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.

 

Alien hunters 'should look for artificial intelligence' says Seth Shostak

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
So what makes Shostak "arrogant" and "primitive" for discussing what he thinks any alien intelligence we may communicate with is most likely to be?

I didn't use the word primitive to describe Mr. Shostak. That was someone else. In fact, I didn't characterize Mr. Shostak at all — only Mr. Shostak's position, which are, obviously, two distinct things.

What I referred to as arrogant was the conclusion that, in my view, is at the foundation of Mr. Shostak's position that non-human biological entities couldn't be visiting us — we can't feasibly travel between solar systems, so the aliens can't either.

If you want evidence for why I think this, let me, for example, point you to an article titled ‘What Will Aliens Really Look Like?’ on SETI's website written by Mr. Shostak. Here's a passage from that article that will illustrate Shostak's position and why I have characterized it as arrogant:

Here's the deal: it's widely believed that aliens are out there. But proof requires the following: Either aliens need to visit Earth (don't start!) or we need to detect them with our telescopes
Emphasis mine.

For Mr. Shostak, the mere possibility is a non-starter.

Here's another interesting passage from that article:

All of which reminds me: the next time your neighbor claims that extraterrestrials have once again hauled him out of his bedroom for distasteful experiments, ask whether the abductor was a protoplasmic being with four limbs, or some sort of complex hardware. I think I already know what the answer will be, and it's the wrong one.
So, Mr. Shostak, who hasn't, admittedly, investigated any UFO cases; who hasn't found any aliens — AI or otherwise — already knows what the right answer is?

I stand by my characterization of Shostak's position as being arrogant. I hope I've explained why I think that to your satisfaction.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Spangler]




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
The problem people have with Ufology is that the "believers" attempt to use science as a way to hide their bizarre and fraudulent claims. The few honest Ufology researchers of the past are dead and gone. Guess what? Almost nobody has taken their place.

So when "believers" tell me they disagree with respected and accredited scientists and researchers because they "haven't done the science" I can only smirk and laugh. They haven't "done the research" because there is no real evidence for them to study.

Why should Seth Shostak or other legitimate SETI researchers waste their time (and their organization's money) debunking hoaxers and new-age weirdos? We can do that for free right here on ATS.


Legitimate researchers will look into the claims of "believers" when the "believers' actually have real evidence to show them.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Turiddu
The few honest Ufology researchers of the past are dead and gone.

Who are, in your view, these few honest ‘ufology researchers of the past’?



So when "believers" tell me they disagree with respected and accredited scientists and researchers because they "haven't done the science" I can only smirk and laugh. They haven't "done the research" because there is no real evidence for them to study.

There's no real evidence of what, exactly? I believe we are talking about different things.

Usually what people like you mean by ‘real evidence’ is ‘show me the alien bodies,’ while, ironically, at the same time, jump on anyone who takes the — in my view, fallacious — position of ‘UFOs = aliens.’ Who said anything about evidence of aliens? I certainly didn't.

Are you saying there is no real evidence of UFOs? Because that's the only argument I'm making here — there are well documented and credible cases which remain unknown and unresolved, and, are worthy of scientific investigation.

Mr. Shostak has admittedly not looked at any UFO cases, and yet he already dismisses one hypothesis for what might be behind them. I'm not saying UFOs are alien in nature — I never did. What I'm saying is we don't know, and, certainly, Mr. Shostak doesn't either, therefor, by dismissing one hypothesis because of his personal incredulity he's not displaying a truly scientific and skeptical approach. And that is the point that my posts reflect.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 


i think you'll find he's looked into alot of ufo cases. Theres just nothing substantial in them regarding the ETH. Thats what he's interested in ET intelligence.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
I think you'll find he's looked into alot of ufo cases. Theres just nothing substantial in them regarding the ETH. Thats what he's interested in ET intelligence.

How do you know he has looked ‘into alot of ufo cases’? Where and when has Shostak expressed this? All I've read and heard so far by Mr. Shostak points to the contrary.

With the publicly available information and data I don't believe anyone can determine with any certainty if there is anything ‘substantial in [UFOs] regarding the ETH.’ In order to hopefully find that out one has to, at least, actually look at the cases — something, from what I've read and heard from Shostak, he has yet to do.

