Those that think we were, or probably were, visited by aliens, do you have any empirical or observational evidence for that (or any that you may be aware of through other people)?

So far, the only things I've seen advanced by the "we probably were visited" camp is arguments based on the size of the universe and number of stars and planets that appear to exist. Is that it? Is there anything more than the "if it's not full of life, it seems like huge waste of space" argument?

To me, the there are so many planets so there must be other intelligent life argument is a good hypothesis, but we simply have insufficient evidence for that at the present time. We don't know the likelihood of life developing. It's "unique" to Earth in our solar system, apparently. That is all we know. Maybe the chance of life is astronomically small. And, we know that extinction is the rule, not the exception on Earth, and we know that evolution doesn't have a direction, so unintelligent life, under current evolutionary theory, is not only as likely, but MORE likely than intelligent, technological life. Not only are we the only planet in the solar system with life, but on this one planet with life only ONE species has become technological (except for a few extinct species of humans who seem to have used stone and wood tools, and fire). Only one has become spacefaring, and it seems to me that there is a good chance we could be extinct before too long - the Yellowstone Caldera and 100 other risks could see to that.

And, then there are the vast time periods involved -- even if we have all of human existence -- maybe 200,000 or so years -- that is a blip in billions, and intelligent races, if they even did form on other planets would seem to have plenty of opportunity to evolve and die out long before (or after) we ever came into existence (or die out).

And, lastly, the whole "waste of space" idea presupposes that a universe is here for life, rather than life being incidental. This is human solipsism, and I would think that we would have discarded that with evolution theory, which plainly shows us that human evolution is incidental, not an end.

Dudely wrote:it would also be a mistake to assume they value us or our planet in some way.

maybe, maybe not.

Dudely wrote:It would seem to me that they would be much more likely to pass us over since we're just another hum-drum planet with violent, brutal, and primitive carbon-based life.

That's as speculative as any other claim. That says nothing.

sandinista wrote:
That's as speculative as any other claim. That says nothing.

Exactly.

I really do recommend that people read my exposition of the Drake equation, in which I not only unpack the equation in its entirety, I take the output and calculate the average distance between communicating civilisations, and what that means for our ability to detect them and, conversely, for them to detect us. Further, some of the numbers were on the generous side, to say the least. For example, there are regions of the galactic centre that are almost certainly uninhabitable, due to extremes of gravity and stellar radiation. And finally, I calculated for a flat disc 100,000 light years across. When you take into account the fact that our galaxy is NOT a flat disc, that average increases significantly.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physi ... l#p1251563

The chances of our having been visited in the lifetime of the human species, let alone during the tenure of our species as a technological civilisation, are so small as to be laughable.

Dudely wrote:

Landrew wrote:

Wuffy wrote:Landrew.. Your going to probability on this one? Seriously?

First off even the most GENEROUS assumptions made with the Drake equation give off a low potential for Intelligent life that can make interstellar travel, but worst of all... You forget to then factor the potential fact that they have MANY other worlds to potentially go visit instead of us.

No matter how you play with the Drake Equation. Each time you increase the potential factors to have planets with life and then intelligent life on those planets etc.. you increase the potential places those Aliens may want to actually go and visit instead of here... And that's assuming they aren't more interested in lifeless rock planets so they can carve them up for resources without destroying the potential for life.

I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that such an advanced race would need to be involved in the commodities market. I think it's fair to assume that once the energy barrier is conquered, energy and matter would be interchangeable; allowing any material to be synthesized, and matter to be converted to abundant energy. As for shackling them with the burden of conventional space travel, we are already beginning to visualize the physics of potential teleportation. I think the mistake is to define potential intelligent extraterrestrial life within our own terms.

. . . Agreed. But then it would also be a mistake to assume they value us or our planet in some way. It would seem to me that they would be much more likely to pass us over since we're just another hum-drum planet with violent, brutal, and primitive carbon-based life. Boring.

I think it would be a mistake to assume what their values might be; but in terms of tangible assets, I would speculate that our planet's genetic material would have the greatest value, as it is the product of billions of years of natural selection. I doubt any sort of advanced intelligence could have created anything equivalent by design.

hackenslash wrote:The chances of our having been visited in the lifetime of the human species, let alone during the tenure of our species as a technological civilisation, are so small as to be laughable.

