# Flawed arguments against the existence of aliens



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

And, their visitation of our planet.

I don't believe in the existence of aliens, as far as holding the conviction that they do exist, but I do think it's plausible, if not probable. I've done a fair amount of documentary-watching, research, and Coast to Coast AM-listening on the subject, as I've been interested the subject ever since I was a kid. All too often, I hear arguments against the plausibility of the UFO phenomenon (which I've witnessed first-hand) or alien existence which just make me shake my head. Here are some of those, and my thoughts on them:

1. "If aliens existed and have been visiting us, surely they would have introduced themselves by now."

My take: Not necessarily. Or, maybe they have, and it's being kept secret. Most people would make this counter-argument, but I still hear the above from time to time.

2. "If intelligent life existed somewhere in the universe, we would have picked up signs/communications from them via SETI." (Argument often made by astronomers.)

This is making the assumption that we've achieved the pinnacle of long-distance communication/signal transmission. It speaks to the hubris of the scientist to say "Because we haven't discovered anything beyond what we have, it isn't possible." Maybe there are forms of signal transmission well beyond utilizing electro-magnetic radiation? Until proven otherwise, I would just assume that be the case.

3. "If aliens are visiting (or even ruling) us, and want to remain unknown, wouldn't they do a better job of it by not letting us film them in the sky all the time?"

I'd argue that maybe they just don't care about being seen. They may be so far advanced that our knowledge of them poses absolutely no concern to them. It makes me think of the shepherd with a flock of sheep: he walks among them in the open partly because they can't fully comprehend his presence and influence upon them.

4. "Due to the vast distances involved in space travel they could never reach us."

See #2. This is equal to saying we understand all of reality, and are therefore in a position to say what is possible and what is not (faster-than-light travel).


I'm sure I could think of others, but I'll stop there for now.

Any thoughts or argument?


----------



## Telliblah (Sep 19, 2015)

i-i think you should mind your own business!


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

Telliblah said:


> i-i think you should mind your own business!


I'm on to you.


----------



## Telliblah (Sep 19, 2015)

joolz said:


> I'm on to you.


----------



## saya2077 (Oct 6, 2013)

I think something I see thats funny (just about the existence) is a lot assume they must all automatically be more advanced than us. Whose to say we won't discover an alien planet and it's full of creatures on par with fish? Maybe in the future _*we'll*_ be the advanced invading aliens.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

Our galaxy alone has a radius of 10000 light years, there are at least hundreds of millions of stars in the habitable zone of the galaxy, millions of planets that could be inhabited.
Just because we didn't see anything yet, doesn't mean we are alone in the universe.
Seriously, what do you call a universe where the only space travelling species are the **** sapiens?
A trash bin.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

saya2077 said:


> I think something I see thats funny (just about the existence) is a lot assume they must all automatically be more advanced than us. Whose to say we won't discover an alien planet and it's full of creatures on par with fish? *Maybe in the future we'll be the advanced invading aliens.*


Sure, and I'll be getting into orbit with the thrust and delta-v budget of a fire extinquisher.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

saya2077 said:


> I think something I see thats funny (just about the existence) is a lot assume they must all automatically be more advanced than us. Whose to say we won't discover an alien planet and it's full of creatures on par with fish? Maybe in the future _*we'll*_ be the advanced invading aliens.


That's true. It's likely there's life out there existing at every degree of the evolutionary scale.


----------



## saya2077 (Oct 6, 2013)

Orbiter said:


> Sure, and I'll be getting into orbit with the thrust and delta-v budget of a fire extinquisher.


Thats why I said future.


----------



## Surly Wurly (May 9, 2015)

the musings on the nature of extra terrestrial life that ive heard from certain renowned astrophysicists, biologists, and even nasa boffins, has been so pitifully naive that it almost made me think im actually intelligent 


i wonder what stupid things aliens think about us


----------



## Bunnicula (Sep 10, 2015)

If they were really intelligent life forms, they wouldn't want to come here.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

saya2077 said:


> Thats why I said future.


