Famous astronaut: - Aliens are visiting us?

[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

 

[edward]

This was in my morning paper. I'll just drop it off here.

LONDON — An American fighter pilot flying from an English air base at the height of the Cold War was ordered to open fire on a massive UFO that lit up his radar, according to an account published by Britain's National Archives on Monday.

He didn't just claim to see it. He was scrambled to intercept it.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/263382

They gave the source as:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

 

[Proton Soup]

This was in my morning paper. I'll just drop it off here.



He didn't just claim to see it. He was scrambled to intercept it.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/263382

They gave the source as:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

so it was some electromagnetic phenomenon, but no one actually saw an aircraft with their own eyes?

 

[CEL]

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

If your faucet leaks, this is a fact. If an apple falls from a tree this is a fact.
If you offer an explanation for why the faucet leaks, this is a hypothesis. If you make successful experiments to test your hypothesis and your work is peer reviewed, you have a scientific theory.
Newton and Einstein developed two scientific theories to explain the fall of the apple: the Theory of Universal Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity.

 

[Proton Soup]

the only "facts" in science are the axioms. everything else is data.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

the only "facts" in science are the axioms. everything else is data.

Axioms are assumptions that are considered to be self-evident.

 

[Proton Soup]

Axioms are assumptions that are considered to be self-evident.

and facts are data that can be replicated with a probability approaching 1.

 

[edward]

so it was some electromagnetic phenomenon, but no one actually saw an aircraft with their own eyes?

Are electromagnetic phennomenon pick ed up on radar? Seriously I really dont't know.

The information was declassified and put in the UK national archives this month. That is all I do know.

Others incidents were also new entries in the archives.

http://ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

There are some lage PDF files

 

[CEL]

Are electromagnetic phennomenon pick ed up on radar? Seriously I really dont't know.

Of course, they are. Radar is a device that uses electromagnetic energy to detect targets, so electromagnetic phenomena are picked up by the sensor.

 

[CEL]

the only "facts" in science are the axioms. everything else is data.

You are confusing mathematics, whose foundations are axioms, with empirical sciences, like physics, biology, archaeology...
Axioms are not necessarily evident. If you postulate that there is only one parallel to a line through a point, this is evident and you can develop a consistent theory, like Euclid did.
If you postulate that there are two parallels to the line through the point, you have a non-evident axiom and you can develop a consistent non-Euclidean theory.
Empyrical sciences are based in observations, not in axioms.
A fact is an event whose truth can be assessed by observation, like the fall of an apple.
Data are measurements of the fact. You can measure the velocity of the fall. Based on the data you can propose an hypothesis, and if further observations confirm your hypothesis, you have a scientific theory.

 

[Proton Soup]

You are confusing mathematics, whose foundations are axioms, with empirical sciences, like physics, biology, archaeology...
Axioms are not necessarily evident. If you postulate that there is only one parallel to a line through a point, this is evident and you can develop a consistent theory, like Euclid did.
If you postulate that there are two parallels to the line through the point, you have a non-evident axiom and you can develop a consistent non-Euclidean theory.
Empyrical sciences are based in observations, not in axioms.
A fact is an event whose truth can be assessed by observation, like the fall of an apple.
Data are measurements of the fact. You can measure the velocity of the fall. Based on the data you can propose an hypothesis, and if further observations confirm your hypothesis, you have a scientific theory.

i'm not confusing a thing. i didn't say axioms were data, i said data were things that are not axioms, that is, "everything else".

now, any time you make an observation, you're relying on your senses. even the things we can't sense directly are sensed indirectly with tools that were forged by humans all the way up the chain. everything we "know" about the universe is fundamentally based on how our bodies interact with it. in the end, all those facts are perceptions. we can all agree that most of us perceive the same thing most of the time, but that's as good as it will ever be.

 

[CEL]

i'm not confusing a thing. i didn't say axioms were data, i said data were things that are not axioms, that is, "everything else".

now, any time you make an observation, you're relying on your senses. even the things we can't sense directly are sensed indirectly with tools that were forged by humans all the way up the chain. everything we "know" about the universe is fundamentally based on how our bodies interact with it. in the end, all those facts are perceptions. we can all agree that most of us perceive the same thing most of the time, but that's as good as it will ever be.

Again, empirical sciences don't have axioms. Data are quantifications of observations. A leaking faucet is not an axiom and is not a datum, it is a fact. If you measure the rate of flow of the faucet, this is a datum.

 

[Proton Soup]

Again, empirical sciences don't have axioms. Data are quantifications of observations. A leaking faucet is not an axiom and is not a datum, it is a fact. If you measure the rate of flow of the faucet, this is a datum.

all faucets leak.

 

[CEL]

all faucets leak.

If this is true, it is a fact, not an axiom.

 

[Proton Soup]

If this is true, it is a fact, not an axiom.

well, that's not really what i was getting at, but simply to point out that we are not seeing the problem the same way. i think it's unlikely that any faucets don't leak, but rather it's a matter of how fast they leak. faucets that leak at extremely slow rates simply do not appear to leak because of evaporation.

and this is part of why axioms and mathematics matter here. the way you and i view things depends on the logic we use. that reasoning is mathematics. and that mathematics is based on our assumptions, or axioms. now, if you wish to say something is a fact, that is a value that you've placed on a piece of data, a conclusion you've come to. you're applying logic to data. your facts are based on your assumptions, and no one else's.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Something may be a fact, but if it can't be peer reviewed, it is only a fact to you. This is the same problem had by people who honestly report UFOs, or ghosts, or anything that they don't understand and that can't be replicated on demand. We know that people could come from all over the world and confirm that you have a leaky pipe. But if all that I have is your word, then it is just another leaky pipe story. How do I know if it's a fact or not?

 

[Hanfonius]

When I read a report on an UFO siting, I like to read it as reported. It may be a load of old rubbish, or delusion, but it may also be true. At that time, I do not need to apply scientific proofing.

Let's take an established science, one that has passed all of the tests, and is an undisputed science. Meteorology.

So what is the weather going to be like tomorrow? Nobody really knows if it is going to rain. One TV channel tells us that it will be 'sunny with perhaps the occasional shower' while the other side tells us it will be 'intermittent showers with the occasional bright spell.' I am surprised that there are enough English words to juggle around so that whatever happens, they can say, 'We were right.'

Despite the fact that almost all of the weather reporting and forecasting comes from Bracknell, with their 200 million pounds computing equipment, all the meteorologists can tell us is (a) what the weather is right now, and (b) what will probably happen tomorrow - but no guarantees.

One of the purposes of this science called meteorology is to forecast - and it cannot do it with any degree of accuracy. ...so, is meteorology a science at all?