The words Extraordinary Claims needs to be banished when talking Extraterrestrials

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerryDon79

You're just being a troll now LOL

On to the next troll

You trolled as soon as you said that the speculation is based on evidence.

Just because you can't accept you're wrong, doesn't make you right.

I'm done with the English lesson. You really need to expand your vocabulary so you can understand what's in the articles you post.

Enjoy your badly made thread.

The aliens/no aliens argument for evidence reminds me very much of the same argument people make on here about the existence of a God/gods. I would really love to believe that aliens exist, but there is no genuine undisputable evidence for aliens, just: 1) people speculating based on studies and/or math equations they have performed (some of which involve entirely unknown inputs) or 2) personal testimonies based on alleged evidence only seen by the person making the claim. This is simply not enough for myself and perhaps many others who are seeking absolute truth.

I trust if a God undeniably made his presence known, a lot of people on here would believe. The same goes for aliens. If you can appreciate why some people are athiests, you should be able to appreciate why some feel like they do about aliens.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerryDon79

You're just being a troll now LOL

On to the next troll

You trolled as soon as you said that the speculation is based on evidence.

Just because you can't accept you're wrong, doesn't make you right.

I'm done with the English lesson. You really need to expand your vocabulary so you can understand what's in the articles you post.

Enjoy your badly made thread.

Where did I say speculation is based on evidence?

I said probabilities are based on underlying evidence and that's how you reach a conclusion that aliens almost certainly exist.

Stop lying or quote me.

a reply to: neoholographic

Don't ban the phrase, use it.

When someone tells me they are a skeptic I tell them that there is no solid evidence for the existence of skeptics. Then I require the same standard of proof for the existence of skeptics that they require for the existence of extraterrestrials.

Someone claims to be a skeptic? Well, anyone can claim anything. That's not proof.

Got a picture of someone claiming to be a skeptic? Probably Photoshop, swamp gas, or Venus.

Got an article by a scientist? Just words on paper (or a screen). Doesn't prove anything.

What I can't understand is how these so-called skeptics can believe other extraordinary claims. Some think there is a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties in the US. Some think that the MSM provides unbiased truth and facts. Some think that 911 was orchestrated by goat herders operating out of caves in Afghanistan.

Talk about extraordinary claims ...

originally posted by: neoholographic
This isn't speculation.

Yes, it is. Funny how everyone but you seems to understand that.

a reply to: Box of Rain

Again, this doesn't relate to aliens eating cookies in any way. It's just nonsense.

You said:

However, to actually prove that life exists elsewhere would take some extraordinary evidence, such as making direct contact with that life.

You underlined the word prove. Science doesn't prove anything. Mathematical theorems are proofs, in Science we come up with the best theories to explain the observed evidence at that time.

Trolling about Aliens eating cookies is just clogging up the thread.

Back to the idea of ET life "almost certainly" exists....

As I said, the reason "almost certainly" and "almost surely" are precise terms that are often intentionally used in science is because there is a non-zero chance that the idea that the term "almost certainly" is being used to describe is wrong -- although that non-zero chance can still be very very small.

For example, the reason why ET life is described by science as "almost certain" to exist rather than just plain old "certain" is because ET life has not yet been found. The fact that we haven't found it yet means that there is still a chance (a very very slim chance according to most scientific thinking) that we in fact are the only life in the universe.

The only way to make that non-zero chance into a zero chance is to find that life, or somehow otherwise come in positive contact with it. Once we do, then the "almost certain" will become "certain" -- but not until then.

Until then, scientists such as Stephen Hawking will continue to say ET life is "almost certain" to exist; not "it is certain to exist". Hawking, being a proper scientist, chose that term deliberately.

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

Again, this doesn't relate to aliens eating cookies in any way. It's just nonsense.

You said:

However, to actually prove that life exists elsewhere would take some extraordinary evidence, such as making direct contact with that life.

You underlined the word prove. Science doesn't prove anything. Mathematical theorems are proofs, in Science we come up with the best theories to explain the observed evidence at that time.

Trolling about Aliens eating cookies is just clogging up the thread.

Science provides proofs for theories. Some theories can be proven absolutely, while others simply have a lot of evidence supporting it -- evidence approaching "proof". Which is exactly why the term "almost certain" is used, because it leaves wiggle room for a theory or hypothesis to be wrong.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: neoholographic

Don't ban the phrase, use it.

