horacerumpole wrote:

This appears to be what Landrew is saying - minus the crazy hair.

Spearthrower wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

This appears to be what Landrew is saying - minus the crazy hair.

This is a category error. One guy with bad hair doesn't falsify the subject.

Spearthrower wrote:Nevermind, I am sure this thread is chock full of inanities wondrous extrapolations from zero evidence.

You were right the first time.

Mostly it has involved jelly, walls, and nails.




And a weird mess on the floor.

Landrew wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

This appears to be what Landrew is saying - minus the crazy hair.

This is a category error. One guy with bad hair doesn't falsify the subject.

No but the guy with bad hair demonstrates a very unscientific position.

Also, Spearthrower was saying you seem to be holding the same position as this guy. Not that his crazy hair disproves the fact that Aliens have visited.

Wuffy wrote:

Landrew wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

This appears to be what Landrew is saying - minus the crazy hair.

This is a category error. One guy with bad hair doesn't falsify the subject.

No but the guy with bad hair demonstrates a very unscientific position.

Also, Spearthrower was saying you seem to be holding the same position as this guy. Not that his crazy hair disproves the fact that Aliens have visited.

But that's the implication. I do not believe Aliens have visited, but I also know that you can't prove a negative in this case, therefore I also make no assertions that they never visited earth.

By weighing the evidence, which includes reasonable and informed speculation, I consider it possible, especially in light of some fairly recent discoveries of earthlike planets, and the discovery of extremophiles. I consider this viewpoint the only reasonable one, in light of available evidence.

...Shit, I thought this topic had been taken up to the mothership....

Landrew wrote:

Wuffy wrote:

Landrew wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:


This appears to be what Landrew is saying - minus the crazy hair.

This is a category error. One guy with bad hair doesn't falsify the subject.

No but the guy with bad hair demonstrates a very unscientific position.

Also, Spearthrower was saying you seem to be holding the same position as this guy. Not that his crazy hair disproves the fact that Aliens have visited.

But that's the implication.

Errr no, no it isn't. I actually thought you were joking with the prior post, so didn't respond... but you are actually serious?

Landrew wrote: I do not believe Aliens have visited, but I also know that you can't prove a negative in this case, therefore I also make no assertions that they never visited earth.

Oh dear. You want to go and try re-reading that Sagan book you've mentioned a few times.

Landrew wrote:By weighing the evidence, which includes reasonable and informed speculation, I consider it possible, especially in light of some fairly recent discoveries of earthlike planets, and the discovery of extremophiles. I consider this viewpoint the only reasonable one, in light of available evidence.

What evidence would that be?

Extremophiles are organisms that evolved on earth... they also don't appear to have invented inter-stellar travel yet, so your position seems to involve pushing a pile of scraps into a heap and calling it 'reasonable'.

THWOTH wrote:...Shit, I thought this topic had been taken up to the mothership....

The fact that it hasn't is more than adequate evidence that the mothership exists.

You can't prove that we're not on the mother ship right now, in some sort of matrix like computer program while "they" prod us in the butt with their anal probes. Therefore we are. (Why's my butt hurt? )

Time for a quote from the film Paul

Graeme Willy: You are an alien!
Paul: To you I am, yes.
Graeme Willy: Are you gonna probe us?
Paul: *Why* does everyone always assume that? What am I doing? Am I harvesting farts? How much can I learn from an ass?

I say "NO!" to the butt probers - we should rise up! We should not stand for if, nor should we sit for it either!

Spearthrower wrote:

Landrew wrote:

Wuffy wrote:

Landrew wrote:
This is a category error. One guy with bad hair doesn't falsify the subject.

No but the guy with bad hair demonstrates a very unscientific position.

Also, Spearthrower was saying you seem to be holding the same position as this guy. Not that his crazy hair disproves the fact that Aliens have visited.

But that's the implication.

Errr no, no it isn't. I actually thought you were joking with the prior post, so didn't respond... but you are actually serious?

Landrew wrote: I do not believe Aliens have visited, but I also know that you can't prove a negative in this case, therefore I also make no assertions that they never visited earth.

Oh dear. You want to go and try re-reading that Sagan book you've mentioned a few times.

Landrew wrote:By weighing the evidence, which includes reasonable and informed speculation, I consider it possible, especially in light of some fairly recent discoveries of earthlike planets, and the discovery of extremophiles. I consider this viewpoint the only reasonable one, in light of available evidence.

What evidence would that be?

Extremophiles are organisms that evolved on earth... they also don't appear to have invented inter-stellar travel yet, so your position seems to involve pushing a pile of scraps into a heap and calling it 'reasonable'.

You're not understanding much here it seems, so let me give you a few bullet points:


• existence of extremophiles increases the chances of life evolving on planets not as earthlike as our own.
• the number of possible earthlike planets discovered is now much higher
• these factors refine the Drake equation, which is not accurate, nor is it meaningless.