I personally just doubt it, that's all.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

joolz said:


> 2. "If intelligent life existed somewhere in the universe, we would have picked up signs/communications from them via SETI." (Argument often made by astronomers.)
> 
> This is making the assumption that we've achieved the pinnacle of long-distance communication/signal transmission. It speaks to the hubris of the scientist to say "Because we haven't discovered anything beyond what we have, it isn't possible." Maybe there are forms of signal transmission well beyond utilizing electro-magnetic radiation? Until proven otherwise, I would just assume that be the case.


I've never heard any scientist make that claim, as the vast majority of them who comment on it are well aware of the issues. That's something lay people are more likely to say who often don't understand or are aware of the issues.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

ugh1979 said:


> I've never heard any scientist make that claim, as the vast majority of them who comment on it are well aware of the issues. That's something lay people are more likely to say who often don't understand or are aware of the issues.


Do you listen to Coast to Coast AM or anything similar? I've heard that argument used a couple of times. And I would expect the reverse: lay people are more open to the possibility of alien life, using a common-sense approach, whereas scientists, using the scientific approach, will discard or refute anything so-far unproven.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Here's one for you that I don't think is all that flawed.

Intelligent life is actually kind of a freak of nature. We're inherently destructive creatures. I can't really even imagine a non-destructive intelligent life form that could harness the kind of knowledge and power it would take to even travel to it's closest stellar neighbors. And if they're not non-destructive, wouldn't they have destroyed themselves before they ever got close? It seems that conquest and aggression is what really drives us. We're looking for the worst life forms possible and expecting them to be benevolent. Just look at what humanity does and imagine this species with technology and knowledge advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel. It would be a nightmare.


----------



## lonerroom (May 16, 2015)

joolz said:


> And, their visitation of our planet.
> 
> I don't believe in the existence of aliens, as far as holding the conviction that they do exist, but I do think it's plausible, if not probable. I've done a fair amount of documentary-watching, research, and Coast to Coast AM-listening on the subject, as I've been interested the subject ever since I was a kid. All too often, I hear arguments against the plausibility of the UFO phenomenon (which I've witnessed first-hand) or alien existence which just make me shake my head. Here are some of those, and my thoughts on them:
> 
> ...


Selfish of humans to think they are the only ones in this whole wide universe, there is life somewhere out there, they maybe don't have technology like here or they do have technology but don't want to make themselves known. Humans are so greedy and think they are the so important that they take over everything, I shudder to think that in 200 years when species travel from planet to planet, that humans will try to take over entire planets.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Here's one for you that I don't think is all that flawed.
> 
> Intelligent life is actually kind of a freak of nature. We're inherently destructive creatures. I can't really even imagine a non-destructive intelligent life form that could harness the kind of knowledge and power it would take to even travel to it's closest stellar neighbors. And if they're not non-destructive, wouldn't they have destroyed themselves before they ever got close? It seems that conquest and aggression is what really drives us. We're looking for the worst life forms possible and expecting them to be benevolent. Just look at what humanity does and imagine this species with technology and knowledge advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel. It would be a nightmare.


If by freak of nature you mean anomalous, or unlikely to occur, who's to say? Until we've explored the universe we don't really have the perspective to comment on how rare or unique life is.

As for being destructive, that is the popular opinion. People like to think that's how we're going to end, in self-destruction, but it's worth noting that we haven't so far.

There could be a) non-destructive intelligent life out there, that's unlike anything that fits our model of life (the requirement to consume life in order to live), or b) intelligent life that's destructive but not self-destructive.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

lonerroom said:


> I shudder to think that in 200 years when species travel from planet to planet, that humans will try to take over entire planets.


Too true. Given human history, we can't expect anything else.


----------



## UnusualSuspect (Feb 24, 2014)

They clearly exist and have been here. I honestly don't know why it's so hard for some people to accept. We're not trying to convince those people to believe in santa claus, ffs.


