The words Extraordinary Claims needs to be banished when talking Extraterrestrials

We might as well give up guys. He does this on every thread he makes. Says that we "make no sense", demands we "read stuff", say we "don't understand" and uses his favourite "What????".

I'm not sure if it's a language issue, a bias issue to both.

a reply to: neoholographic

Based on possibilities, not evidence.

There's a big difference.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Based on possibilities, not evidence.

There's a big difference.

You can't have probabilities without underlying evidence. That makes no sense.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Based on possibilities, not evidence.

There's a big difference.

You can't have probabilities without underlying evidence. That makes no sense.

Yes you can. It's called speculation and assumption.

There are two different concepts of proof in play here, which might account for the confusion.

The first is that of scientific proof. It's something of a misnomer, because no theory is ever proven, it merely survives attempted disproof.

The second is that of common proof, the type we expect in courtrooms.

There might not be enough of the right sort of evidence to convince a scientist that ET exists, but there's probably more than enough than it would take to convince a Jury 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Also, two different methods of handling evidence are being discussed.

The first is the open-and-shut 'smoking gun' type of evidence that clinches a case automatically. This is the type that satisfies people of a scientific persuasion.

The second is circumstantial. Legal textbooks frequently use the analogy of a rope to describe circumstantial evidence: One strand on its own might never be strong enough to support the weight of an argument, but the more strands you plait together, the stronger the overall rope becomes. Once you have a rope of suitable thickness to support the weight, it can be tested.

'Cirumstantial' is the kind we mostly rely on in everyday life.

(I think the 'rope' analogy ultimately comes from one of McNaughton's books about evidence, but can't remember)

It's kind of ironic that we think we could communicate usefully with ETs when we have so many problems communicating with fellow humans.

That's all. As you were.

Extraordinary evidence doesn't exist. They won't let you have that, it would rock the Paradigm boat too hard.

I've seen one of their flying thingies though, that was all the evidence I needed to know they are there.

For me it isn't about hypothesis, science or belief, I witnessed one.

So there...

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Box of Rain

Are you serious or just being obtuse and a troll? You said:

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.

This is just utter nonsense and I have to believe you're trolling.

There's no evidence that Aliens eat cookies or stole someones cookies. For you to even mention this is just dishonest.

Like I said, you can disagree with the evidence but people like Edgar Mitchell, Hawking, Kaku and others are having a serious debate on these issues based on the observed evidence.

Stop trolling.

I didn't say there was evidence. I simply said that the explanation of "Aliens ate the cookies" is consistent with the fact that the cookies are gone. It is, in fact, a viable explanation for the missing cookies -- as is the explanation that the child ate them.

Both explanations fit the facts -- i.e., the fact that the cookies are missing. Now we need to gather evidence .

Evidence that the child ate them is self-evident (albeit circumstantial) in that he is the only other person in the house. The explanation that someone or something else ate them would require evidence that someone or something else has been in the house. The explanation that (a) aliens were in the house and (b) ate the cookies would require some extraordinary evidence.

By the way, what do you think a "scientific hypothesis" is anyway? A scientific hypothesis in of itself requires no evidence to be an hypothesis. Granted, in an effort to prove that hypothesis, evidence must be gathered supporting it...

...but the scientific hypothesis itself could just start out as pure speculation with no evidence supporting it whatsoever.

The hypothesis that alien life exists elsewhere in the universe was originally just pure speculation. As years went on, evidence has been gathered in a effort to try to prove that speculative hypothesis -- such as the shear size of the universe, and the existence of exoplanets, and the study of extremophile life on Earth. However, to actually prove that life exists elsewhere would take some extraordinary evidence, such as making direct contact with that life.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Based on possibilities, not evidence.

There's a big difference.

You can't have probabilities without underlying evidence. That makes no sense.

Yes you can. It's called speculation and assumption.

Wrong, it's not speculating it's reaching a conclusion based on the available evidence. The fact that you have to act like there's no evidence shows that you're stuck in your belief. You can say there's not enough evidence for you to reach the same conclusion but to act like others can't use evidence to reach a different conclusion than you makes no sense.

For instance, Hawking said in his special that Aliens might come to earth and be hostile. THAT'S SPECULATION.

This isn't speculation:

Extraterrestrials are almost certain to exist says British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking

www.dailytelegraph.com.au... rev20-1225858062554

That's reaching a conclusion based on the available EVIDENCE!

a reply to: neoholographic

It's speculation.