In lieu of hard evidence, our evidence is based on informed speculation. If you wish to disqualify all such speculation as scientific, that's your choice, however most scientists consider it valid.

This is becoming farcical, but still amusing. Landrew completely miscomprehends the topic matter, and doesn't seem able to process replies, then tells me I am having difficulty with my comprehension!

Let's make this clear for you Landrew.

Each of those items on your list are perfectly correct - well, aside from the Drake equation which is more like a thought experiment than of any real use with regards to this topic.

However, at no point does stacking up these perfectly valid notions actually amount towards substantiating (in your preferred bullet point style)

• The existence of intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe.
• The existence of high-tech societies elsewhere in the universe.
• That aforementioned high-tech societies ever visited our planet.

As the last point is the ONLY one with any relevance regarding this topic, all the pleasant notions in the world count for naught. What we'd need to see to establish that would be evidence, not a mish-mash of unconnected data points carefully crafted towards the desired outcome.

What we can conceive of, and what we can establish to be true, are entirely different kettles of fish.

Spearthrower wrote:This is becoming farcical, but still amusing. Landrew completely miscomprehends the topic matter, and doesn't seem able to process replies, then tells me I am having difficulty with my comprehension!

Let's make this clear for you Landrew.

Each of those items on your list are perfectly correct - well, aside from the Drake equation which is more like a thought experiment than of any real use with regards to this topic.

However, at no point does stacking up these perfectly valid notions actually amount towards substantiating (in your preferred bullet point style)

• The existence of intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe.
• The existence of high-tech societies elsewhere in the universe.
• That aforementioned high-tech societies ever visited our planet.

As the last point is the ONLY one with any relevance regarding this topic, all the pleasant notions in the world count for naught. What we'd need to see to establish that would be evidence, not a mish-mash of unconnected data points carefully crafted towards the desired outcome.

What we can conceive of, and what we can establish to be true, are entirely different kettles of fish.

This is the last of your straw man arguments I'll set a match to, but I've never claimed ET visitation or expressed my belief that it happened with certainty, but I have acquired an opinion of the likelihood based on the factors I've already mentioned. Any more than that would just be inane repetition.

Landrew wrote:

You're not understanding much here it seems, so let me give you a few bullet points:

Ah, bullet points! Always a good way to elucidate flaws in thinking.

existence of extremophiles increases the chances of life evolving on planets not as earthlike as our own.

By what factor? Do I smell another unknown variable?

the number of possible earthlike planets discovered is now much higher

Numbers, please, including by what metric these planets are Earth-like. Mass? Distance from parent star? Atmosphere? Chemical make-up? Have these variables been taken into account in your 'refinement'?

these factors refine the Drake equation, which is not accurate, nor is it meaningless.

Do they bollocks. Read up.

In lieu of hard evidence, our evidence is based on informed speculation. If you wish to disqualify all such speculation as scientific, that's your choice, however most scientists consider it valid.

What the don't consider valid, however, is hypotheses based on no evidence whatsoever, and you still have no fucking understanding of how this works.

Get an education.

Landrew wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:This is becoming farcical, but still amusing. Landrew completely miscomprehends the topic matter, and doesn't seem able to process replies, then tells me I am having difficulty with my comprehension!

Let's make this clear for you Landrew.

Each of those items on your list are perfectly correct - well, aside from the Drake equation which is more like a thought experiment than of any real use with regards to this topic.

However, at no point does stacking up these perfectly valid notions actually amount towards substantiating (in your preferred bullet point style)

• The existence of intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe.
• The existence of high-tech societies elsewhere in the universe.
• That aforementioned high-tech societies ever visited our planet.

As the last point is the ONLY one with any relevance regarding this topic, all the pleasant notions in the world count for naught. What we'd need to see to establish that would be evidence, not a mish-mash of unconnected data points carefully crafted towards the desired outcome.

What we can conceive of, and what we can establish to be true, are entirely different kettles of fish.

This is the last of your straw man arguments I'll set a match to, but I've never claimed ET visitation or expressed my belief that it happened with certainty, but I have acquired an opinion of the likelihood based on the factors I've already mentioned. Any more than that would just be inane repetition.

Anyone other than Landrew like to explain precisely how this is a strawman argument?

Only, it appears that I have directly responded to his claims. In fact, in this response he goes on to reiterate exactly what I said.

Terminally unconnected points give him reason to believe that it's plausible that ancient aliens visited us.

The fact that extremophiles, by their very nature, are simple organisms that would not remotely suggest that intelligent life is replete in the universe is a by the by. Even if it were the other case, and it indicated that life was everywhere... it still doesn't add so much as a scrap of weight to the notion of visitation.

To me, it looks like throwing the label of a fallacy at the response is just a convenient means of evading processing it.

