It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The words Extraordinary Claims needs to be banished when talking Extraterrestrials

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright

Mathmatically speaking, there is certainly alien civilizations out there.


I disagree. I think you can speculate that there exists the possibility of alien civilizations being out there, but I can't see where it's any sort of mathematical certainty.

This is a interesting article
Leading Astrophysicist Says It’s An Absolute Certainty Aliens Exist

Sure, there may be none, and this is the only place life ever existed, however if that were to be found out, I would..well, believe in a deity overnight. Seemingly infinate possiblities, only 1 planet housing life (and perhaps Mars, the other planet we are able to start checking out firsthand)...this would be far more magical than scientific imo




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

What??? You said:

If a astronomer notices some oddities when viewing a system, that is not evidence of aliens..that is evidence of unusual behavior that needs further studys

Of course it needs further study but it's evidence when Scientist PREDICT years earlier that we should find these signals if Extraterrestrials are out there and when they look at 2.5 million stars they find 234 stars that match their prediction. That's just science.

Nobody else predicted we would see these signals. It's easy to cherry pick after these signals are found but the strength of science is in predictions.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Drake equation. Another of those sciency (it's an EQUATION after all) things that isn't. It's not an equation, it's a thought experiment where you can plug any unknown variable into it you want and get any result you're looking for.

As soon as someone invokes the Drake equation as proof or evidence of anything, they lost me. Not you, but the person in the article. It's interesting speculation, but that's all it is. IMO.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Hawking said,"Aliens almost certainly exist." These are conclusions reached based on the evidence not extraordinary claims.

False. That conclusion is based on assumed probabilities, not on evidence, which we still don't have.
edit on 10/26/2016 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic
Hawking said,"Aliens almost certainly exist." These are conclusions reached based on the evidence not extraordinary claims.

False. That conclusion is based on assumed probabilities, not on evidence, which we still don't have.


No, it's based on evidence.

You can't assume any probabilities if there's no UNDERLYING EVIDENCE!



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
Screw the SIGNALS! ET is already here.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

If evidence to you is hearing from our "leaders", you won't ever get it.

But if you're interested in what's really going on, there's lots of evidences out there. Just dig it.

And i'm not talking about CGI photos and videos.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic
Hawking said,"Aliens almost certainly exist." These are conclusions reached based on the evidence not extraordinary claims.

False. That conclusion is based on assumed probabilities, not on evidence, which we still don't have.


At least not publicly



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
a reply to: SaturnFX

Drake equation. Another of those sciency (it's an EQUATION after all) things that isn't. It's not an equation, it's a thought experiment where you can plug any unknown variable into it you want and get any result you're looking for.

As soon as someone invokes the Drake equation as proof or evidence of anything, they lost me. Not you, but the person in the article. It's interesting speculation, but that's all it is. IMO.


Well its more than just sheer speculation as they are uncovering many of the caveats of the equasion.

But our new planetary knowledge has removed some of the uncertainty from this debate. Three of the seven terms in Drake’s equation are now known. We know the number of stars born each year. We know that the percentage of stars hosting planets is about 100. And we also know that about 20 to 25 percent of those planets are in the right place for life to form.

So the equation that started as a 60s thought experiment is seemingly by comparison conservative based on latest findings. It seems the more we are able to study, the more likely it seems and we may be underestimating by a lot.

Sure, until there is rock solid evidence, then it will of course be just a hypothesis, but its a pretty strong hypothesis and with pretty good odds in Vegas



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: neoholographic



However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


I have never liked that sentence. Just evidence would do, what is extraordinary evidence anyway?




you live with a child.
one morning you wake up and notice someone ate a ton of cookies.
logical conclusion is that the child ate the cookies.

The child says it wasn't him, it was aliens who ate it.
...
unless the kid can produce some amazing video or an actual cookie stuffed alien under his bed, then the simple evidence points to the child as a cookie thief and quite imaginative.


There's no such thing as "extraordinary evidence". It's a term that was made up because it made for a catchy slogan ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"), and if there's one thing people love to hear and to repeat, it is a catchy slogan, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. For example:

"You get what you pay for." - There are so many exceptions to this "rule" that it's obviously not a rule at all.

"Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME." - This one makes no sense at all, but because it is based on a coincidental arrangement of letters, people who find that sort of thing amusing/clever endlessly repeat it.

There are different types of evidence, such as circumstantial, direct, and conclusive, but "extraordinary" is not a legitimate type of evidence, because it doesn't actually tell us anything about the nature of the evidence; it only tells us that it's "extraordinary" in someone's opinion. You might as well call it "sweet evidence", or "kickass evidence", or "bitchin' evidence".

In reality, any claim requires X type of evidence in order to meet X standard of proof. A parent doesn't usually demand a particularly high standard of proof before deciding the "case", so in the case of the cookie thief, the purely circumstantial evidence against the child is good enough.
edit on 10/26/2016 by MaximRecoil because: typo



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

If evidence to you is hearing from our "leaders", you won't ever get it.

But if you're interested in what's really going on, there's lots of evidences out there. Just dig it.

And i'm not talking about CGI photos and videos.

I would be careful what you consider to be evidence.

I will always remember reading a forum thread where people were seemingly quite upset at Nasa and the government and were about to go cannibal...because the government *KNEW that Nibiru was coming in 2012 and were keeping it all quiet until its too late. the elites were in deep vaults a mile under the earth, etc etc.
after all, all the (internet conspiracy) evidence and "witnesses" were leaking info yadda yadda...

Its good to question things of course and dig when there may be something, but perspective is key. the officials dont say things randomly without absolute rock solid proof (except Bill Clinton who basically said there are microbes on mars before the science was complete)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
There is plenty of evidence. Official evidence.

vault.fbi.gov...

vault.fbi.gov...


But won't change **** 'till our President get a press and tell everybody:


Yes, we've been visited since the dawn of men, and yes there are lots of planets out there and guess what? They have people living in there wondering if they are alone. They are not, and neither are us. Now stop paying your taxes and watching TV because life is just so much more then we thought it was.


Of course it will never happen because no one wants to see the world collapse.

This is (read slowly and carefully) the b i g g e s t and most i m p o r t a n t discover in the h i s t o r y of the men on Earth. You won't just woke up and see it on the newspaper "WE ARE NOT ALONE".

Unless we engage on a new Nuclear War, I don't think aliens will reveal themselves to us, at least not while we still live.


Exactly, there's tons of evidence out there and many of the top Scientist out there used this evidence to reach the conclusion that Extraterrestrials exist.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic
Hawking said,"Aliens almost certainly exist." These are conclusions reached based on the evidence not extraordinary claims.

False. That conclusion is based on assumed probabilities, not on evidence, which we still don't have.


No, it's based on evidence.

You can't assume any probabilities if there's no UNDERLYING EVIDENCE!

Please prevent said evidence then.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic
Hawking said,"Aliens almost certainly exist." These are conclusions reached based on the evidence not extraordinary claims.

False. That conclusion is based on assumed probabilities, not on evidence, which we still don't have.


No, it's based on evidence.

You can't assume any probabilities if there's no UNDERLYING EVIDENCE!

Please prevent said evidence then.


I'm not going over all of the eveidence. It has been presented thouroughly throughout this forum and others. This isn't a thread about rehashing the same things over and over again. The point is, someone could look at the evidence of exoplanets and come to the conclusion extraterrestrials exist.

This is because there's no evidence that life on earth has some special ingredient that can't be duplicated anywhere else in the universe. In fact, we have found extremophiles living in places we thought life couldn't exist and we have found the building blocks of life on comets, meteors and space dust.

Just these simple things can lead people to the conclusion extraterrestrials exist. It's called reaching a conclusion based on the observed evidence. Scientist do this all the time.
edit on 26-10-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
There was a prominent astronomer in Victorian times who ruled out communication with suspected Martian life on the grounds that 'the necessary flag would have to be the size of Ireland.'

This is more than just one of those amusing 'failed scientific predictions' quotes. When you engage with it, you realise the extent to which his entire concept of 'communication' was later rendered irrelevant.

Something similar will happen to us, one of these days. And we will look back on our tentative fiddling-about with interstellar radio transmissions as charmingly naive and quaint. Perhaps even amusing.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So no evidence. Thanks for confirming.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: neoholographic

So no evidence. Thanks for confirming.


