Neil DeGrasse Tyson: ET and DNA

a reply to: draknoir2

Wait...are you saying that I am the one with the obsession? That I secretly love zeta? Could this be true? You've given me much to think about...I'm going to have to search my feelings...gaze deeply into the mirror...figure out whether I follow my heart, even at the risk of it being broken.....do I dare? Is this truly the churlish dumb troll who is going to sweep me off my feet and make an honest man of me? Oh, I want to believe, but do I dare dream it?

Respect to all

Just curious to other skeptics (one myself) what would be considered evidence?? Or better yet what would make you accept/believe??

originally posted by: rmi187
Respect to all

Just curious to other skeptics (one myself) what would be considered evidence?? Or better yet what would make you accept/believe??

Yo, respek.

What we would need would be like an ashtray like Neill DaGrasse Tyson says. Stories just don't mean anything.

K so some type of tech made of materials not of earth?? Might have better luck playing the lotto. As far as am concern studying peoples accounts is not necessarily evidence however it does shed light on psychological trauma. Honestly I think the answers will not come from one field of study rather from several if not all. There is still much to learn about the human brain and how it works and to exclude hallucinations and or something as bizarre as memory implants is nonsense. reply to:sZetaRediculian

a reply to: rmi187

There is still much to learn about the human brain and how it works and to exclude hallucinations and or something as bizarre as memory implants is nonsense.

I completely disagree...no wait....

Thank you so much for posting this.

a reply to: rmi187

K so some type of tech made of materials not of earth?? Might have better luck playing the lotto.

Well that depends. Physical beings interacting with us physically for 70 years abducting 2% of the population and not leaving a trace could be considered even more improbable or even impossible.

As far as am concern studying peoples accounts is not necessarily evidence however it does shed light on psychological trauma.

Im not sure what you are saying. Psychological trauma could be from something purely psychological.

originally posted by: rmi187
Respect to all

Just curious to other skeptics (one myself) what would be considered evidence?? Or better yet what would make you accept/believe??

Absent physical evidence I would consider consistent, unrelated, multiple witness accounts as evidence of a "happening". Such eyewitness accounts on the scale of the Phoenix Lights would make me accept that there actually was a "happening".

To get more specific than that would require better evidence.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: rmi187
Respect to all

Just curious to other skeptics (one myself) what would be considered evidence?? Or better yet what would make you accept/believe??

Absent physical evidence I would consider consistent, unrelated, multiple witness accounts as evidence of a "happening". Such eyewitness accounts on the scale of the Phoenix Lights would make me accept that there actually was a "happening".

To get more specific than that would require better evidence.

You could have answered the question...

Define evidence...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: rmi187
Respect to all

Just curious to other skeptics (one myself) what would be considered evidence?? Or better yet what would make you accept/believe??

Absent physical evidence I would consider consistent, unrelated, multiple witness accounts as evidence of a "happening". Such eyewitness accounts on the scale of the Phoenix Lights would make me accept that there actually was a "happening".

To get more specific than that would require better evidence.

You could have answered the question...

Define evidence...

That isnt a question, nor was it requested.

I'll give an example, however.

A belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument is evidence of mental disorder.

Think about that.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: rmi187
Respect to all

Just curious to other skeptics (one myself) what would be considered evidence?? Or better yet what would make you accept/believe??

Absent physical evidence I would consider consistent, unrelated, multiple witness accounts as evidence of a "happening". Such eyewitness accounts on the scale of the Phoenix Lights would make me accept that there actually was a "happening".

To get more specific than that would require better evidence.

You could have answered the question...

Define evidence...

That isnt a question, nor was it requested.

I'll give an example, however.

A belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument is evidence of mental disorder.

Think about that.

No that wasn't a question...and; I don't process requests from you.
I will, however, issue a "MIRQ" (maskable interrupt request) at will, as it is my prerogative, as a sentient being, to do so.

That said; WOW! what a epic fail on a definition of evidence!

Seriously though...define "evidence"...

There is this lingering argument over what constitutes evidence, and, since there is no agreement, absolutely NO progress can be made. Each camp accuses the other of refusing to "see" the truth and reality. Of course, both camps "see" the very same truths, the same reality, yet because of differences of perception they "see" differently. The problem comes when one camp starts to demand things they know they can not have...that would be your camp.

You have so misconstrued the idea of evidence that it appears unrecognizable to a logical, intelligent, thinking person, yet you hang on to the fragments of a nothing you thought you once had. And as the evidence stack up, you more frequently grasp at the straws of anything to support your position, without regard to whether these things are right, wrong, or otherwise. Then you have the temerity to demand the application of science; turning on that very science when it fails to support your fantasies. You are continually, and more frequently turning to pseudo science and "sake oil" to support your incorrect, and ill-analyzed idea.