Even the article is about speculating. Saying an "almost certainty" means just that. If it was based on evidence it wouldn't need the "almost" part there.

a reply to: TerryDon79

LOL, you're too funny.

A Scientist like Hawking isn't going to be almost certain about Aliens existing without any underlying evidence to support that conclusion.

You're looking a little silly right now.

The fact that you have to believe that people can't look at EVIDENCE and reach a different conclusion than you is pretty telling.

Double post

a reply to: neoholographic

Can you really not understand the English language? Do you fail to see that ideas can be presented without evidence?

BTW, here's something to help you.

speculation
ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
"there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"
synonyms: conjecture, theorizing, hypothesizing, supposition, guesswork

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Can you really not understand the English language? Do you fail to see that ideas can be presented without evidence?

BTW, here's something to help you.

speculation
ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
"there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"
synonyms: conjecture, theorizing, hypothesizing, supposition, guesswork

Look, show me where Hawking is speculating without any evidence that Aliens almost certainly exist LOL!

Are you serious or just trolling?

originally posted by: neoholographic


This isn't speculation:

Extraterrestrials are almost certain to exist says British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking

www.dailytelegraph.com.au... rev20-1225858062554

That's reaching a conclusion based on the available EVIDENCE!

"Almost Certain"

The terms "Almost Certain" and "Almost Surely" have specific meanings in science. They are used because there is a non-zero chance that the hypothesis to which they are referring is wrong. That is to say, there is a non-zero (but I think extremely small) chance that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.


By the way, I don't know of too many people on this website (or too many people in general) who would disagree with the idea that "Extraterrestrials are almost certain to exist".

Most people in the world today, and probably a very high percentage of people on ATS, believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere. It's a bit of a strawman argument to say that people don't believe in ET life. Now, the question of "Are those ETs visiting us in spaceships?" is a different question altogether.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Can you really not understand the English language? Do you fail to see that ideas can be presented without evidence?

BTW, here's something to help you.

speculation
ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
"there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"
synonyms: conjecture, theorizing, hypothesizing, supposition, guesswork

Look, show me where Hawking is speculating without any evidence that Aliens almost certainly exist LOL!

Are you serious or just trolling?

Because he says "almost certainty". Read it. "ALMOST CERTAINTY".

Not "certainty". Not "definitely". Not "evidence says it's a certainty".

Try learning English. It might help.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Can you really not understand the English language? Do you fail to see that ideas can be presented without evidence?

BTW, here's something to help you.

speculation
ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
"there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"
synonyms: conjecture, theorizing, hypothesizing, supposition, guesswork

Look, show me where Hawking is speculating without any evidence that Aliens almost certainly exist LOL!

Are you serious or just trolling?

Because he says "almost certainty". Read it. "ALMOST CERTAINTY".

Not "certainty". Not "definitely". Not "evidence says it's a certainty".

Try learning English. It might help.

He knows English. He's just being deliberately obtuse and claiming articles say something other than what they do, based on his beliefs. It's what he does in every thread he makes.

It's kind of like talking to a brick wall.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Really?! I thought he was a non native English speaker. That makes it worse.

It's useless trying to explain it to him. I've tried in other threads, but he gets fixated on a single word or sentence that doesn't mean what he think it does.

a reply to: TerryDon79

What???

Have you even bothered to read what he's saying or watch his specials on this subject?

You don't become Almost Certain about something because there's no evidence. This is what he said:

Hawking’s logic on aliens is, for him, unusually simple. The universe, he points out, has 100 billion galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars. In such a big place, Earth is unlikely to be the only planet where life has evolved.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,” he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.”

This isn't speculation. He's talking about evidence and in his specials he goes on to talk about extremophiles and other things.

THIS IS REACHING A CONCLUSION THAT ALIENS ALMOST CERTAINLY EXIST BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.

Where does Hawking speculate?

One scene in his documentary for the Discovery Channel shows herds of two-legged herbivores browsing on an alien cliff-face where they are picked off by flying, yellow lizard-like predators.

Another shows glowing fluorescent aquatic animals forming vast shoals in the oceans thought to underlie the thick ice coating Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter.

Such scenes are speculative, but Hawking uses them to lead on to a serious point: that a few life forms could be intelligent and pose a threat. Hawking believes that contact with such a species could be devastating for humanity.

HE SPECULATES ABOUT HOW THESE ALIENS MIGHT LOOK.

Like I said, either you truly don't grasp something so simple or you're just trolling.

a reply to: neoholographic

He's speculating. Throwing ideas out.

What don't you get about that?