Did you really expect any?

I know I didn't.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: neoholographic

So no evidence. Thanks for confirming.


I showed you the evidence. If you don't know that Scientist reach conclusions based on the available evidence, that's your fault not mine.

When you act like there's no evidence that's just being dishonest. You can say, there's not enough evidence for you to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist but when you have to act like there's no evidence and everyone from Stephen Hawking to Michio Kaku are just idiots reaching these conclusions without any evidence, then you're just blinded by your belief.

So I'm not going to rehash all the evidence in this thread but if you really want to explore these things you can look at these places.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Full of evidence and even articles from skeptics that give you a different point of view.

The 15 most compelling scientific findings that suggest aliens are real

www.businessinsider.com...-this-year-a-team-of-scientists-estimated-that-about-45-billion -years-ago-at-least-one-fifth-of-mars-was-covered-in-an-ocean-more-than-450-feet-deep-any-signs-of-life-that-swam-in-these-waters-could-therefore-be-h idden-in-the-martian-soil-1

Here's a list of papers from the 1960's to today.

This page offers a list of 100+ articles, papers and monographs about UFOs / UAPs published in professional journals and specialty publications. Two polls of professional & amateur astronomers respectively, on whether they see UFOs or not. Finally 60+ PhD dissertations and academic publications about UFOs. Very little peer-reviewed literature has been published in which academics have proposed, studied or supported non-prosaic explanations for UFOs.

www.hyper.net...

That last part is very interesting. Why aren't there more non-prosaic explanations of U.F.O.'s?

Anyway, you're not going to look at any evidence and you're just asking because you can't debate the issue. When you have to act like there's no evidence and people are just blindly reaching these conclusions then that speaks more to your belief not Science.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
I'm not going over all of the eveidence. It has been presented thouroughly throughout this forum and others. This isn't a thread about rehashing the same things over and over again. The point is, someone could look at the evidence of exoplanets and come to the conclusion extraterrestrials exist.


Let's look at the example of KIC 8462852/Tabby's Star (the "Dyson Swarm" star that has been in the news lately).

There is no "evidence" that the dimming of the star is due to an alien technology such as a Dyson Swarm surrounding the star. Granted, the possibility exists that the explanation for the dimming is a massive alien structure surrounding the star, but that isn't the same as saying there is evidence that a massive alien structure surrounding the star.

It's just that the idea that Tabby's Star is surrounded by an alien structure is certainly consistent with the observation that it is dimming -- but it isn't evidence of an alien structure. The explanation for the dimming could be due to some other natural phenomenon.

That's similar to the missing cookie analogy that "saturnfx" mentioned on the previous page. The idea that aliens ate the cookies is certainly consistent with the given facts that the cookies are gone. "Aliens ate them" is in fact a possible explanation for missing cookies. However, just because "aliens ate them" is an explanation that is consistent with the fact that the cookies are missing, that still is not evidence that aliens ate the cookies.


As for "extraordinary evidence"...I really don't require any to believe that Aline life almost surely exists elsewhere in the universe, but I do require it to believe that they are visiting us in spaceships. "Alien life" seems almost an inevitability, but when you add the requirement of "...and that alien life has the ability to visit us in spaceships, and has been doing so for a while", then I will need some extraordinary evidence.


Is it a possibility? Yes.

Is the explanation of "they are alien craft" consistent with explaining a light in the sky? Sure -- why not?

However, is the fact that there are lights in the sky evidence of alien craft? Not really; I would require extraordinary evince for that, just like -- while "aliens ate the cookies" is a possible explanation for missing cookies -- I would need extraordinary evidence before I support that explanation.


To sum up my long-winded post...
An explanation/hypothesis could be "consistent with the facts presented", but that is not necessarily the same as saying that evidence exists supporting that explanation/hypothesis.

"Aliens ate the cookies" is a viable hypothesis -- now gather evidence to support that hypothesis.


edit on 2016/10/26 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

wow! Thank you very much for that ufo evidence link. That site is so full of info it may take years to take a peek at it all. Very impressive.
There is all kinds of ufo evidence. The question is, do you accept it or not.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join