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.

 

How to battle a hardcore scientist?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Hi, I have a question for you guys (the serious ones, not the wackjobs
).

How do you battle a serious scientist, who thinks he has all the facts and knowledge and refuses to budge on the UFO matter, because as it seems, it's 'impossible' for other life (well, UFOs could be technology, so take 'life' with a grain of salt) to reach the earth?

This person I know is dead bent on science, and as a true scientist his standpoint is skepticism. My argument is that we already have a highly acknowledged phenomenon not describable by modern science that needs to be further investigated before you can make any kind of assumption, but he simply deflects it and goes 'primal' on me, meaning he'll just state that there's, and I quote "0.000, and an infinite amount of zeros, followed by a one percent chance of this happening" and after that just act all nonchalant, not willing to talk, just ignoring me because of my wacky way of thinking, i.e. unscientific. Should I even be friends with this guy? He's so fcking hard to talk to. >_<

*Sigh* Any suggestions? Oh, and I haven't told him I've seen a UFO up close, I'm afraid that if I do that I'll lose whatever little respect he has left for me forever.

Edit: Feel free to take on my point of view regarding UFOs as well, I don't intend this thread to be 'just' about my friend.

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Drexon]




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I don't know how to take out certain quotes, can you send me a u2u on how to do it please


I agree on the whole "(well, UFOs could be technology, so take 'life' with a grain of salt) to reach the earth" part...

I believe aliens MIGHT (or might not, intelligent life of course) exist... somewhere out there in a galaxy far far away...

IMO UFO stands for Unidentified/Unknown Flying Object (sorry if I stated the obvious)... well thats what it means... we don't know WHAT it is, but we do know is that it can fly.

hell, I wouldn't be suprised if it was humans flying those things... that is also a possibility... If I owned a UFO I would also fly around and let people look up in complete fascination (I would crack myself up everytime)


And as for aliens trying to take over the world (NWO BS)... it sounds like it would make a great movie. sorry if I went off topic... please excuse me.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
You're friend is perfectly correct. There is zero proof that aliens exist. Ufos are not aliens or proof of aliens.

Science focuses on cold hard facts that can be tested over and over. Without those facts a scientist cannot move forwards or he will cease to be a scientist and will just be a wackjob like the rest of us

[edit on 25-11-2006 by probedbygrays]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
To quote, press the "QUOTE" button to the top right of every message.


Originally posted by probedbygrays
You're friend is perfectly correct. There is zero proof that aliens exist. Ufos are not aliens or proof of aliens.

Science focuses on cold hard facts that can be tested over and over. Without those facts a scientist cannot move forwards or he will cease to be a scientist and will just be a wackjob like the rest of us

[edit on 25-11-2006 by probedbygrays]

So there's absolutely no room for a scientist as himself to allow UFOs on earth, and he absolutely has to regard me as a total wackjob, of course, free to be interested in the subject, but nonetheless a total wackjob for even trying?

As I said there's a more or less acknowledged phenomena going on here on earth, unfortunately taking place outside sciences current reach. The fact that atleast (just learned) 2 American presidents have seen and reported about seeing UFOs just.. doesn't fit in with the picture? Is it so hard to become interested in something like this as a scientist today? I'm just feeling frustrated about this, it's like it's so hard to start a conversation with him about this, and we've been friends for Years, talking about all manners of stuff. For me it feels like science is some kinda religion. If you're christian you have to hate gays (very blunt example, and for the record I'm bi), and if you're a scientist you can't even begin to approach anything as "unscientific" as UFOs.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
No, if you're a scientist, you have to think through the possibilities.

Myself, I am one, and if I use my present understanding of physics then the person is right.

Here is the situation:

There is no remotely conceivable mechanism in our current understanding of physics (which has been tested to quite extreme limits, e.g. neutron stars, black holes, etc) which would allow feasible interstellar travel.

I cannot disagree with that statement.

Simply put we need some kind of coupling with gravity which is immensely more powerful than the current known source term, the Einstein stress-energy tensor of general relativity which has in it the Newtonian gravitational constant as a fact of nature. The huge mass of the Sun bends space a tiny amount---starlight is bent by a few arcseconds I believe. An interstellar spacecraft would have to bend space to a hugely greater degree, like a black hole, and still be produced at a small scale.