If Mr. Shostak is interested in ‘ET intelligence,’ as you put it, he shouldn't dismiss a possible avenue of investigation into that by discarding the topic of UFOs or the possibility that some might be non-human in origin.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Spangler]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 


he said he sometimes feels like a part time ufo investigator becuase people email him with ufo cases and he checks them out

you will find practically anyone whos interested in ET intelligence has looked into ufos at some point. Carl Sagan did but his opinion was the same. No good evidence for the ETH


[edit on 24-8-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 





Carl Sagan did but his opinion was the same. No good evidence for the ETH


Maybe in public but maybe not in private .

In an interview with research journalist and author Paola Leopizzi-Harris she told ZlandCommunications: “My recollection is that Hynek said it was backstage of one of the many Johnny Carson Tonight shows Sagan did. He basically said [to Hynek] in 1984, ‘I know UFOs are real, but I would not risk my research [College] funding, as you do, to talk openly about them in public.’’ “


Now I'm not saying this is proof that Carl Sagan believed UFO's are extraterrestrial , but who knows , privately he may have .

news.exopoliticsinstitute.org...



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


its ashame sections of ufology resort to making things up about great people to try and peddle their wares. Dr greer does this too. The lowest of the low.

Sagan was very clear & specific many times on the subject of ufos & aliens.Hynek himself made no mention of this and even in his dieing days sagan did not change his views on ufos. Your source waits until he dies then makes this up. Scum



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spangler

Originally posted by Harte
Many people at ATS are so thoroughly attached to the idea of UFOs being alien-controlled spaceships from some extrasolar planet that every single thing involving exobiology absolutely must address UFOs (and address them in a supportive manner - never pointing out the fallacy of this sort of "true belief,) or the individual or the program is either full of crap or a government disinfo outlet.
And you crazies wonder why science won't touch your favorite lovee with a ten foot pole.

I only mentioned possibilities. Is it unscientific to debate possibilities now? Moreover, I've never said aliens are behind UFOs. In fact, I've mentioned several times that the ETH is far from being proven fact.

I understand that you might feel the need to vent your frustrations on these ‘crazies,’ but you might want to direct those frustrations at the people who actually believe and claim the things you've just accused me of.

Yet your post served to illustrate what I was saying.

If, as you say, I have misrepresented your stance, then I apologize to you.


Originally posted by SpanglerLastly, excuse me, but who are you calling crazy? I await your apology in the form of a public post here or by U2U.

"Crazies," not "crazy." Plural, IOW.

Are you really going to say that you yourself can't see any craziness in the UFO field?

Perhaps you are not one of the crazies. In fact, I found another post that is more illustrative of my original point, as well as illustrative of who I'm calling "crazies."
This one:

Originally posted by Riposte
I'ts not just that. It's their arrogance in believing their fraudulent mainstream scientific view of reality, and their blind adherence to materialism, that prevents any of them from even entertaining the idea that aliens exist, and can actually quite easily be contacted by other means.


That post, made by one of the crazies, was in response to one you made:

Originally posted by Spangler
I find that this rejection of the possibility of extraterrestrial biological visitors — very prominent in the scientific community — stems in great part from the incredulity, and arrogance, of people who assume that since we have no feasible means for fast interstellar travel, other civilizations — if they exist — don't either.

Now, who has rejected even the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation? I've never read of it if anyone has.

What has been rejected is the lame "evidence" presented that is supposed to support such visitation. Primarily hoaxed, such evidence creates more problems for "ufology" (whatever that is these days) than it solves.

IMO, you are more than a little over the top in the above post. But Riposte makes you look like a paragon of steadfast normalcy!

If you don't care for what I say or have said, there's always the ignore function. I'm not here to please anyone.

Harte



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spangler
I stand by my characterization of Shostak's position as being arrogant.


I think it just sounds like Shostak doesn't want to get involved in a lot of church meeting discussions with people convinced UFOs are alien spacecraft who also don't have any proof that is the case. Arguing with people who don't have a solid grasp of what constitutes logic, evidence and proof, and have only conjecture to stand on ultimately becomes a pointless waste of time. He probably just doesn't enjoy it as much as I do.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Could some of the smarter ATS peeps explain how this shift would effect the way SETI would change the search?

I assume they would keep their current equipment, but change for what they listen. How does ai 'sound' different from what they are currently looking?

