We Haven't Been Visited? Examining Arguments Against ET Visitation.

Blue Shift

waltwillis
It appears to me that you enjoy playing the devils advocate more
then sharing what you do know with others.

I know of no good, verifiable evidence (confirmed by an unbiased consensus) for the actual, physical existence of "aliens," as in creatures sort of like us from other planets. There may be some out there, but statistical probability is not the same as existence.

I thought I made my thoughts on that clear.

The Pseudo-Skeptic is not a true Skeptic!
Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:
1. Denying, when only doubt has been established
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical
evidence
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for
completely dismissing a claim
He characterized "true" skepticism as:
1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has
been established
2. No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be
based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
4. Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their
implication
5. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
6. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even
when flaws are found
Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit
research progress:
".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in
all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems
vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism
consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents'
points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory
confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings
misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical,
scholarly, and scientific truth."
David Leiter, a member of the Society for Scientific Exploration,
uses the terms 'pseudo-skepticism' and 'pathological skepticism' to
refer to the "organized skepticism" he found in one group he had
encountered. Leiter claimed that many of its members had an
"unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy" at an earlier
period in their lives, and that they had sought an organized skeptical group as a reaction to this. "Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they
become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science
and only science has all the answers to everything" and that even
many of these members are unwilling to spend the time to "read
significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are
most skeptical". He goes on to characterize members of skeptical
organizations as "scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred."
Susan Blackmore, who lost her initial belief in parapsychology and in 1991 became a CSICOP fellow, later described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe
they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be
interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or
trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves
(heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief
structure and cohesion.
Hugo Anthony Meynell from Department of Religious Studies at the
University of Calgary, labels the "extreme position that all significant
evidence supporting paranormal phenomena is a result of deception
or lies" as pseudoskepticism.
While Truzzi's characterisation was aimed at the holders of majority
views who he considered were excessively impatient of minority
opinions, the term has been used to describe advocates of minority
intellectual positions who engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when
they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking
evidence that conforms to a preexisting belief. Thus according to
Richard Cameron Wilson, some advocates of AIDS denial are indulging
in "bogus scepticism" when they argue in this way. Wilson argues that
the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived
ideological position".

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Are you really wholly incapable of understanding?

You have misinterpreted everything I have said. Further you seem rather intent on attaching your own meaning to MY words and passing that off as the original meaning; which, of course , it is not.

If you should care to discuss this in an intelligent, civilized manner, please call again; otherwise goodbye


seriously man; you have defrauded the readers of this thread and slandered me, and for what? Your own amusement?

reply to post by waltwillis


You might want to tag that as an external source and provide the link, unless plagiarism was your intent.


FYI - that all applies to pseudoscience just as well.

tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Are you really wholly incapable of understanding?

No, why?

You have misinterpreted everything I have said. Further you seem rather intent on attaching your own meaning to MY words and passing that off as the original meaning; which, of course , it is not.

just clarify what you are trying to say. I am pretty sure I am interpreting correctly. You can also point out where I am misinterpreting. That might help.

If you should care to discuss this in an intelligent, civilized manner, please call again; otherwise goodbye

I am missing where I was uncivilized. Can you point that out? That might help.

seriously man; you have defrauded the readers of this thread and slandered me, and for what? Your own amusement?

Those are some pretty interesting accusations. I disagree with you. Does that constitute slander? Perhaps this statement is a projection of yours?

draknoir2
reply to post by waltwillis

 

You might want to tag that as an external source and provide the link, unless plagiarism was your intent.


FYI - that all applies to pseudoscience just as well.

David Leiter
Truzzi
and Hugo A. Meyneil
Hope that helps...

reply to post by draknoir2


I thought you might like this:
The Cult of Bayes

Bayes' theorem is now the stuff of gurus and conventions, T-shirts and fridge magnets, filking and fanfic. There are people who strive to live by its teachings; it's not an exaggeration to say that a cult has arisen around it. How did this formula create such a popular sensation? Why do so many people identify so strongly with it?

Perhaps the answer lies in the beguiling power of its prescriptive interpretation. In one simple line, Bayes' Theorem tells you how a perfectly rational being should use its observations to learn and improve itself: it's instructive, aspirational and universal. Other mathematical and scientific laws are merely the truth, but Bayes' Theorem is also the way and the light.

I must also admit that the theorem has some wondrous properties, of the kind that can readily inspire devotion. It's a small and simple formula, but it regularly works minor miracles. Its power often surprises; it has a habit of producing counterintuitive but correct results; it won't be fooled by those annoying trick questions posed by smug psychologists; it seems smarter than you are. It's not hard to see why people who discover Bayes' Theorem, like people who discover secret UFO files, gnostic texts, or Prolog programming, can think they've opened up a new world of deeper, strange, alien truths. And from there, it's a short step to become an eager disciple of Bayesianism.

