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.
RUInsane
I will say this about visitation. ET visitation by definition requires that we're visited by non-Earth entities. There are two routes to establishing this.
a) Evidence of visitation from specific planet/star system (deductive reasoning).
b) Evidence of possible visitation by non-Earth entity (inductive reasoning/"proof" by elimination)
For (a), by definition, someone from say, Mars, is a non-Earth entity. The conclusion (non-Earth entity) necessarily follows from the premise (He's from Mars). However, we don't have compelling evidence to pin down a specific location for myriad kinds of visitors (ranging from Nordic humanoids, to dwarves, and even to mechanical/robotic).
So, we're forced to go down route (b): The patterns of disturbance can't be consistent with any known human/animal activity (or "proof" by elimination). Any conclusion would be a generalized statement from an observation of patterns (inductive reasoning). This is a troubling route, because we can't suppose visitation from simple negative evidence alone. We need positive evidence. That's why I placed "proof" in brackets. So, it seems a logical starting point is somewhere between (a) and (b). And of course, is it reasonable to draw such a conclusion at all from the present evidence?
I hope you enjoyed this read.
4. You’re delusional.
People are always wondering "why" ET doesn't make contact. Yet, when ET does try, he is routinely rejected as a "delusional". Typically without examining ET statements or evidence. And then of course, you go on to wonder why ET won't make contact. This is actually one of the early “traps” in sentient reasoning. When One is confronted with something that is too difficult to consider; making it a “Delusion” of some sort, somehow, tends to ease the pressure on the unprepared mind. It is also one of the most significant insulators individuals, and societies have against external contact. Regardless of the conditions of contact, this can become a significant bar to the continued evolution of a species, and culture.
mysterioustranger
reply to post by RUInsane
This is what is going to trip us up. One day we'll find out they arent coming...because theyve always been here in a shape we dont recognize because we cant.
And the whole time..we'd be waiting for criteria WE set up to PROVE they are here?
Well I don't think that's true because if they are spread out that far it would definitely decrease the likelihood that they have visited us, although by an unknown degree.
RUInsane
.... The basic idea is that we haven't found signs of intelligent societies (e.g. radiation leaks that could be attributed to advanced societies, such as a specific radio frequency band), therefore we probably haven't been visited.
I think this is hasty reasoning. .... if advanced civs. are few and far between. The "no-detection" argument is a non-sequitur.
We may live in the reality where ETI is all around us and we can't detect it for the reason you give here. But we may also live in the reality where we don't detect ETI because it isn't abundant around us. We don't know which reality we live in, so we have to consider how the no-detection evidence agrees with both realities. The fact that we haven't detected ETI would agree with the idea that we are living in reality #2. But in no way could it be considered evidence that we are living in reality #1. So overall, it does suggest we are more likely to be living in reality #1, where there isn't much in the way of ETI around us. We're just talking about the no-detection evidence in isolation here. I'm sure there are all kinds of other factors that would play into our calculations, many we haven't even thought of yet.
It's even possible that our instruments aren't calibrated to pick up other signs of intelligent life .... I'm not claiming that ET have 100%, definitely visited Earth. I'm just pointing out that the "no-detection" argument isn't very good for claiming that aliens haven't visited.
I agree completely. We can never say of some weird sighting that it isn't anything we know of, therefore it's aliens. It presupposes that it couldn't be something else that we haven't thought of.
So, we're forced to go down route (b): The patterns of disturbance can't be consistent with any known human/animal activity (or "proof" by elimination). Any conclusion would be a generalized statement from an observation of patterns (inductive reasoning). This is a troubling route, because we can't suppose visitation from simple negative evidence alone. We need positive evidence.
Agree completely. We will have basically nothing to offer such an ancient civilization.
Ross 54
It seems likely that some extraterrestrial intelligences are more technically advanced than we are, by millions or even billions of years. It also seems probable that we would hold only a limited interest for such civilizations.
But we would be MUCH less likely to run into them than the older ones. Let's examine some reasons why:
We should realize, though, that there is an implied range of development in civilizations in the galaxy. If some are billions of years old, some millions, there should also be some of intermediate age, between those and ourselves. Those only thousands or hundreds of years our senior might find us of considerable interest.
Tearman
Well I don't think that's true because if they are spread out that far it would definitely decrease the likelihood that they have visited us, although by an unknown degree.
RUInsane
.... The basic idea is that we haven't found signs of intelligent societies (e.g. radiation leaks that could be attributed to advanced societies, such as a specific radio frequency band), therefore we probably haven't been visited.
I think this is hasty reasoning. .... if advanced civs. are few and far between. The "no-detection" argument is a non-sequitur.
We may live in the reality where ETI is all around us and we can't detect it for the reason you give here. But we may also live in the reality where we don't detect ETI because it isn't abundant around us. We don't know which reality we live in, so we have to consider how the no-detection evidence agrees with both realities. The fact that we haven't detected ETI would agree with the idea that we are living in reality #2. But in no way could it be considered evidence that we are living in reality #1. So overall, it does suggest we are more likely to be living in reality #1, where there isn't much in the way of ETI around us. We're just talking about the no-detection evidence in isolation here. I'm sure there are all kinds of other factors that would play into our calculations, many we haven't even thought of yet.
SETI efforts have so far returned negative results. But I don't think there are too many people who would use that evidence to say that alien visitation hasn't happened. I personally think there is a good chance that the earth has been visited or at least observed at some point during its long history. If you're talking about UFOs, however, the reason to doubt them has almost nothing to do with SETI at all, and everything to do with the quality and nature of the evidence.