Exploring the Probability of Alien Visitation

Thanks to everyone for their replies. Some good points were made in this discussion.

reply to post by converge


First, I am in complete agreement about the probability of aliens vs. the probability of God. At this point, there's at least some hard probability on aliens visiting. I used religion as an example, and it's unfortunately a bit of a flawed one. Sorry about that.

Unfortunately, right as I was hovering over the "Post" button last night, I imagined how the course of this discussion would flow, and it didn't disappoint. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to crumble anyone's belief system here, but I noticed a few people getting a bit defensive. For everyone who knows that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, however many different types there may be: Good for you. You know. Your faith is unshakable. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, these conversations do have some merit.

I can't prove you wrong, you can't prove yourselves right. In a way, we're all in our own "ATS" Paradox, in that for some people there is absolutely visitation. No doubt, because they've actually seen the creatures in person, had conversations, are they themselves in fact aliens, and so on. The problem is, they can't prove anything to anyone else, so the phenomenon remains unproven.

So, for the rest of us who've not yet had personal experiences with these creatures, it stands to reason that we should (and can only) look at the facts.


Moving on; If the probability of alien life existing, being intelligent, having the technology to come to us, having found us, and are actually here is still not small enough, consider the age of the universe, and the likelihood that these creatures (which have accomplished all of the above) are even living in our own time.
Again, probability favors no, but this brings together a lot more "faith" answers: Maybe the first intelligent life in the universe is still around, harboring other life to grow into its own intelligence. Planting crops of these and teaching them to do the same?

I ask the question above to point out that there are a million what-ifs we could ask, but those will never be useful in determining the actual truth, because until we know the actual truth, we'll never be able to test our conjectures. And that's unfortunate, because I love digging into the heads of other people (or aliens!) to try and see the other side too.

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
I used religion as an example, and it's unfortunately a bit of a flawed one. Sorry about that.

I wasn't directing my response to you personally per se, it was more of a clarification for all. I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on that point though.

I noticed a few people getting a bit defensive. For everyone who knows that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, however many different types there may be: Good for you.

This might sound harsh to some, but why focus on those people? Isn't this a scientific discussion after all? As you pointed out, those people can't really add anything scientific to the discussion. Not putting anyone down, just stating the facts.

When people come forward with evidence of their experiences or their claims, then it could be scientifically evaluated, but as long as it remains in the realm of beliefs what's the point if we're trying to be strictly scientific?

When it comes this topic there will always be people who react emotionally and unfortunately miss or ignore the premise and the terms. Focus on the ones who comprehend and play by the terms, or broaden the terms. Otherwise you'll get nowhere except end up frustrated.

So, for the rest of us who've not yet had personal experiences with these creatures, it stands to reason that we should (and can only) look at the facts.

And the facts arise from the analysis of evidence. No facts can be established if people reject the possibility that something could be happening and don't look at the evidence.

And that is the position of many who pretend to be skeptics and scientific and are anything but.

Again, probability favors no

I'm sorry, but I mut have missed where this probability assessment of yours coalesced into something coherent. You know, an equation based on (preferably) facts, which churns out something useful in numbers.

Seems to me you've decided a priori that probability is low and you reason towards your preference.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by jclmavg]