Science and troubling assertions when it comes to ufology

I think there are some troubling assertions when it comes to the scientific method of investigation and things like ufology and the paranormal.

I respect the scientific method and it has led me to support the ET hypothesis.

What I don't respect is the faulty logic and assumptions that are cloaked in the scientific method to make an illogical argument appear logical.

The first assumption:

Life in the universe has to be put in a box. Life had to evolve or form elswhere like it did on earth. On one hand they say they don't fully understand the universe and in the next breath, they limit how life can evolve and form in the universe.

I was glad to see some scientist thinking outside of the box on The Universe on the History Channel. You can also see some of there speculations here as how to life might have evolved on other planets.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Most skeptics use science to say,"how could they travel here."

First, that's using current knowledge of physics to limit the technology of a civilization that's more advanced than we are.

They may be able to use zero point energy or manipulate gravity. They might be able to warp space and travel through these warped passages.

So, you can't use this against the ET hypothesis and claim your being scientific.

You can say this is your belief but it has nothing to do with science.

It reminds me of what Einstein said.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create."

So to make the leap that they couldn't travel here based on our current understanding of physics is not a basis in science to reject or belittle the ET hypothesis.

That's not being scientific at all, while those who support the ET hypothesis are using the scientific method and gathering emperical evidence and data to build a hypothesis.

Secondly, who says these beings didn't evolve or form in our own backyard? If they did they wouldn't have to travel far to get here.

Liquid water was just found on Mars and NASA says they see signs of Microbial life. You also have bacteria found in the atmosphere that may not be from earth and we might be extra-terrestrials if you think Panspermia or directed Panspermia are correct.

You have Plasma crystals that can form double helix type structures and they can pass the characteristics on to other plasma crystals.

This could be a form of life. Maybe they are behind some crop circles and they are trying to let us know that they are here.

You have a peer reviewed paper that shows balls of light could be responsible for some crop circles.

DR ELTJO HASELHOFF is one of the few people on planet Earth to have had a paper published on crop circles in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (‘Physiologa Plantarum’). His paper asserts that the long-recognised connection of crop circles to balls of light may be even stronger than many think. Here, in layman’s terms, Dr Haselhoff outlines the important findings of his paper.

www.swirlednews.com...

Of course any discussion about crop circles needs to end because we know some are man made therefore they all "must" be man made.

Here's an article about Plasma crystals:

When plasma comes into contact with a dust cloud, dust particles gather an electric charge by sucking up electrons from the surrounding plasma. This core of electrons in turn pulls in positively charged ions, forming plasma crystals. In the scientists' simulations, which were performed on the International Space Station and in a zero-gravity environment at a German research facility, the plasma crystals sometimes developed into corkscrew shapes or even the double-helix shape of DNA. These helix-shaped crystals retain an electric charge and show what the researchers called a self-organizing ability.
science.howstuffworks.com...
Cont. below

reply to post by platosallegory


Excellent thread! I am intrigued about plasma crystallization, how durable are they, or do they last microseconds before breaking down?

To continue the article about Plasma crystals:

Once in helix form, the crystals can reproduce by diving into two identical helixes, displaying "memory marks" on their structures [source: New Journal of Physics]. The diameter of the helixes varies throughout the structure and the arrangement of these various sections is replicated in other crystals, passing on what could be called a form of genetic code.

So you can't try to put life and the universe in a box when we don't even know what constitues 96% of the universe that we call dark matter/energy.

The second assumption

They start off with the narrow assumption that the universe must fit into a narrow, subjective definition of materialism as to what constitutes a natural explanation.

This is just like some ancients who projected the gods as responsible for things they couldn't fully understand like hurricanes or tornadoes.

Some in scientific circles are worse.

At least the ancients tried to explain these things, some try to use science to explain these things away.

They exclude things like extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings from being included in a natural explanation and they label these things supernatural.

I submit that these things fit into the natural order of the universe and we shouldn't exclude them as being a natural explanations for these things based on the faulty and illogical assumption that everything in the universe must fit into a subjective and narrow definition of materialism.

These things could easily be explained in the context of evolution and the formation of life in different ways and extra dimensions.

These things stand firm in scientific theory and extra-terrestrials and extra-dimensional being would fit well within this context.

A good book to read on this subject is Extra-Dimensional Universe: Where the Paranormal Becomes Normal by John R. Violette.

Let me stop here for now.

Originally posted by platosallegory

What I don't respect is the faulty logic and assumptions that are cloaked in the scientific method to make an illogical argument appear logical...

So to make the leap that they couldn't travel here based on our current understanding of physics is not a basis in science to reject or belittle the ET hypothesis.

That's not being scientific at all

Indeed, and this fallacious approach comes under signs 5 and 6 of "The Objectivity of Science: Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism" by Rochus Boerner.

"5. The Skeptic rejects a discovery or invention merely because it has been believed for a long time that such a thing as the claimed discovery or invention is impossible.