Anyway, enough of this BS; how about we have a civilized discussion...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Except very few people these days and, as far as I see, nobody in this thread or in this forum has started that they think we are alone.

I'll jump in. We're alone until we find somebody else.

You can throw out numbers and talk about probabilities versus possibilities all you want. But hypothetical aliens don't really exist. If there's a real alien somewhere in a galaxy a hundred million light years away that we'll never know about or interact with, on a practical basis, they don't exist.

IF tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it; does it make a sound?

Ya know man...using modern physics I can prove that a sound was made, without needing to actually "hear" it, even IF I can't get specific about that actual unique sound that was obviously made.

Same applies to Extraterrestrials...I do not have to produce one to prove they exist! IF this is what you require, then you have misplaced many things, your priorities, logic, sense, and reason should top the list...you would have unreasonable expectations of ET and ANY data concerning him.

Seriously, you and most other Terrestrials need to get over the whole "alien" thing, and start thinking about what you actually do know, and not just about non-terrestrials either.

This kind of reasoning is called "making an assumption" and is flawed, which is funny because you just said most people don't know how to stay true and unbiased to an observation.

Making an assumption of "if this happens, then this should be true too" is not a proof but a deduction of reasoning and common sense. But this isn't the same as a PROOF and far from TRUE. Just an expectation of the incident.

If a tree fell, we must first know how do we know a tree fell. We need to know at least 4 variables;

1. The definition of a tree in general term (there is a scientific definition)
2. The meaning of falling (there is no scientific definition and would need more explanation about original position, direction of force, mass involved, velocity etc.)
3. Location (from an eye witness testimony this can only be approximated)
4. Time (see above)

So here we see that already on point 1 we need to take a sample to see that a tree really fell. Maybe it was an optical illusion (hologram), maybe it wasn't a tree but an Hollywood FX Model. "Maybe" it looked like a tree... but was in fact something else, so forth.

Neil Tyson explains this by saying that eye witness testimony can not be used as a proof at all. It is very flawed because PROOF must be objectively measureable such as hard evidence, recordings, movies, seismic data, etc.

originally posted by: mryang

This kind of reasoning is called "making an assumption" and is flawed, which is funny because you just said most people don't know how to stay true and unbiased to an observation.

Making an assumption of "if this happens, then this should be true too" is not a proof but a deduction of reasoning and common sense. But this isn't the same as a PROOF and far from TRUE. Just an expectation of the incident.

roflmao!

Seriously?!!! You have missed, somewhat, the context.

Firstly, I made NO assumptions! They are a "thing" that I actually try to avoid...

I never said it was proof of anything. However, within the limited context here, it most certainly bears truth.

If a tree fell, we must first know how do we know a tree fell. We need to know at least 4 variables;

1. The definition of a tree in general term (there is a scientific definition)
2. The meaning of falling (there is no scientific definition and would need more explanation about original position, direction of force, mass involved, velocity etc.)
3. Location (from an eye witness testimony this can only be approximated)
4. Time (see above)

This is seriously rich!!!

So here we see that already on point 1 we need to take a sample to see that a tree really fell. Maybe it was an optical illusion (hologram), maybe it wasn't a tree but an Hollywood FX Model. "Maybe" it looked like a tree... but was in fact something else, so forth.

I thought point 1 was the definition of a "tree".

That not withstanding; it really isn't proper, nor within the context originally stated. If you want to attempt to "tear" somebody down, you can at least do so within context.

Neil Tyson explains this by saying that eye witness testimony can not be used as a proof at all. It is very flawed because PROOF must be objectively measureable such as hard evidence, recordings, movies, seismic data, etc.

Yet, science, and even Mr. Tyson rely on this "eyewitness" testimony...except, they call it "empirical observation", which somehow, probably by magic, makes it okay, and very acceptable. Horsesh**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you ever heard the expression; "What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander"?

Tyson, and many other contemporary scientists display this sorry of hypocrisy, in that, their observations, are okay, valid; yet, this is not true for the average "Joe" on the street. I suppose One could try the old "he's a trained observer", but, as can be seen all over here on ATS, the "trained observer" argument simply does not hold water.

Now then, it isn't much of a stretch to conclude, logically, that IF a tree fell, it would in fact make a sound...If you like I can try to simulate it for you...I have a synthesizer.

And for the "kinds" of "evidence" you and others want to demand...again Horse!!! While many of the experiences reported are difficult to repeat, this isn't really necessary...an analysis of the data surrounding virtually any event will provide a wealth of additional data that will add weight to one hypothesis or the other. I do this sort of thing on an almost daily basis; analyze random, non-repeatable events to find out "why", "How" they happened...it may not be easy, but very possible.