Spearthrower wrote:

Landrew wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:This is becoming farcical, but still amusing. Landrew completely miscomprehends the topic matter, and doesn't seem able to process replies, then tells me I am having difficulty with my comprehension!

Let's make this clear for you Landrew.

Each of those items on your list are perfectly correct - well, aside from the Drake equation which is more like a thought experiment than of any real use with regards to this topic.

However, at no point does stacking up these perfectly valid notions actually amount towards substantiating (in your preferred bullet point style)

• The existence of intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe.
• The existence of high-tech societies elsewhere in the universe.
• That aforementioned high-tech societies ever visited our planet.

As the last point is the ONLY one with any relevance regarding this topic, all the pleasant notions in the world count for naught. What we'd need to see to establish that would be evidence, not a mish-mash of unconnected data points carefully crafted towards the desired outcome.

What we can conceive of, and what we can establish to be true, are entirely different kettles of fish.

This is the last of your straw man arguments I'll set a match to, but I've never claimed ET visitation or expressed my belief that it happened with certainty, but I have acquired an opinion of the likelihood based on the factors I've already mentioned. Any more than that would just be inane repetition.

Anyone other than Landrew like to explain precisely how this is a strawman argument?

Strawman? No doubt Landrew thinks you're saying he's making a claim while in his mind he doesn't. All he thinks he's doing is keeping an open mind. He gave examples of reasons to keep his mind open about the ET-earth-holiday-hypothesis. He's putting up an effort never to claim knowledge or belief. He is Neo the True Skeptic, one of the lucky few with access to the right pil.

Plus of course, Spearthrower, what you've been doing is dismissing evidence out-of-hand, which is disingenuous, and substituting X's for zero's (unscientific) to cover up your unsceptical attitude to feel selfishly better about yourself.

Ps: Also, ridicule does not falsify.

Am I close, Landrew?

mindhack wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Landrew wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:This is becoming farcical, but still amusing. Landrew completely miscomprehends the topic matter, and doesn't seem able to process replies, then tells me I am having difficulty with my comprehension!

Let's make this clear for you Landrew.

Each of those items on your list are perfectly correct - well, aside from the Drake equation which is more like a thought experiment than of any real use with regards to this topic.

However, at no point does stacking up these perfectly valid notions actually amount towards substantiating (in your preferred bullet point style)

• The existence of intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe.
• The existence of high-tech societies elsewhere in the universe.
• That aforementioned high-tech societies ever visited our planet.

As the last point is the ONLY one with any relevance regarding this topic, all the pleasant notions in the world count for naught. What we'd need to see to establish that would be evidence, not a mish-mash of unconnected data points carefully crafted towards the desired outcome.

What we can conceive of, and what we can establish to be true, are entirely different kettles of fish.

This is the last of your straw man arguments I'll set a match to, but I've never claimed ET visitation or expressed my belief that it happened with certainty, but I have acquired an opinion of the likelihood based on the factors I've already mentioned. Any more than that would just be inane repetition.

Anyone other than Landrew like to explain precisely how this is a strawman argument?

Strawman? No doubt Landrew thinks you're saying he's making a claim while in his mind he doesn't. All he thinks he's doing is keeping an open mind. He gave examples of reasons to keep his mind open about the ET-earth-holiday-hypothesis. He's putting up an effort never to claim knowledge or belief. He is Neo the True Skeptic, one of the lucky few with access to the right pil.

Plus of course, Spearthrower, what you've been doing is dismissing evidence out-of-hand, which is disingenuous, and substituting X's for zero's (unscientific) to cover up your unsceptical attitude to feel selfishly better about yourself.

Ps: Also, ridicule does not falsify.

Am I close, Landrew?

Yes, great example of straw man building. I realize I've not done a great job of communicating, therefore I should have expected this.

Landrew wrote:

Wuffy wrote:

Landrew wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:


This appears to be what Landrew is saying - minus the crazy hair.

This is a category error. One guy with bad hair doesn't falsify the subject.

No but the guy with bad hair demonstrates a very unscientific position.

Also, Spearthrower was saying you seem to be holding the same position as this guy. Not that his crazy hair disproves the fact that Aliens have visited.

But that's the implication. I do not believe Aliens have visited, but I also know that you can't prove a negative in this case, therefore I also make no assertions that they never visited earth.

This appears to be everyone else's position here too. It's my position, for example. I haven't read anyone posting that it has been shown that aliens have never visited earth. The only assertion has been that there is no good reason to think that they have, at this point. You appear to agree with that, I think.

Landrew wrote:

By weighing the evidence, which includes reasonable and informed speculation, I consider it possible, especially in light of some fairly recent discoveries of earthlike planets, and the discovery of extremophiles. I consider this viewpoint the only reasonable one, in light of available evidence.

Of course it's possible. However, saying something is possible is not saying much.