Originally posted by atlasastro
Answer the question!
How do you label any percentage of the UFO phenomena as evidence for ETH, when you cannot even prove ET exist!
Answer the question.
Well, it would have been considered a circular question even in 1948, and is more so now that we're aware of much, much more. But it looks like
several others are just as hung up on the precise identity of whatever may be behind some UFOs, so perhaps the problems should be laid out there,
I'll ignore the purely logical flaws which exist in that kind of circular thinking regardless of the topic
, and instead focus on the ET issue.
If a person doesn't already see the huge hole in there, even in the general case, then I probably can't help.)
Our current science predicts the existence of advanced extraterrestrials, and is even now proposing that we search our own solar system
them or their artifacts. We don't need absolute "proof" of extraterrestrial existence before saying that there's some evidence tending to support the
idea that they're here. That reality can be accommodated, scientifically. It's even expected
, many are now saying. (Fermi said this!) And THAT
is the difference between the ETH and the other "strange" hypotheses; it's no longer so strange....
Your analogy about needing to know that backwards time travel exists before we can say there's evidence for it is closer to correct, IMO. Even our
cutting edge science, so far as I know, does not predict
that time travel into the past is a tenable hypothesis. ET, however, fits perfectly
well into what we know. Better than any other of the "strange" hypotheses. So by default, by Occam's Razor, it becomes our working hypothesis....
But of course we just can't be sure what's behind it all. I don't think anyone here has argued otherwise.
If you're concerned about that particular (ET) hypothesis, then we can speak in more general terms, as in "are there any 'Earth shattering'
explanations behind some UFOs?".
Isn't what we're all intrigued by the idea that some other intelligence
is involved? From what I've seen, most people don't much care whether
it's the ETH, IDH, time travel or whatever; they want to know if there's other intelligence out there.
However, if science is to work the way it always has, then the ETH must be our leading tentative hypothesis. It requires the least revision of
knowledge. And though reality doesn't care how much revising we must undertake, we do, and Occam does, and this is why I've said, and why it's
completely proper to say that there is "some evidence" to support the ETH.
What there's actually "some evidence" for, strictly speaking, is some sort of unknown intelligence, and we can't truly be more specific about the
"where?" and the "how?". We can't be sure if 'whatever' has traveled in space, time, or both. But we pick the most conservative explanation that still
fits: 'beings' and their craft have been seen here, they're not from Earth as we know it, and that's all we cansay, so... they're "extra-terrestrial".
Occam's Razor at work. Anything beyond it, like the 'supernatural' (maybe even time travelers, maybe even inter-dimensionals?) is just not needed. Any
of those could still very well be an answer, but if we keep in mind that the technology of an advanced civilization would appear to us to be magic,
then the ETH can reasonably accommodate even the strangest evidence out there. (AFAIK)
We should be talking about whether there appears to be some other intelligence
behind UFOs. Getting hung up on the precise identity seems odd
to me... a distraction from the central issue... something akin to "was the plaintiff's head struck 100 times, or 101 times?" It's a heck of a
'revelation' even if expecting and braced for it.
edit on 25-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)