Bayesianism has a particular attraction for nerds, who see in Bayes' Theorem the calculating badass they always imagined themselves to be. Much like the protagonist of a bad sci-fi novel, the theorem decisively uses the available evidence to attain the best possible results every time. It's no surprise that it wins fans among the milieu that idolises Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein, Frank Herbert, and Ender Wiggin.

True believers can attribute amazing powers to Bayes' Theorem, even in places it doesn't belong. Here, for example, is a committed Bayesian who thinks he has used the theorem to prove that the sentence "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a "logical fallacy". I find this striking for two reasons. Firstly, because I had no idea Bayes' Theorem had anything to say about this matter, and secondly, because I'm pretty sure the sentence in question is not a "fallacy", at least in the sense that the majority of level-headed English-speakers would interpret it. [2] But some Bayesians seem to believe they can conclude a falsehood from their own ignorance

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


To be honest I had never heard of Bayes' Theorem before this thread, but that entire article sounds like someone we know.

draknoir2
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

To be honest I had never heard of Bayes' Theorem before this thread, but that entire article sounds like someone we know.

Analyze This!

www.youtube.com...

Who Owns You?
Ask yourself why you feel the need to control others?

waltwillis

draknoir2
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

To be honest I had never heard of Bayes' Theorem before this thread, but that entire article sounds like someone we know.

Analyze This!

www.youtube.com...

Who Owns You?
Ask yourself why you feel the need to control others?

She's very cute. Thanks.

reply to post by draknoir2


second. I really liked the part about being controlled and a slave and how she was going to tie me up and be my master

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Typical reaction to something not understood...by the way...the like to your article doesn't work.

If you don't understand something kid, that is absolutely no reason to attempt to destroy it, it might actually be helpful. Through its destruction you will gain nothing.

If you want to know about Bayesian probability it s best to not rely upon sci-fy / fiction and gaming sites...I prefer content at real Universities, and other places where people who might actually know something might be... Although Bayesian Inference may be helpful playing World of Warcraft.


Knowledge representation and inference in similarity networks and Bayesian multinets --

Traditional probabilistic approaches to knowledge acquisition and inference for diagnostic,
classification, and pattern-recognition systems face a critical choice: either
specify precise relationships between all relevant variables or make uniform independence
assumptions throughout the model. The first choice is computationally infeasible
except in very small domains, whereas the second choice is rarely justified and often
yields inaccurate conclusions. Bayesian networks offer a compromise between the two
extremes by encoding independence when possible and dependence when necessary.

I don't know, maybe it just me, BUT, I tend to gravitate toward those who actually know something, as opposed to those who merely "think" they do...

tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Typical reaction to something not understood...by the way...the like to your article doesn't work.

If you don't understand something kid, that is absolutely no reason to attempt to destroy it, it might actually be helpful. Through its destruction you will gain nothing.

Seems to me, kid, both he and I have asked repeatedly for you to demonstrate so that we could gain understanding. You deemed us unworthy recipients of such a gift due to our lack of understanding.

tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

I don't know, maybe it just me, BUT, I tend to gravitate toward those who actually know something, as opposed to those who merely "think" they do...

I've never been to a comic book convention, myself.

draknoir2

Seems to me, kid, both he and I have asked repeatedly for you to demonstrate so that we could gain understanding. You deemed us unworthy recipients of such a gift due to our lack of understanding.

Yes indeed you have, and all I asked was for ZR to give even the smallest indication that HE know what we were talking about...he couldn't.

Then, I did post what was needed to understand Bayesian Inference...did you miss that? Though, it is true that all I gave you was the general equation...the problem with the response is; that it was wholly inappropriate, demonstrating that I may as well give a real-world example to a section of sewer pipe. for all the understanding that would be gained.

The definition and general equation was way over y'all's head.

I even provided a snippet of software source code; which was a perfect place for you to attempt to discredit me, and of course, y'all couldn't.

So...why...pray tell why should I waste my time giving you something you can't / won't / refuse to understand in it's own light? (ZR has already demonstrated this "refusal" to understand)

All that being said: I do intend to write a paper on the use of Bayesian Inference in ufology and "alien hunting"...and I promise neither of you will like it. But, you will wait.

All that crap being said...

Bayesian Inference is a poor tool for building on the hypothesis that Extraterrestrials are not visiting. Given all the available data Bayesian Inference would build a VERY good case for visitation. And, may even give a very positive indication on "where" ET is from. For those who have done the math; there are strong indications of visiting life, and from such places as Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. There are of course other places (but not the Pleiades)where ET calls home.

There are many examples of "this could be evidence of alien visitation." Where our knowledge of science is presently, there is no doubt visitation is highly possible. Plain and simple.

tanka418
All that crap being said...