Again, simply speculation, nothing more. Perhaps if you're thinking only in terms of what "we" "know" about space travel. It is as likely as not that we have no idea whatsoever about what other civilizations in the universe are able to do. The only thing that's really laughable is that we, as humans, think we "know" enough to be able to predict or say what other civilizations are able to do, that's truly laughable.

sandinista wrote:

hackenslash wrote:The chances of our having been visited in the lifetime of the human species, let alone during the tenure of our species as a technological civilisation, are so small as to be laughable.

Again, simply speculation, nothing more. Perhaps if you're thinking only in terms of what "we" "know" about space travel. It is as likely as not that we have no idea whatsoever about what other civilizations in the universe are able to do. The only thing that's really laughable is that we, as humans, think we "know" enough to be able to predict or say what other civilizations are able to do, that's truly laughable.

The fact is though, that imagining any such alien device for casually breezing around the cosmos is akin to imagining a device which allows one to time-travel. Pure fantasy. Moreover it is pure fantasy which would often involve transgressing or transcending certain fundamental laws of physics which we do know about, i.e. the paradox of faster-than-light travel.


What would be the best reason one could give to support the supposition that aliens might have cosmic-travel technology?

As I say, for me it is more or less the same as asking me to believe a technically-advanced civilization somewhere/anywhere in the universe has access to time travel. To me, both appear to be the obvious product of human whimsy and I can think of no reason whatsoever to suppose either to be true or even possible.

sandinista wrote:

hackenslash wrote:The chances of our having been visited in the lifetime of the human species, let alone during the tenure of our species as a technological civilisation, are so small as to be laughable.

Again, simply speculation, nothing more. Perhaps if you're thinking only in terms of what "we" "know" about space travel. It is as likely as not that we have no idea whatsoever about what other civilizations in the universe are able to do. The only thing that's really laughable is that we, as humans, think we "know" enough to be able to predict or say what other civilizations are able to do, that's truly laughable.

That basically removes talking about them altogether seeing as we know nothing. Incidentally, everyone always seems to forget the possibility that we are the most highly advanced, technologically speaking, that exists or has ever existed. No one knows anything, so it's all speculation.

sandinista wrote:

hackenslash wrote:The chances of our having been visited in the lifetime of the human species, let alone during the tenure of our species as a technological civilisation, are so small as to be laughable.

Again, simply speculation, nothing more. Perhaps if you're thinking only in terms of what "we" "know" about space travel. It is as likely as not that we have no idea whatsoever about what other civilizations in the universe are able to do. The only thing that's really laughable is that we, as humans, think we "know" enough to be able to predict or say what other civilizations are able to do, that's truly laughable.

Perhaps you missed the bit where I detailed reasons for my statement? Of course you did, because you haven't read the fucking post in question, have you? Of course it's speculative, but at least it's speculation with a bit of nouse, as opposed to simply extracting an idea from your arse just because you want it to be true.

hoopy frood wrote:The fact is though, that imagining any such alien device for casually breezing around the cosmos is akin to imagining a device which allows one to time-travel. Pure fantasy.

Possibly, but possibly not. Travel to the moon was pure fantasy 500 years ago. That's but one example.

hoopy frood wrote:As I say, for me it is more or less the same as asking me to believe a technically-advanced civilization somewhere/anywhere in the universe has access to time travel. To me, both appear to be the obvious product of human whimsy and I can think of no reason whatsoever to suppose either to be true or even possible.

Satellites, nuclear weapons, space travel etc were all considered "pure whimsy" as well. That doesn't mean anything, that's simply short sighted thinking.

Spearthrower wrote:That basically removes talking about them altogether seeing as we know nothing.

To a certain extent that is true.

Spearthrower wrote:Incidentally, everyone always seems to forget the possibility that we are the most highly advanced, technologically speaking, that exists or has ever existed.

That is a possibility. Who knows?

Spearthrower wrote: No one knows anything, so it's all speculation.

Exactly.

sandinista wrote:

hackenslash wrote:The chances of our having been visited in the lifetime of the human species, let alone during the tenure of our species as a technological civilisation, are so small as to be laughable.

Again, simply speculation, nothing more. Perhaps if you're thinking only in terms of what "we" "know" about space travel. It is as likely as not that we have no idea whatsoever about what other civilizations in the universe are able to do. The only thing that's really laughable is that we, as humans, think we "know" enough to be able to predict or say what other civilizations are able to do, that's truly laughable.