----------



## a degree of freedom (Sep 28, 2011)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Here's one for you that I don't think is all that flawed.
> 
> Intelligent life is actually kind of a freak of nature. We're inherently destructive creatures. I can't really even imagine a non-destructive intelligent life form that could harness the kind of knowledge and power it would take to even travel to it's closest stellar neighbors. And if they're not non-destructive, wouldn't they have destroyed themselves before they ever got close? It seems that conquest and aggression is what really drives us. We're looking for the worst life forms possible and expecting them to be benevolent. Just look at what humanity does and imagine this species with technology and knowledge advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel. It would be a nightmare.


Many people don't look in the mirror that is our expectations of others and perceive something so terrible. When people speak about human nature they say so much more about themselves.


----------



## a degree of freedom (Sep 28, 2011)

There's no real information to process with regard to whether they exist and exist here, so I say not only that I do not know, but that there is nothing to think about either. If it is something that can always disappear behind supposed technology or knowledge we can't fathom like magic, then very well, I make no attempt to fathom since the effort cannot produce new results. Nor is it interesting: attributing the possibility of a mysterious agency to understand phenomenon is decidedly antiscientific. After all, our curiosity and learning is driven by the belief that our inquiry can be answered in a way that betrays an order or structure to the world, something obeying law, repeatable, systematizable, something I can genuinely understand and serve as the basis for predictions. Belief in alien agency as a driver behind phenomenon in our world amounts to a susceptibility to pseudoscience and magical thinking, and gross cognitive over-reach. It's a cumbersome system with artificial complexity made to conceal its complete lack of foundation. Occam's razor would cull the whole mass of it if only the logical impossibility of truly explaining anything with such an implement were ever really perceived wholly. It invents an interlinked system to feign understanding and fill a void where there is simply nothing that can be said except that one _does not know the answer_. Is a question left unanswered truly so upsetting? Or one's human existence without a cosmic intelligence greater than oneself and the whole of humanity and its machines so isolating and lonely to warrant the self-deceit of creating imaginary agents and then forgetting the ruse? Stop thinking with your emotions!

So I can critique the thought process without making any assertion about whether any aliens exist.

Despite all that, I would be surprised if there were not intelligent beings beyond Earth who aren't even all that far away, or at least, that beings like us have arisen and perhaps followed a course much like the one we are likely to take, and ones which will come after us and follow in a similar way. There are reasons for thinking so. (I'm just a little too tired to keep ranting about it right now.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

joolz said:


> Do you listen to Coast to Coast AM or anything similar?


No, I don't live in the US.



> And I would expect the reverse: lay people are more open to the possibility of alien life, using a common-sense approach, whereas scientists, using the scientific approach, will discard or refute anything so-far unproven.


To the contrary, science doesn't deal in proofs, as they rarely exist. It deals with approximations of reality, so it's the probable/highly probable that is accepted by science to different degrees. The vast majority of scientists agree that life existing elsewhere in the universe is highly probable, due to huge numbers of chances there are for environments that support life to exist. It takes religious like hubris to think life is unique to earth.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

AwkwardUglyWeirdo said:


> They clearly exist and have been here. I honestly don't know why it's so hard for some people to accept. We're not trying to convince those people to believe in santa claus, ffs.


How can it be clear when there is no credible evidence for them having been here? It's one of those things that believe who want to believe it believe it, and those that have a different standard for evidence don't.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

joolz said:


> If by freak of nature you mean anomalous, or unlikely to occur, who's to say? Until we've explored the universe we don't really have the perspective to comment on how rare or unique life is.


 I didn't say it was unlikely to occur. It's unlikely to survive long enough to travel to distant stars and/or galaxies. I'm sure life is probably out there and probably many intelligent life forms have come and gone on other planets.



> As for being destructive, that is the popular opinion. People like to think that's how we're going to end, in self-destruction, but it's worth noting that we haven't so far.


 We haven't developed a technology powerful enough to destroy ourselves in one pop yet. What happens when somebody does? It's a matter of time. And we have all the time in the world.