Thanks for any of your ideas.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Are you really going to say that you yourself can't see any craziness in the UFO field?

No, I'm not. And I didn't.



Now, who has rejected even the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation? I've never read of it if anyone has.

Scroll up. In this same page I've posted and referenced examples about Shostak's position espousing that rejection.



IMO, you are more than a little over the top in the above post.

Respectfully, I don't think I'm over the top for expecting members to respect me even if they disagree with the ideas I've expressed in my posts — in which I've always been cordial to all the members I've addressed here — and not receive ad hominem attacks for them.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Spangler]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 


he just thinks that alien visitation isnt happening. No repectable astronomy or scientific body subscribes to the belief we are being visited by ET in spaceships.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
First of all, Dr Seth Shostak is not informed at a high level. All high ranked members of the government in any way knows per fact about alien races on and outside our own planet tellus. Even the public is being well informed about the subject, IF Seth Shostak havent sucked in the information yet after working so many years with this, i feel really sorry for him.

World scientists are on track of an AI race at the moment, but even calling it an AI is abit early. Extra terrestrial races are no longer a secret or amazing news. But i guess there are still those humans who live their everyday lives without having a clue whats going on around them.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Archirvion
First of all, Dr Seth Shostak is not informed at a high level. All high ranked members of the government in any way knows per fact about alien races on and outside our own planet tellus. Even the public is being well informed about the subject, IF Seth Shostak havent sucked in the information yet after working so many years with this, i feel really sorry for him.


This kind of reasoning is exactly why real researchers like Seth Shostak don't bother looking into the cases the "believers" put forward as evidence.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turiddu

Originally posted by Archirvion
First of all, Dr Seth Shostak is not informed at a high level. All high ranked members of the government in any way knows per fact about alien races on and outside our own planet tellus. Even the public is being well informed about the subject, IF Seth Shostak havent sucked in the information yet after working so many years with this, i feel really sorry for him.


This kind of reasoning is exactly why real researchers like Seth Shostak don't bother looking into the cases the "believers" put forward as evidence.


This is also the kind of "reasoning" that needs to be refuted by folks that actually believe there might be something to the ETH.

Spangler gets upset. Maybe he has tried to counteract the sort of post you're talking about, maybe he hasn't. Like Shostak, I'm not gonna take time to find out.

I enter this area of ATS every now and then to comment on aliens visiting the ancient past. When I see an interesting thread, I look in on it and read a little. Rarely do I post anything in these thread not involved with A.A.

This one drew me in, though, because of the attacks on this researcher.

Now, whatever people here may think of UFOs, not refuting posts like the one Tiruddu quoted above ends up lumping you all in with the paranoids that say these silly things.

If you want to be taken seriously, act serious. Don't let some weirdo give folks an excuse to think of you the same. You have to refute the obviously ridiculous opinions here (and elsewhere.)

This is not a popularity contest. Don't let stupid things go unchallenged. Especially if you're a "true believer."

Harte



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Even if this guy is right or wrong in regards to Biological and AI that shouldn't make a difference. We will use the same methods to scan for intelligence. If it is cat people, dolphin people , robots , tree or plant people they would have to answer back. Return the call... all though AI is a good probability & it would be probably more logical to use probes like we do. Do we know what to look for? I think they would and have found us first. We are a young species and taking baby steps in space exploration. There are probably millions of species that are light years ahead of us out there. I don't think we have to even meet them half way they will find us eventually. If not thousands of years ago or in the 1940's.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by theMegaladon]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Now, whatever people here may think of UFOs, not refuting posts like the one Tiruddu quoted above ends up lumping you all in with the paranoids that say these silly things.

It's unfortunate to note that Harte doesn't seem to have a problem with the fundamentalists on the other side of the argument — the pseudoskeptics — only with true believers. We can, then, — applying Harte's nonsensical generalization and ‘logic’ — assume he's a pseudoskeptic since he hasn't been refuting their posts.



Don't let stupid things go unchallenged. Especially if you're a "true believer."

How about ‘don't let stupid things go unchallenged... regardless of where it's coming from’?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Turiddu
 

On the topic of ‘serious researchers,’ care to respond to my inquiry on who are the ‘few honest ufology researchers of the past’?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I'd say folks like J. Allen Hynek, Carl Sagan and Philip Klass come to mind first. James Oberg is also part of this list but he is still gladly with us.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join