ETA: Ya know IF you are going to accept non-repeatable events like an "alien abduction", or seismic data, etc. you absolutely must be uniform in that acceptance, other wise you make a mockery of the whole thing...but then again, the CIA has been conditioning you since the 60's to exactly that.

a reply to: tanka418

tanka418:
"using modern physics I can prove that a sound was made, without needing to actually "hear" it"

Can you please explain how a proof like that looks like? The Tree fell. You didn't here anything. Prove me the sound of the falling tree.

Also:
Cursing is unnecessary, so is double exclamation marks. Let's just talk straight shall we.

a reply to: mryang

Can you please explain how a proof like that looks like? The Tree fell. You didn't here anything. Prove me the sound of the falling tree.

Let's just talk straight shall we.

If that's "talking straight", God help us. Prove me the sound of a proper sentence.

But you didn't "here" that from me.

originally posted by: mryang
a reply to: tanka418

tanka418:
"using modern physics I can prove that a sound was made, without needing to actually "hear" it"

Can you please explain how a proof like that looks like? The Tree fell. You didn't here anything. Prove me the sound of the falling tree.

Also:
Cursing is unnecessary, so is double exclamation marks. Let's just talk straight shall we.

Naw...you don't seem to want t be "straight", with all the deliberate obtuse behavior and all. You don't really have what you need to talk straight here.

IF, you had any concept of what I am trying to say, you would immediately understand, and we could go on. But, you want to be obtuse, and pretend that you have some superior knowledge or advantage...you don't!!!
(there three exclamations for ya)


About the "cursing"...you have issues...

Anyway, IF you want to not be obtuse, and actually apply some semblance of modern science, sure we can talk...otherwise...Go Away!!!! (that's four)

Or perhaps you truly don't know what happens when two solid wood structures strike each other, or what happens when that wood structure strikes the Earth...But, there would be nothing I can do about that...but that old "bug-a-boo" personal experience should have taught you all you need to know.

I know that we are not supposed to give personal experience any credit, but, it seems to me that personal experience is all that any of ever really have.

a reply to: tanka418

Wow.

a reply to: Scdfa

Sorry for the mispelling. I know it's not really an excuse but,

1. I'm not native english
2. I thought the subject was more important than technicalities

But, I drop this. You win.

originally posted by: mryang
a reply to: tanka418

Wow.

Perhaps you truly don't understand...

y point was that I don't have to be there, I don't have to reproduce the event in order to know what has happened. frequently events leave lots of misc. data behind...kind of like a "paper trail". One must seek this additional data in order to find it.

This is something I do regularly. As a software architect I sometime have to debug events that seem almost random, when in fact they are not. There is rarely much direct data associated with the exception, and I have to find the misc. data that is spread around the computer...in logs, etc. It is frequently in this misc. associated data that the answer is. Just as with the tree example, the "science" tell the story.

What I was all on about: you pretending that there might be some way for a tree to fall in a forest without making any sound. The premise was the "real world", and in this world it is quite improbable that a falling would not make a noise...kind of like the "Hill map" being random.

originally posted by: mryang
a reply to: Scdfa

Sorry for the mispelling. I know it's not really an excuse but,

1. I'm not native english
2. I thought the subject was more important than technicalities

But, I drop this. You win.

I apologize, mryang, I just went for a joke, but it wasn't funny. Your English is far better than my second language. Please continue to post, I will be supportive.

I did feel that the conversation was drifting off the topic, but I should have made that point in a less snarky way.

a reply to: tanka418

Neil Tyson mentioned eye witness testimony can never be used as a PROOF.
You stated that you can PROVE a tree makes a sound when falling without being there. I object to this. It is impossible to PROVE this.

Because we deal with both fairly abstract and controversial topics, this community should use appropriate terms and separate the meaning of the words, EVIDENCE, PROOF, THEORY and HYPOTHESIS. For example, in the court of law an evidence can be a proof but in the scientific community hypotheses and theories can only be supported by evidence but never used as a PROOF.

What you have is a HYPOTHESIS that the tree "should" make a sound when it hits the ground. You can test this and build a scenario where the tree do make a sound but it's not even a valid theory and far from a PROOF. For example, it is easy to make another experiment where a tree falls without making any sound (sound absorbing material, vacuum-chamber, holographic video, so forth). So there is indisputable evidence that a tree actually can fall silent, making your claim totally worthless - possibly even in the court of law.

If you want to use the word PROOF for something else - a meaning that is not within the general community, then please present that FIRST and the rest of us can follow your lingo.

I don't want to go into some dick-measuring about spelling, bla, bla - I just want to present my view of what is a proof and not. And I like to have a nice tone to the conversation. If you like aggressive arguments, cursing, keyboard wars, I'm the wrong guy for it.