If that were the case then the coupling would be zillions of orders of magnitude more strong than currently understood gravity---and yet we have not observed a shred of repeatable scientific evidence that it exists. What is the chance that an effect so enormous just happened to cancel out so profoundly in all the things we observe on Earth to make it seem to be zero? We don't have any Earthbound observations which are essentially unexplainable with our current fundamental knowledge of physics---this is different from times past.

It is true that there are ununderstood things in cosmology, like Dark Matter and Dark Energy but these are tiny perturbations and effect the structure of the universe only at the biggest scales.

That's the scientific argument against UFO == ETs flying in physical ships from other star systems.

And yet to me the stories of ETs and UFOs seem to be just a little bit too prevalent to dismiss entirely. Yet, I have no way of resolving this with my knowledge of science.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I wouldn't call your friend a skeptic because he's specifically making a claim about the non-existence of aliens. A true skeptic is agnostic unless there's A.) a metric by which to test a claim and B.) multiple independent tests. How does one test the claim of aliens not existing anywhere in the entire universe?

Or do I misunderstand and he merely claims aliens have never visited the earth, yet allows for their existence anyway? If so, how did he arrive at his incredibly precise probability (infinite decimal places!) against such an event happening--by pulling it from his bum perhaps? Being a scientist, I'm sure he's worked out a fair equation based on all the variables, right?



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Infinite Gamer> This guy likes to use his 'superior' knowledge of physics to make claims about things he doesn't know a lot of things about. He doesn't have an internet connection, and doesn't have nearly as much information about UFOs (whatever they are) as me, yet he acts as he knows all and everything just because he knows more about modern science than me. He's extremely stubborn too, and I don't think I've managed to change his mind about anything really. For instance his main argument against getting an internet connection is that he knows how circuits work and knows about their estimated time of life, and because he owns a, perfectly working, but old computer, he draws the conclusion that it'll break any time now, and his internet connection will go to waste.

As for the precise probability my guess is that he simply concludes that no technology that will allow for 'real' space travel will ever be available to any form of life anywhere in the universe. He believes outside of earth by the way. And no, he doesn't have an equation for all this, in all my attempts in trying to have a conversation with him on this subject he just stubbornly (or scientifically, you decide) deflects anything I have to say as pure coo-coo talk.

mbcennel> Don't really know about a lot of things you said, but this I can understand:



And yet to me the stories of ETs and UFOs seem to be just a little bit too prevalent to dismiss entirely. Yet, I have no way of resolving this with my knowledge of science.

My thoughts exactly, if only I could somehow make my 'friend', whom I am getting increasingly irritated at, to understand this by trying to explain it to him on a scientific level.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
True you will have a hard time to convince a die hard physic scientist. Only if he/she has a first hand experience he/she might believe and also then he/she will prefer every other explanation over the obvious to rescue his/her physical 'religion'


The question is, why you see a need to convince him?
You will hardly be able to change him as he is in changeing you. So you can spare this 'fight' it leads you most probabily nowhere.


Physics is always like a limiting cage. And todays physics has no space for ufo's.
Yet they are observed. So is since wrong? No. But since is always in development.

Where die hard scientist fails is about 2 things:

1. The observation is the base/true and physic has to be build on observation and not the otherway and this they know. Yet the ignore the ufo observation because it is in conflict with todays knowledge..
To their defence: the observation needs to be a reproducible fact that it counts and here is the problem with the ufos...

2. They often forget that todays physic is far from complete and for the ufo thing more importand the nature of (force, matter, space, time, gravity) is still today not understood. You have more or less accurate equations with what you can calculate the behaviour to the actual knowledge. But withouth knowing the full picture you should avoid doing exclusive 'it will never be possible' conclusion of anything (like antigravity) because you have not all facts.. Unfortunatly even the biggest minds like to do such dangerous excluding conclusions much to often based on their actual knowledge. It's like a final end on something to stress out you have found the ultimate truth on something, like you do know everything, that's what a scientist life for. But more then once such conclusions turned out to be all wrong in the history of physics. And this contraproductive process is continueing.

With this I don't want to say physic is not a trustworthy tool. No way. It's the one and best trustworthy tool on earth you have. With the physic you can proof something questionless right or wrong within the actual knowledge. Just to forgot that it is still incomplete and the extrapolation (the excluding possibilities for ever) is dangerous and wrong.

