Famous astronaut: - Aliens are visiting us?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Aliens Astronaut
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the claims made by astronaut Edgar Mitchell regarding the existence of extraterrestrial visitors and the implications of such claims. Participants explore the nature of evidence for UFOs and aliens, the credibility of Mitchell's assertions, and the broader societal and governmental implications of these topics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about Mitchell's credibility, labeling him a "nutcase" without specific claims to support his assertions.
  • Others argue that dismissing Mitchell's claims outright is an unjustified leap of faith, suggesting that he is relaying stories from credible sources.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of evidence, with some asserting that anecdotal evidence for aliens exists but is not scientifically valid.
  • Some participants propose that the lack of concrete evidence for alien visitors does not negate the possibility of their existence, while others maintain that anecdotal evidence is insufficient.
  • Concerns are raised about the rationality of assuming alien origins for unidentified flying objects, with some suggesting that human technology should be the first consideration.
  • Participants discuss the implications of government secrecy and the potential for military involvement in UFO phenomena, with varying levels of trust in governmental narratives.
  • Some express that the phenomenon of UFOs could be misinterpreted and that historical patterns of human explanation for the unknown should be considered.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the credibility of Mitchell's claims, the interpretation of UFO evidence, and the rationality of believing in alien visitors.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the reliance on anecdotal evidence, the ambiguity of personal testimonies, and the lack of scientific validation for claims of extraterrestrial life.

  • #61
Proton Soup said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
CEL said:
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.
 
  • #63
Proton Soup said:
all faucets leak.

If this is true, it is a fact, not an axiom.
 
  • #64
CEL said:
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.
 
  • #65
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?
 
  • #66
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?