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.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerryDon79
You're just being a troll now LOL
On to the next troll
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.
originally posted by: neoholographic
This isn't speculation.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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 (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".
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?
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]