I for one am in sience and in aliens/spirits at home. The one does not really exclude the other. You can see that both is possible when you know the borders of each and dont step into the traps I tried to point out above.
But the willingness to see that is very character dependent.
It requires a certain degree of reddiness to step out of the 'proof everthing first beofore accept it as a possiblity behaviour that die hard sientists have."

I self rather like to explore the universe and proof it later.
The sientistic way of exploring is great and safe but too slow and I don't want to miss a thing because of this.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
For instance his main argument against getting an internet connection is that he knows how circuits work and knows about their estimated time of life, and because he owns a, perfectly working, but old computer, he draws the conclusion that it'll break any time now, and his internet connection will go to waste.


wow Are you sure you want to spend your life with someone thinking like that?
that's not a sientist, more someone that is not fully in life.
kinda strange thought.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
and I quote "0.000, and an infinite amount of zeros, followed by a one percent chance of this happening" and after that just act all nonchalant, not willing to talk, just ignoring me because of my wacky way of thinking, i.e. unscientific.


p.s. This statement byway is unscientific, but from him. Are you sure he has any knowledge in sience? doesnt sounds so for me.
You could question him to proof his statement above. He will not be able to.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

wow Are you sure you want to spend your life with someone thinking like that?
Nopes, which is why I'm questioning his reasoning. He Is extremely stubborn on most things he has his mind set on, and having a discussion with him about anything will almost always end in just giving up/getting frustrated because he's such a stubborn ass. S'cuse the language. His arguments are almost always based on probability and some pre-thought out way of 'making it go bad'. He's pretty introverted and weird like that, and the way he makes decisions is really, well, questionable.

As to why I'm doing this is that I want to try to get him interested, but I guess nothing short of a real sighting will do that.. though if I know the stubbornness that is him he'll probably discard his sighting as a hallucination, just... rejecting it to the full. -_-

---

To turn this into an all-out friend bashing thread, going totally off topic, today he wanted me to give him a ride to my place, just so he could play Gears of War on my Xbox 360. He's done this before, and I didn't have a good time with him, because he kept hogging the 360, just playing and not being social at all. I told him that if he wants to come over he'll have to play split-screen with me or I won't have a good time, I mean, I have to get something out of it too, right? But no, he says that you 'loose' too much of the experience playing split-screen, that the controls get 'slower' and whatever 'fact' he can pull out of his ass, just so that he can play it by himself. *deep sigh*
I went and watched Casino Royale instead.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
His infinite 0 statement with a 1 percent is not a scientific statement so you can stick him with that right off that bat. How can you have infinite zeroes if there is a 1 at the end? That would mean the 0s aren't infinite....they are finite.

I'm not sure how you convince him without a "testable" alien in front of him. Perhaps the idea of life or the chemicals needed for life being able to survive in asteroids may chip away at his stubborness.

I always find it amazing that some people are stuck in the science of "now" and can't see how science has revealed many hidden worlds and lifeforms. The microscope revealed all sorts of life which no one knew existed. The navigational advances for ships allowed Europe to discover the Native Americans (who in Europe is the question...I'll stick with the Vikings). Even now we have the discovery on the ocean floor next to volcanic vents, where no sunlight reaches, yet there is life in tube worms, crabs, and shrimp living next to incredibly hot water.

If he your friend lived in the 1st century BC, he could of said: "Native Americans... don't exist and there is no such thing as bacteria." He would of been right based on known science. But that answer was not absolute ...as his answer today that aliens don't exist, is not absolute now.

I think your friend is more interested in giving you a hard time than hard science. Just sing the Rolling Stones song: "Time is on my side...yes it is". Probability always wins in Vegas and I'm sure it will play out the same in the universe.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
To quote, press the "QUOTE" button to the top right of every message.


Originally posted by probedbygrays
You're friend is perfectly correct. There is zero proof that aliens exist. Ufos are not aliens or proof of aliens.

Science focuses on cold hard facts that can be tested over and over. Without those facts a scientist cannot move forwards or he will cease to be a scientist and will just be a wackjob like the rest of us

[edit on 25-11-2006 by probedbygrays]

So there's absolutely no room for a scientist as himself to allow UFOs on earth, and he absolutely has to regard me as a total wackjob, of course, free to be interested in the subject, but nonetheless a total wackjob for even trying?