Bayesian Inference is a poor tool for building on the hypothesis that Extraterrestrials are not visiting. Given all the available data Bayesian Inference would build a VERY good case for visitation. And, may even give a very positive indication on "where" ET is from. For those who have done the math; there are strong indications of visiting life, and from such places as Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. There are of course other places (but not the Pleiades)where ET calls home.

you are wrong.

The Drake equation is one of those rare mathematical beasts that has leaked into the public consciousness. It estimates the number of extraterrestrial civilisations that we might be able to detect today or in the near future.

The equation was devised by Frank Drake at the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1960. He attempted to quantify the number by asking what fraction of stars have planets, what fraction of these might be habitable, then the fraction of these on which life actually evolves and the fraction of these on which life becomes intelligent and so on.

Many of these numbers are little more than wild guesses. For example, the number of ET civilisations we can detect now is hugely sensitive to the fraction that destroy themselves with their own technology, through nuclear war for example. Obviously we have no way of knowing this figure.

you might want to bring up your grievances with David Spiegel and Eddie Turner

Astrobiologists naturally argue that because life arose so quickly here, it must be pretty likely to emerge in other places where conditions allow.

Today, David Spiegel at Princeton University and Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo say this thinking is wrong. They’ve used an entirely different kind of thinking, called Bayesian reasoning, to show that the emergence of life on Earth is consistent with life being arbitrarily rare in the universe.

At first sight, that seems rather counterintuitive. But if Bayesian reasoning tells us anything, it’s that we can easily fool ourselves into thinking things are far more likely than they really are.

That’s a sobering argument. It’s easy to be fooled by the evidence of our own existence. What Speigel and Turner have shown is the true mathematical value of this evidence.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we are alone; only that the evidence can’t tell us otherwise.

And if the evidence changes then so to will the probabilities that we can infer from it.

www.technologyreview.com...
do let me know if this link is broken

ZetaRediculian

www.technologyreview.com...
do let me know if this link is broken

Sub link worth noting as well.

arxiv.org...

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Interesting, but, with no data...I'll remain unconvinced that life is not ubiquitous in the Universe.

Right here on Earth there are life forms that could potentially live on Venus, Mars, and two or three of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Given that other scientists think that life may have arisen shortly after the "big bang" I'm not so sure about that), perhaps providing for the abundance of basic building blocks for life in the Universe.

It some how becomes something a bit more (worse) than simply counter intuitive, and becomes something more like "illogical." Though without knowing the dataset used, it is impossible to have a "real" opinion. Course, then, agan, it may not make much difference in subsequent computations.

draknoir2

ZetaRediculian

www.technologyreview.com...
do let me know if this link is broken

Sub link worth noting as well.

arxiv.org...

Thank you for bringing that to light...

From that article:

Although a best guess" of the probability of abiogenesis suggests that life should be common in the Galaxy if early-Earth-like conditions are, still, the data are consistent (under plausible priors) with life being extremely rare,

(emphasis mine) That's the "trick" isn't it? "Under plausible priors", One can also make an equally good case for the Ubiquity of life in the Universe.

Again from the article...

We had to find ourselves on a planet that has life on it, but we did not have to find ourselves (i) in a galaxy that has life on a planet besides Earth nor (ii) on a planet on which life arose multiple, independent times. Learning that either (i) or (ii) describes our world would constitute data that are not subject to the selection effect described above. In short, if we should find evidence of life that arose wholly independently of us [ either via astronomical searches that reveal life on another planet or via geological and biological studies that find evidence of life on Earth with a different origin from us [ we would have considerably stronger grounds to conclude that life is probably common in our galaxy.

again emphasis is mine...It is unknown how many extinction level events (real ones...not like the event 65M years ago). And, I can only think of one possible...that being the formation of the moon at around 500 million years. Many scientists think that life may have been on Earth at around that time. I think this may qualify for life arising on Earth multiple, independent times. Also, there are some credible reports of fossilized microbes in Martian rocks. This would prolly work for life arising on a planet other than Earth.

reply to post by tanka418

Interesting, but, with no data...I'll remain unconvinced that life is not ubiquitous in the Universe.

There is no data and its the same data you have. That's the point. In order to bayes stuff, you need real data. Now sometimes the data can be subjective and fuzzy like saying its cloudy. In this case it is not subjective. Everyone agrees that we know that aliens are not known to exist. As the article correctly points out, there really is no bayesian thingamajig that can be calculated until we discover them. At that point infer away but using the correct math. Regarding this topic, that is the only way to apply bayesian hoo hoo. I am not really surprised that you were not aware that this important paper existed as it made quite an impact in academic circles. Interesting that the same exact thing was done a few years ago at the university level that shows the exact opposite results. Anyhoo, glad I could share my bayesian expertise with you.