Scientific models that account for observations are the ultimate goal of hypotheses.

 

[my_wan]

Absolutely false! Scientific evidence requires repeatability, duplication, and peer review. Only after exhaustive verification by many people can evidence be considered scientific evidence.

Do I need peer review to determine that my faucet leaks? The evidence is in fact scientific regardless of peer review. Do we need to repeat a mega-meteor impact for the evidence of an extinction level meteor? The evidence is in fact scientific without the need for a repeat. Only the last point might stand. "Verification" doesn't significantly differ from the notion I used when I said "logical with testable consequences".

False. Discoveries are made through evidence. Scientific models that account for observations are the ultimate goal of hypotheses.

Scientific discoveries are often made by saying: Wouldn't it be neet if X. No evidence whatsoever, anecdotal or otherwise, is needed to posit such a notion. The scientific method only comes into play to determine if either X can be falsified or is falsifiable in principle. Aliens are visiting us is NOT falsifiable on the information we have at present. The only way to falsify such a statement is to determine the affirmative. It therefore is not a scientific statement unless or until aliens are visiting us is answered in the affirmative.

It is in principle possible to use sound scientific methods to search for these aliens. Proclaiming anecdotal evidence as evidence doesn't cut it. The only justification you need for the search is the fact that the possibility is by no means ruled out scientifically. The speed of light limitation places limits and reduces the odds but by no means rules out such a possibility.

Scientific discoveries are made through saying: Duh.. maybe. Then having sense enough not to get bogged down in belief and accusing the Universe of denying you the evidence. Anecdotal evidence is barely a step ahead of conspiracy and on par with the aetherist claim that an absolute frame exist but the Universe is using the Lorentz Transformation to hide it from us.

 

[pftest]

It turns out there's a wikipedia article about "scientific evidence":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

I think everyone here knows that eyewitness reports can be mistaken for various reasons, especially if you've seriously looked into ufology for awhile.

But, what do you do with a case like [picks an example] the 2001 illinois ufo with 5 police witnesses? Do you say "eyewitnesses are unreliable, case closed" or do you say "they probably saw something flying around, so what was it?".

 

[Hanfonius]

'The most basic part of the pursuit of truth is just looking around: seeing what is. Such data collection is the starting point of all science. Explanations can’t exist without facts to explain, nor can experiments be designed in a knowledge vacuum – but data collection can stand on its own. For example, observing animal behaviour in the wild, or finding and analysing fossils, can provide a body of knowledge even without theory or experiment.'

I'm not a scientist, not even a particularly clever person, but I do listen to other peoples experiences. I reserve the right to think of it as total rubbish, or to perhaps think there may be more to it than I can understand.

I cannot tell a good wine from a bad wine; either I like the taste or I don't.
I am unable to see why people would pay many millions of pounds for paintings when I am unable to see anything special about them.
I adore certain pieces of classical music, but others mean nothing to me.

I recognise that there are experts in those fields - but I am unable to understand it.

I didn't believe in the coelacanths until I saw photographs.

 

[Proton Soup]

*sigh* i think the best explanation of UFOs is that it forms a good cover story for public sightings of experimental aircraft. and it probably gets a good laugh from some of the NASA guys convincing a few of their own gullible goofs that aliens are among us. after all, it's obvious the guy can't keep his mouth shut, so why would you entrust him with the knowledge that you were working on some non-traditional propulsion technology?

speaking of which, a lot of the physicists they employ have some way-out-there ideas of their own wrt how the universe works. and maybe that's all fine and good since progress doesn't come out of considering only the classical models. plus, they do fund the occasional odd projects involving things like electrogravitics, and if they really did get one floating up in the air and spotted by a civilian, no one's going to believe them. there was a texas farmer recently that claimed to get harassed by military personnel after spotting a low-flying craft above his property. got a quick blurb on the news and that was it. in fact, i think i saw it on Larry King, which isn't even news.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do I need peer review to determine that my faucet leaks? The evidence is in fact scientific regardless of peer review.

I will try this one more time. Scientific evidence requires duplication and peer review.

Do we need to repeat a mega-meteor impact for the evidence of an extinction level meteor? The evidence is in fact scientific without the need for a repeat.

No, but you need evidence that can be examined and tested in order to determine that the event took place. This requires repeatability.

Scientific discoveries are often made by saying: Wouldn't it be neet if X. No evidence whatsoever, anecdotal or otherwise, is needed to posit such a notion.

Give an example of a discovery made in this fashion.

The scientific method only comes into play to determine if either X can be falsified or is falsifiable in principle. Aliens are visiting us is NOT falsifiable on the information we have at present. The only way to falsify such a statement is to determine the affirmative. It therefore is not a scientific statement unless or until aliens are visiting us is answered in the affirmative.

What does this have to do with anything?

Proclaiming anecdotal evidence as evidence doesn't cut it.

Look, this is not a point subject to discussion. Not only are you are using the word evidence when you say "anecdotal evidence", which defeats your own assretion, but it is a matter of definition. There are many forms of evidence. Scienctific evidence is just one of them. If you wish to make a scientific assertion, then you need scientific evidence. But the question at hand was whether it is logical to consider weaker forms of evidence as a practical matter in life. The fact is that we do it every day. We have to in order to survive. We can't wait for peer review when we have a leaky pipe or attempt to cross the street.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Do I need peer review to determine that my faucet leaks?

I would say so. If you told me your faucet leaks and you saw it, why should I believe you? Unless your statement has been reviewed by others and confirmed there is no reason to take what you claim for scientific evidence.

 

[pftest]

There's no scientific evidence for leaking faucets