Correct.

And, that is exactly why it's not proper to conclude that we have been, or likely have been, visited by technological aliens. It's just speculation.

Fun speculation. It certainly seems possible that life would develop on other worlds, since it developed here, and if evolution occurs on those other worlds, then it certainly would seem possible for intelligent civilizations to arise.

However, it is also pure speculation to conclude that the development of life is what the universe is here for. If, as most atheists surmise, the universe is not here "for" anything, then life is incidental, and intelligent life even more so. It arguably looks that way on Earth too, since while we have life here, we're the only world we know of with life, and of the life here, almost none of it is "intelligent" and only one species is space faring, barely.

Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

It's not a point in favor of a theory for it not to be falsifiable. In fact, not being falsifiable means that a thing or a theory is less credible or believable. If someone tells me they believe something because it isn't falsifiable, it tells me that they'll believe just about anything.

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

D'oh!

AGAIN Landrew??



If something is not falsifiable, that doesn't count as a positive. It means it's outside the remit of testing, ergo any assertions made are ex recto.

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

If it can't be proven wrong then it's not science. . .

horacerumpole wrote:

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

It's not a point in favor of a theory for it not to be falsifiable. In fact, not being falsifiable means that a thing or a theory is less credible or believable. If someone tells me they believe something because it isn't falsifiable, it tells me that they'll believe just about anything.

It depends on whether the laughter is de facto dismissal or merely awkward incredulity. Lack of falsifiablility confers neither credibility nor non-credibility; it is simply raw material for science to process, if ever possible.

Landrew, your signature states; "it's the duty of a scientist to investigate the unexplained".

I wonder why you continue to think this is what scientists do. After all the help and advice you've gotten from people, you still have this in your signature. Why?

I think It should've been clear by now that this is not what scientists do. It's not the x-files.

Let's try again:

What scientists do is to look at the evidence and try to construct models with more explanatory or predictive power then previous models. Falsifiability is at the core of this proces, precisely because the proces of building explanations starts and finishes with observations.

I truly hope you can spot the crucial difference this time between:

1) scientists busy to investigate the unexplained.

and

2) scientists busy to build models from evidence to explain the evidence.

Landrew wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

It's not a point in favor of a theory for it not to be falsifiable. In fact, not being falsifiable means that a thing or a theory is less credible or believable. If someone tells me they believe something because it isn't falsifiable, it tells me that they'll believe just about anything.

It depends on whether the laughter is de facto dismissal or merely awkward incredulity. Lack of falsifiablility confers neither credibility nor non-credibility; it is simply raw material for science to process, if ever possible.

Wrong. Lack of falsifiability means that science has nothing to say about it. An unfalsifiable statement is an untestable one. Science can never process the unfalsifiable.

Really, you should be grasping this by now.

Landrew wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

It's not a point in favor of a theory for it not to be falsifiable. In fact, not being falsifiable means that a thing or a theory is less credible or believable. If someone tells me they believe something because it isn't falsifiable, it tells me that they'll believe just about anything.

It depends on whether the laughter is de facto dismissal or merely awkward incredulity. Lack of falsifiablility confers neither credibility nor non-credibility; it is simply raw material for science to process, if ever possible.

Lack of falsifiability = not science


Your eccentric notions of scientific method just keep popping out.

You can learn, if you just pop your hubris back in the drawer and start listening to what people are saying, rather than dismissing them for contradicting you.

This is traditionally your cue to dismiss what I am saying because I am contradicting you. Let's see if you stick to form.

Landrew wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

It's not a point in favor of a theory for it not to be falsifiable. In fact, not being falsifiable means that a thing or a theory is less credible or believable. If someone tells me they believe something because it isn't falsifiable, it tells me that they'll believe just about anything.

It depends on whether the laughter is de facto dismissal or merely awkward incredulity. Lack of falsifiablility confers neither credibility nor non-credibility; it is simply raw material for science to process, if ever possible.

Look - I'm not dismissing anything, and I have certainly said, many times, that it's possible.

It is possible.

So, what next?

Evidence.

Are you making an assertion other than "it's possible?" If so, what assertion and what evidence do you rely on?

I've asked that several times. So, what is it?