When someone tells me they are a skeptic I tell them that there is no solid evidence for the existence of skeptics. Then I require the same standard of proof for the existence of skeptics that they require for the existence of extraterrestrials.

Someone claims to be a skeptic? Well, anyone can claim anything. That's not proof.

Got a picture of someone claiming to be a skeptic? Probably Photoshop, swamp gas, or Venus.

Got an article by a scientist? Just words on paper (or a screen). Doesn't prove anything.

What I can't understand is how these so-called skeptics can believe other extraordinary claims. Some think there is a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties in the US. Some think that the MSM provides unbiased truth and facts. Some think that 911 was orchestrated by goat herders operating out of caves in Afghanistan.

Talk about extraordinary claims ...

Good points and I agree.

a reply to: Box of Rain

You said:

Science provides proofs for theories. Some theories can be proven absolutely, while others simply have a lot of evidence supporting it -- evidence approaching "proof". Which is exactly why the term "almost certain" is used, because it leaves wiggle room for a theory or hypothesis to be wrong.

THEORIES PROVEN ABSOLUTELY????????????

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

www.psychologytoday.com...

Science doesn't prove anything.

the arogance of the human race to think we are the one and only living intelligent thing in the whole observable universe is laughable,one blue pin prick in the vastness of a universe we now know is teaming with planets,only a fool would think we are so special.

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

You said:

Science provides proofs for theories. Some theories can be proven absolutely, while others simply have a lot of evidence supporting it -- evidence approaching "proof". Which is exactly why the term "almost certain" is used, because it leaves wiggle room for a theory or hypothesis to be wrong.

THEORIES PROVEN ABSOLUTELY????????????

[snip]

Science doesn't prove anything.

Let's consider a case-in-point: Neptune.

Prior to the 1820s, the known solar system ended with Uranus. Astronomers wanted to explain oddities in the orbit of Uranus, so they came up with a speculative hypothesis that there is another planet past Uranus that was causing the perturbations of Uranus' orbit.

In the 1840s, two astronomers latched onto that hypothesis, and each began to develop theories attempting to prove that another planet existed. Those attempted proofs were in the form of calculations that showed where another planet might be found. Those calculations were in fact very good evidence and was almost certainly proof of another planet -- however the theories were not absolutely proven until 1846, when a planet (eventually named Neptune) was found almost via a scientific instrument (a telescope) exactly where the calculations said it would be found.

If someone requires further proof of the theory that another planet exists beyond Uranus, science over the past 170 years has since provided further proof of the theory that that a planet Neptune exists and is perturbing Uranus, in the form of continuous observations with better scientific instruments, better calculations with more refined data, and another scientific instrument (the Voyager 2 Probe) that went out and saw it up close.

I'd call that a scientific theory that was proven absolutely.


I also think there is tremendous evidence supporting the hypothesis and theory that life exists elsewhere. That theory has yet to be proven absolutely, but if we ever come in positive contact (indirectly or directly) with an ET life form, then the theory that ET life exists would be proven absolutely.

originally posted by: sparky31
the arogance of the human race to think we are the one and only living intelligent thing in the whole observable universe is laughable,one blue pin prick in the vastness of a universe we now know is teaming with planets,only a fool would think we are so special.

This is the strawman argument I mentioned in a post above. I don't think the human race really does think we are "the one and only living intelligent thing in the whole observable universe".

On the contrary; it seems to be a very common idea among most people (people with at least a little education) that there is other intelligent life in the universe. Certainly practically all scientists believe that it is a virtual certainly that other intelligent life exists.

Granted, there may be a few "Fundamentalist" types who don't believe it (such as the people who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old because the Bible says it is, when adding up all of the Who begat whom"), but they are a small minority of the population.

a reply to: Box of Rain i appoligize,i read a few posts and just jumped to the end without looking at posts just before.

for reason it turns into posts that basicly if god wasn,t involved then it can,t be true.

a reply to: vinifalou

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".

That's not the only way this revolution might happen. If we had the proverbial 'landing on the White House lawn' it could be that way.

