Harvard prof doesn't back down from claims that alien spacecraft may be zipping past Jupiter orbit

a reply to: Marma

I think you might find that most "scientists or respected figures" don't say "we are alone." Unless they are of a particular religious bent.

I think you might find that many, if not most, will say "it's unlikely we are alone." As for evidence to that regard, that's another thing.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
"In the meantime, he's doubling down, hosting a Reddit AMA on "how the discovery of alien life in space will transform our life," and constantly emailing his "friends and colleagues" with updates on all the reporters who are speaking to him."

How will the discovery of alien life in space transform our life?

We will still have lobbyists. We will still have fiat currency. We will still have poverty. We will still have extreme wealth inequality. Education stinks. Healthcare stinks. Almost the entire population has no retirement security.

Well all it takes is one bloody revolution and this house of cards would fall apart. People just need some impulse to wake up.

a reply to: Phage

I agree, but you must recognize that "it is unlikely we are not alone" doesn't make the headlines, and is the topic around a coffee machine of a bunch of astrophysicists. Where as "we are definitely not alone" is the stuff that gets in the newspapers and into ordinary people's daily media diet, which is the whole point...

a reply to: Marma

Where as "we are definitely not alone" is the stuff that gets in the newspapers

Indeed. And it also sells well in supermarket tabloids and certain seminars.

However, it takes evidence (not speculation) for "scientists or respected figures" to go beyond that. Without evidence there is not much reason to do so. Loeb puts forth speculation and says so. He's not alone in that.

a reply to: Phage

Sometimes you will find that the theory and a strong amount of faith preceeds "proof". In social sciences, its almost always the case. There was no "evidence" that democracy was better than autocracy of divine right in the 13th century, since democracy was not implemented. It is only after trying the idea based on pure "speculation" (as you would say) that the "proof" materializes.
In science, it is more rare, but can happen nevertheless. For instance, the scientist who put forth the theory of floating tectonic plates on lava was ridiculed in his day, yet his "intuition" proved to be correct. Do not dismiss the "impact" that the observer has on what is observed.

a reply to: Marma

For instance, the scientist who put forth the theory of floating tectonic plates on lava was ridiculed in his day, yet his "intuition" proved to be correct.

It was not intuition which led to the theory and tectonic plates do not float on lava. The plate theory was developed from earlier notions of continental drift, which were derived from direct observations. Evidence.

a reply to: Phage

That's where I disagree. An initial idea comes first, not the evidence. What do you think is most likely? That someone imagined the principle of tectonic plates or even the theory of evolution, or that someone was just randomly taking measures and observing the Universe, and happened to find the evidence for a theory that he did not yet think about?

Nope. When you collect evidence, you already have a theory. Otherwise, it's impossible to collect evidence. That's a basic rule. Evidence can be anything. You could count the number of atoms inside 1 cm3 of your wall, you could count the number of hairs on your head... The mere fact that you have selected something specific to observe means that you have a theory or idea in your head that you want to "test" empirically.

a reply to: Marma

An initial idea comes first, not the evidence.

Not in science.

That someone imagined the principle of tectonic plates or even the theory of evolution, or that someone was just randomly taking measures and observing the Universe, and happened to find the evidence for a theory that he did not yet think about?

I think that someone noticed that the west coast of Africa seems to fit well with the east coast of South America. I think that someone noticed that early fossils from both places were very similar and latter ones were less so. I think that someone noticed that the same rocks were found in both places.

I think that someone tried to come up with a way that could happen.

a reply to: Phage

Funny that one would spend time collecting fossils and happened, by "chance" to think "hey, evolution!", funny that one would play around with continents, move them around like a puzzle and say "hey, drifting continents!"...
No. Humans don't do things without having something in mind. We are lazy creatures. We don't fool around and "happen to stumble by chance" on things. Like I said, nobody counts the gravel inside their driveway. We proactively look for things that give this world a meaning. And what we focus on, is based on what we believe! That's why christian priests don't dig up fossils... I hope that's obvious enough...

a reply to: Marma

Not so much a matter of "one" doing any of those things. More a matter of an accumulation of various facts asking to be reconciled.

We proactively look for things that give this world a meaning.

You are confusing superstition with science. Science doesn't look for meaning. Religion does.

a reply to: Phage

Wow. Now that's crazy. Again, you're not answering my questions.
Why do we not spend our time comparing the size of apples or counting the leaves on trees? Because it's useless from our subjective perspective. No scientist works on a theory which is useless. Which has absolutely no incidence on our daily lives or digs at big metaphysical questions like "why are we here?" Science could only be separate from the quest for meaning if we were irrational, random quantum computer programs whose only instruction was "observe reality, draw correlations"...

a reply to: Marma

Again, you're not answering my questions.

Your question is a red herring. It has nothing to do with science.

No scientist works on a theory which is useless. Which has absolutely no incidence on our daily lives or digs at big metaphysical questions like "why are we here?"

Science deals with "how" not "why."

Science seeks to understand how things work by providing theories that explain observed phenomena. Loeb came up with a speculative explanation for the behavior of Oumuamua. That's it. If it were the remnants of a light propelled craft, it might behave that way. Lacking other evidence, his speculation will stand forever.

a reply to: Phage

OK, one last attempt, then I give up...
Why do scientists attempt at explaining how things work? Like I said, they could focus on an infinite set of observed phenomena! Why choose a specific phenomenon and not another? That's where "meaning" comes into play. We are not automated robots. We choose to focus our attention on a phenomenon for a reason. And that reason is not "I'm wondering through nature at random, my eyes randomly see a funny looking rock, it's a skeleton of a dead animal, out of all the random thoughts that can traverse my head at this point, by complete chance the thought of comparing it with another one pops in my mind".

a reply to: Marma

Why do scientists attempt at explaining how things work?

Because humans are smart and curious apes. Because understanding is often a good thing. As opposed to superstition.

Why choose a specific phenomenon and not another?

Because everybody is different. Some people are fascinated by insects, some by reptiles, and some (yes) by geology.

a reply to: Phage

You are confusing superstition with science. Science doesn't look for meaning. Religion does.

Why did my bs detector just go off when i read this?

It seems like you have some sort of mental vendetta with opposing views. Show us on the doll where jesus hurt you.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

On the contrary.
I seek opposing views. Rational ones, that is. Ones that can be supported.

a reply to: Phage

Explains nothing. Where does our curiosity come from?
Where do our interests come from?

a reply to: Marma

From electrochemical activity within our brains.


As to why. That's not something science deals with. That's a matter for religion.

a reply to: Phage

So you're saying... that the scientific "how" is fueled thanks to the religious/metaphysical "why"? That is, that the underlying motivations of humans are metaphysical? I didn't expect you to go so far... But OK, I take it!

a reply to: Phage

I seek opposing views. Rational ones, that is.

It would be easy to believe that none exist that you have found though.