> There could be a) non-destructive intelligent life out there, that's unlike anything that fits our model of life (the requirement to consume life in order to live), or b) intelligent life that's destructive but not self-destructive.


 Well, maybe. But when I look at what humans do here on this planet, I think this must just be what intelligent life does on the rare occasions that it does arise. I said that I believe we're a freak of nature because everything we do is an attempt to defeat natural boundaries in some way. The very desire to travel to another star is unnatural. Nothing else on earth (that we know of) has such an ambition.We look up at the sky and the first thing that pops into our head is finding a way (no matter what it takes) to get there. We will not have anything less than pushing every boundary that exists until we finally break something that can't be fixed. Nature has been trying to stop us every step of the way and we just refuse to take "You're not supposed to do that" for an answer. Now to me that suggests that our type of intelligence is (relatively) unnatural. And also that when it does arise, it will generally eventually do something to destroy itself.

Take an ape, for example. In nature, an ape will live out it's entire existence more or less in harmony with nature. They can do a few tricks but nothing more. If apes could stay at their current level of evolution, they would probably survive indefinitely (if humans didn't exist). Why? Because they're intelligent to a degree but not extraordinarily. Apes are not going to wage global wars on each other. Apes are not even going to try to travel by air. They're not going to launch themselves into orbit. And it would not occur to an ape that the amount of energy needed to travel at light speed would be infinite. Humans? Well, we know that. And what do we do when we know something? We just can't resist.


----------



## lonerroom (May 16, 2015)

joolz said:


> Cupckaes and pancakes in my ceiling? Why oh why would they do that to my ceiling when I am so hungry??


I often feel like I am from another planet, I don't have the cruel intentions most humans have, I feel like I might be from a galaxy far far away. Far far away from here. Oh how I wish I could fly away from here, far far away from here.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

ugh1979 said:


> No, I don't live in the US.
> 
> To the contrary, science doesn't deal in proofs, as they rarely exist. It deals with approximations of reality, so it's the probable/highly probable that is accepted by science to different degrees. The vast majority of scientists agree that life existing elsewhere in the universe is highly probable, due to huge numbers of chances there are for environments that support life to exist. It takes religious like hubris to think life is unique to earth.


Totally wrong. No self-respecting scientist accepts anything that hasn't been proven to the satisfaction of the scientific method, and alien life has not been. Many scientists will agree that it is probable to exist, but it isn't "accepted by science"/hasn't been proven, so there is room for other scientists to argue that it is improbable.

Coast to Coast AM broadcasts all over the world by the way.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Well, maybe. But when I look at what humans do here on this planet, I think this must just be what intelligent life does on the rare occasions that it does arise. I said that I believe we're a freak of nature because everything we do is an attempt to defeat natural boundaries in some way. The very desire to travel to another star is unnatural. Nothing else on earth (that we know of) has such an ambition.We look up at the sky and the first thing that pops into our head is finding a way (no matter what it takes) to get there. We will not have anything less than pushing every boundary that exists until we finally break something that can't be fixed. Nature has been trying to stop us every step of the way and we just refuse to take "You're not supposed to do that" for an answer. Now to me that suggests that our type of intelligence is (relatively) unnatural. And also that when it does arise, it will generally eventually do something to destroy itself.
> 
> Take an ape, for example. In nature, an ape will live out it's entire existence more or less in harmony with nature. They can do a few tricks but nothing more. If apes could stay at their current level of evolution, they would probably survive indefinitely (if humans didn't exist). Why? Because they're intelligent to a degree but not extraordinarily. Apes are not going to wage global wars on each other. Apes are not even going to try to travel by air. They're not going to launch themselves into orbit. And it would not occur to an ape that the amount of energy needed to travel at light speed would be infinite. Humans? Well, we know that. And what do we do when we know something? We just can't resist.