But (e.g.) the detection of signals from a distant planet, and the to-ing and fro-ing as scientists argued over it (as they should, of course), wouldn't be anywhere near such an immediate event, or such an enormous shock.

In terms of paradigm shifts, it would probably be closer in nature to the Copernican revolution that put the Earth orbiting the Sun, rather than vice-versa. It ruffled feathers, took time to disseminate, caused heated debate, and finally got absorbed into common knowledge, without society coming anywhere near to collapsing at any point.

It took years. Things would happen faster today (of course!) but much the same way.

And finally, there would still be a sizeable portion of the public who really wouldn't give a tinker's cuss or didn't find out till years later. I dare say that the average agricultural worker in Copernicus's time had other things on their mind.

And if you cast your mind back, we had something of the kind in (I think) 1996, with the Martian nanobacteria announcement. Bill Clinton held a special press conference. It was headline news. I can remember talking to a colleague about it, and she said simply "It's bizarre." We were all a bit awed and freaked out. Then in the space of a week or so, it went away. Nothing is news twice.

What people chiefly remember today about 1996 (if anything) is the launch of Tamagotchis!

a reply to: Box of Rain

Their calculations were not proof of another planet. Their calculations were the best evidence to explain the oddities in the orbit of Uranus.

The fact that another planet was found isn't absolute proof to explain the oddities in the orbit of Uranus. 20 years from now, a Scientist could come up with a better theory to explain these oddities.

The point is, Science doesn't prove anything absolutely.

Myth: Science proves ideas

Popular media often talks about ‘scientific proof’. However, accumulated evidence can never provide absolute proof – it can only ever provide support. A single negative finding, if confirmed, is enough to overturn a scientific hypothesis or theory. Rather than being proven ‘once and for all’, a hallmark of science is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented or when existing information is viewed in a new light.

sciencelearn.org.nz...

You said:

I'd call that a scientific theory that was proven absolutely.

Like I said, there can always be another explanation of these oddities we see in the orbit of Uranus. All you can say is the best evidence to date is this theory. A theory can be very strong and it can gain more evidence over the years. Here's more:

Perhaps no word in the English language generates as much misunderstanding as the word theory. In scientific circles, this word has a very specific meaning that’s different from everyday use, and — as a theoretical astrophysicist myself — I feel it’s my duty to help explain exactly what we mean when we use it.

And in this particular context, I want you to think about the claims that because a scientific theory can never be 100% proven, we can never know for certain whether it’s true or not. Is it wrong to say something isn’t, therefore, real or true because we don’t have 100% proof?

medium.com...

How do you prove a planet exists?

We already know planets exist, we live on one. Science can show through a scientific theory that another planet is causing the oddities we see in the orbit of Uranus. That's not proving planets exist and that's why it's called DISCOVERING a planet. Here's more from Wiki:

In 1821, Alexis Bouvard published astronomical tables of the orbit of Neptune's neighbour Uranus.[22] Subsequent observations revealed substantial deviations from the tables, leading Bouvard to hypothesise that an unknown body was perturbing the orbit through gravitational interaction.[23] In 1843, John Couch Adams began work on the orbit of Uranus using the data he had. Via Cambridge Observatory director James Challis, he requested extra data from Sir George Airy, the Astronomer Royal, who supplied it in February 1844. Adams continued to work in 1845–46 and produced several different estimates of a new planet.[24][25]

In the wake of the discovery, there was much nationalistic rivalry between the French and the British over who deserved credit for the discovery. Eventually, an international consensus emerged that both Le Verrier and Adams jointly deserved credit. Since 1966, Dennis Rawlins has questioned the credibility of Adams's claim to co-discovery, and the issue was re-evaluated by historians with the return in 1998 of the "Neptune papers" (historical documents) to the Royal Observatory, Greenwich.[28] After reviewing the documents, they suggest that "Adams does not deserve equal credit with Le Verrier for the discovery of Neptune. That credit belongs only to the person who succeeded both in predicting the planet's place and in convincing astronomers to search for it."[29]

en.wikipedia.org...

If we were to find another planet in our solar system, the news headlines might say proof but the scientific literature will talk about how scientific data was used to DISCOVER a new planet.

Show me a peer reviewed paper in any respected Scientific Journal that talks about ABSOLUTE PROOF. We have proofs in theorems.