Actually, I think you'll find that many scientists believe alien life exists... but NOT that it's visited us.

You stand a chance of convincing him if...
* you can show that all the encounters with a certain type of alien have consistancy (they come from one place, the descriptions of their culture by many contactees is consistant, they have a consistant ship design, there is a consistant form of naming.
* you can show that artifacts do exist that are in the hands of scholars and scientists and these persons agree that these artifacts are not of terrestrial origin.
* if the documents/research show good provenance (in other words, the people writing cite lots of stuff and have lots of hard data (correct formulas, correct descriptions.)
* if the reported language does have alien features and is not made up words based on an English language structure.
* if the photos of the aliens are structurally correct and consistan.
* if there was a demonstratable landing/view that happened in front of a large number of people.

Think of it as "proof that would stand up in court." So you can't have "he said/she said" stuff, you can't have bad photos of weird-looking sculptures. Witnesses have to be good and consistant with each other. You can't have a guy who saw aliens in his back yard.

Proof that would convince the CSI team.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Your friend doesn't sounds like a scientist, he sounds like a jerk.

Ask him how gravity works. When he gives you some garbage about mass and rotation, ask him why gravity can be bested by a simple magnet pulling on a ferous object. Since a magnet is insignificant compared to the earth, there should be no WAY that a force strong enough to keep the moon in orbit should be bested by something as simple as a magnet.

When he tells you he doesn't have all of the information about gravity (And he will, considering it is a relatively unknown force that we dont quite understand) tell HIM he doesnt have enough information to prove Aliens dont exist either.

That should shut him up.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
He has that big black book that says "GRAVITY" and has an apple, some lines and a magnifying glass on it. ^^;



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Hiya, I'm a scientist and I believe in UFO's. I was originally a sceptic, but now I have seen so many videos that I think they must exist and that they are spaceships flown by aliens. I needed to do my own research to convince myself of it though. There is a lot of crap believed by people on this website which really doesn't help the cause. If I were you I'd get your friend to read the day after Roswell and watch the diclosure project DVD's, I think seeing people tell the truth (and seeing the NASA guys lying through their teeth) is the most compelling evidence there is. He only doesn't believe it because his concept of 20th century science says its impossible. But our science is wrong and primitive. We barely understand anything about the universe.
Hope this helps.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
and another thing, science can be on your side of the argument.

1). Our galaxy is about 11 billion years old, yet if you assume that lightspeed is the fastest velocity (which it may not be), it would still only take a few 100000 years to be colonised by an advance race. Space is big but the universe is very old. Humans have evolved relatively recently, the chances are it has happened many times before in other places.

2) Organic molecules exist naturally in space.

3) Statistically, no matter how small the chances of life forming, there are so many stars and planets it is almost certain to have happened elsewhere.

4) Once life starts and reaches high intelligence it can seed life elsewhere.

5) space-time is like a fabric it can be bent and distorted. Faster than light travel may be possible

5) quantum teleporatation is possible.

Give him those facts and see what he says! :-)



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I'd point your friend to the work of Richard M. Dolen, whose book UFOs and the National Security State is a superb historical overview that pretty much demonstrates, from open source documents, that the US government knows that UFOs exist and is covering them up. So-called "scientific" arguments use too many assumptions, whereas it's possible to make entirely reasonable deductions from government documents about the extent to which the USG takes the matter seriously.

Then there are all sorts of resources here. Another poster has mentioned the Disclosure Project, and that's an excellent source of eyewitness testimony. There's a great History Channel documentary about Black Box recordings which includes actual conversations between pilots and airport control towers, with radar sightings to back up visual reports by highly qualified and reliable witnesses.

But your "friend" sounds like an idiot, frankly, and you'd do better to research the subject yourself, but simply for your own amusement.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Yeah, he's unreasonable in many ways. The main problem as I see it is that he doesn't have an internet connection, and he bases all his arguments on stuff he's seen on TV and whatnot, meaning he has a very narrow information span, warping his perception of the subject.

Thanks all for your help, but I think I've gotten enough of it as of now.
So please, no more posts, you've all been very helpful.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join