Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
1. How can you use the Fermi Paradox to support your position when he gave no credibility to ETH. And at the same time Criticize people for having
that same belief?
There IS credibility to the ETH. It's predicted. More and more mainstream scientists are saying that we need to start scouring our own solar system
for ET artifacts. (See my only thread. See 'Von Neuman probes'.) And there's absolutely no reason to assume that, if they're here, each sighting
is preceded and followed by a trip of lights years.
The Fermi Paradox simply says "they should be here by now, so where are they?" My interest, whatever Fermi's UFO thoughts, is in his
that they should be here by now. He supported it mathematically, even when using conservative estimates.
His (or any scientist's) UFO opinion would matters to me if:
a) it could be confirmed that he studied the topic objectively and thoroughly.
b) his public statements on UFOs do not appear to be tainted by the stifling nature of the UFO taboo, present since day 1, or by decades-old and
If our science points to the conclusion "they should've been here by now", then HOW does the ETH have "no credibility", as you say? That just
makes no sense to me. Why is it ridiculed or precluded as invalid in whole
? To me, it seems that's done mostly by those ignorant of the
breathtaking discoveries of modern astronomy (Kepler mission, extra-solar planet results, etc.), just as the "Black Project" hypothesis is offered
by those mostly unfamiliar with the principles of flight,
Next, I don't think I "criticized" anyone for his Fermi Paradox views. The paradox itself is simply a reality (if absolute proof is the standard),
so what "view" could one even have on it?
remember finding it highly ironic and contrary to logic that it would be inserted into the discussion by one who, in the same post, seemed
to argue that ET is not proven, so the ETH can't be part of any hypothesis.
Anyone blind to the logical problem there doesn't understand that hypotheses do and must contain assumptions The more reasonable those are, the
better the tentative hypothesis. We're required to reduce
, not eliminate assumptions. They can't
2. Explain why my card anolagy is wrong using your own words and without copying and pasting from a source you dont understand.
No complex statistical understanding is needed. The analogies are invalid because:
a) The ETH is increasingly predicted by science. Real, mainstream science. Not just pro-UFO science.
b) Not every hypothesis is created equal.
Can we really pretend that any UFO hypothesis posited is as valid and likely as all others?
To illustrate, here's a paraphrased hypothesis jokingly offered by a well-known TV character: In the center of every black hole there's a little man
with a flashlight searching for the circuit breaker.
What's 'inside' a black hole is "unknown". But is that hypothesis as valid or likely as any other?
In your card analogies, the significance of any face-down card is distorted by equating it to any
"unknown" UFO hypothesis. Swamp gas, for
example, really is
as valid as the ETH on your cards. In reality, most know it's not. So your deck is stacked and the cards marked ... in
of the ETH, actually. Yes, we know
swamp gas exists, but that hypothesis doesn't account for all reasonably reliable data.
(Remember, I don't care about ETH vs. EDH, time travel, etc. But ETH must be default, for now. The strangest reports might be explained by this
principle: "any advanced civilization's technology would appear to us to be 'magic' ".)
3. comment on the Hynek quotes I posted. please.
a) 1st Hynek quote: "The reports are real, and their cause must be real[. E]ven if the cause is mass hallucination, it is still a real cause."
Do you think Hynek ultimately believed that "mass hallucination" was a viable hypothesis for all cases? Of course he didn't. Anyone could post any
number of his quotes to demonstrate whatever desired, since (as I thought was well known) his UFO position evolved -- from skeptic to pro-ETH to
pro-'stranger than ETH'. His views in later years obviously carry more weight
Ironically, that quote works against UFO deniers. It's more evidence of the UFO taboo. Why has there not
been a push within the social
sciences to study the significant and supposedly "nutty" portion of the population which claims to have seen alien craft? Either the topic IS taboo,
or they eliminate those explanations soon after delving into the evidence.
That also addresses your 2nd quote: of course such things are valid hypotheses. Equally likely? No
Your 3rd quote is not cited, and is not a Hynek quote. It's a quote about him. I have no doubt somebody could or would make that claim. As to its
legitimacy, I have no idea.