"6. The Skeptic claims that the claimed effect contradicts the "laws of nature" (and therefore has to be wrong, since the Skeptic and the scientific community he presumes to represent have of course already complete knowledge of the laws of nature)."

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by platosallegory

 

Excellent thread! I am intrigued about plasma crystallization, how durable are they, or do they last microseconds before breaking down?

Thanks and they are durable enough to pass what the article called "memory marks" to other plasma crystals.

So, we can't box how life can form in the universe based on our limited understanding of the universe. We can't say that life had to have formed in the same or similar way that we formed and then try to use that as an argument against the ET hypothesis.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by platosallegory]

Flag and Star. I am with you 100%. You are right, they could even be coming from somewhere within out Solar System. But even if not, people who keep saying "uhhhhuhhh - they can't go faster than light - ughhh - so they can't get here -uhhh".

So yeah, nothing might be able to go faster than light (uhh did you know the speed of light is actually variable), but you are absolutely right about working with gravity to work around that limit.

And heck, even if there is no such shortcut and they do have to stick to the speed of light limit - maybe they have worked out how to extend their live spans to hundreds or thousands of years - even we are close to artificially extending our life spans.

So the 8 year round trip from the next star might not be as big an issue as some people would like to believe.

plato give us a chance to reply. lots of info, i didn't get a chance to read everything yet.

my first comment is going to be that you can't lump unimaginable alien societies in with the rest of the mediocre (the majority) of life in the universe. no one in their righ tmind would say that an unimaginably advanced race wouldn't be, unimaginably, different that we would assume. that's kindergarten stuff.

alot of times, if you haven't noticed, people like to go off of the deep end with aliens and start considering things like rogue aliens that go around mutilating cows and whatnot. the only way to counter these arguments is to use logic and reason.

we CAN assume what the moderate amount of alien life out there would be like because they come from the same universe that we do. they have access to the same minerals and abide by teh same laws of physics. it is very easy to make rational assumptions about alien life using this template.

if your hypothetical "hyper advanced" race was interested in travelling it's not so likely that they would interract with us humans. not in any sort of practical day to day sense. so in other words it just doesn't matter. they'r'e going to do what they're going to do and we'll never know about it.

however if by some miracle we are in proximity range of an interstellar travelling race it isn't far fetched to be able to deduce some of tehir general motives.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by Mozzy]

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Mozzy]

Originally posted by Mozzy
plato give us a chance to reply. lots of info, i didn't get a chance to read everything yet.

my first comment is going to be that you can't lump unimaginable alien societies in with the rest of the mediocre (the majority) of life in the universe. no one in their righ tmind would say that an unimaginably advanced race wouldn't be, unimaginably, different that we would assume. that's kindergarten stuff.

alot of times, if you haven't noticed, people like to go off of the deep end with aliens and start considering things like rogue aliens that go around mutilating cows and whatnot. the only way to counter these arguments is to use logic and reason.

we CAN assume what the moderate amount of alien life out there would be like because they come from the same universe that we do. they have access to the same minerals and abide by teh same laws of physics. it is very easy to make rational assumptions about alien life using this template.

if your hypothetical "hyper advanced" race was interested in travelling it's not so likely that they would interract with us humans. not in any sort of practical day to day sense. so in other words it just doesn't matter. they'r'e going to do what they're going to do and we'll never know about it.

however if by some miracle we are in proximity range of an interstellar travelling race it isn't far fetched to be able to deduce some of tehir general motives.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by Mozzy]

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Mozzy]

I'm glad you posted because your post highlights my points.

You said "you can't lump unimaginable alien societies."

What?

What's an unimaginable alien society?

It's funny how many folks on this board who think they are being skeptical or scientific don't realize that they are making illogical arguments.

This is because they want to debate an absolute. Now it's unimaginable alien societies, you also get extraordinary, 100% proof, absolute proof and more.

The reason why people want to debate absolutes is because they can't debate within reason.

The ET hypothesis is grounded in the scientific method and they have to go above and beyond what science requires in order to try and debate the issue.

Here's a few scientist that can "imagine" how some of these alien societies may look.

This "gulphog" is an alien creature that scientists believe could conceivably exist on a planet orbiting a red star. One side of the planet would always face the star, leaving the other side in perpetual darkness. On the side that would be in permanent sunshine, immense rivers, floodplains, and forests would predominate, scientists imagine.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

You can go to the website and you can see how these scientist think these "unimaginable alien societies" will look.

Here's a few questions:

1. Do you know what constitutes dark matter/energy?
2. Do you know if we live in extra dimensions?
3. Do you know if parallell universes exist?
4. Do you know if your a hologram or a simulation?
5. Do you know if the universe is a quantum computer?

These are all things supported by Professors from MIT to Oxford.

The reason I ask them is because if you don't know if your a hologram or a simulation, why are these things so "unimaginable"?