I used to think that way (that our scientific endeavors are unnatural, as is much of our civilization). Now I'm unwilling to say one way or the other. Maybe it is natural for us to do that. Maybe it's even a part of our distant heritage (take that with a grain of salt). Nothing else on Earth has such an ambition, but nothing else on Earth has our intelligence/ability, or, knowledge.

You make a good point that we are the only creatures on this planet that don't live in harmony with the planet. Maybe that's part of the plan/design/natural order as well. That a planet produces a part of itself to reach out into space - to reach other planets. We could be like the pollen of flowers.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

lonerroom said:


> I often feel like I am from another planet, I don't have the cruel intentions most humans have, I feel like I might be from a galaxy far far away. Far far away from here. Oh how I wish I could fly away from here, far far away from here.


Why did you completely make up a quote from me?


----------



## lonerroom (May 16, 2015)

joolz said:


> Why did you completely make up a quote from me?


To entertain you.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

lonerroom said:


> To entertain you.


It only succeeded in confounding me.


----------



## lonerroom (May 16, 2015)

joolz said:


> It only succeeded in confounding me.


Well sorry to have confounded you, I guess you hate waffles.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

lonerroom said:


> Well sorry to have confounded you, I guess you hate waffles.


I never eat waffles.


----------



## lonerroom (May 16, 2015)

joolz said:


> I never eat waffles.


I don't really eat them either. But I do like the way the word sounds. It reminds me of some sort of creature


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

joolz said:


> I used to think that way (that our scientific endeavors are unnatural, as is much of our civilization).


 What a coincidence. I used to think like you do. Well, to a degree. I was never that serious about science. Although there was a time when I seriously considered taking up amateur astronomy. Too expensive. It seems that scientists and astronomers like to play with lots of really expensive toys. I suppose it's pretty helpful for them when people are excited about space exploration.

I skimmed quite a few science oriented books. I have to admit I never did have the patience for sitting down and reading books cover to cover.



> Nothing else on Earth has such an ambition, but nothing else on Earth has our intelligence/ability, or, knowledge.


 Which is why I tend to think of us more as some kind of freak accident than the way things usually go. I mean, who's to say that life forms like humans couldn't eventually destroy the universe as we know it? We don't know everything but we try really hard. Assuming everything has an answer is a very scientific way of thinking. So wanting to know how the universe works is the path to finding out how everything works. And of course if we've proved anything it's that if we know how something works, we can probably figure out how to break it. Or we might just be reckless enough to fumble around with things we don't understand in our insatiable quest for knowledge.



> You make a good point that we are the only creatures on this planet that don't live in harmony with the planet. Maybe that's part of the
> plan/design/natural order as well.


 Oh I'm not really one to believe in a grand design. I'm more of the persuasion that it's kind of a natural order that came about gradually, simply because things that don't work can only last so long against things that do. How do we know we're not one of those things that just doesn't work?



> That a planet produces a part of itself to reach out into space - to reach other planets. We could be like the pollen of flowers.


 Flowers don't send pollen into space. Not on purpose, anyway.

Anyway, we undeniably are a product of nature but so is cancer. We're too self-absorbed to think of ourselves as an invasive organism or something that probably shouldn't spread. Nature did give us a survival instinct. I call it social anxiety. :lol


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

joolz said:


> Totally wrong. No self-respecting scientist accepts anything that hasn't been proven to the satisfaction of the scientific method, and alien life has not been. Many scientists will agree that it is probable to exist, but it isn't "accepted by science"/hasn't been proven, so there is room for other scientists to argue that it is improbable.


I think you're confusing what people believe to be true and what people state to be true. Most scientists believe aliens exist but none will state they have proof that they do. That's not the same as refusing to accept they exist. Accept as in believe, rather than accept as in know. Just because they are a scientists it doesn't mean they aren't allowed to believe things that aren't proven. Also, the basis of science is starting with a hypothesis which hasn't yet been shown to be true.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Flowers don't send pollen into space. Not on purpose, anyway.


Of course I wasn't saying they do. But they send it, or it gets sent by the wind, to other flowers. Humans may be to planets as pollen is to flowers. Just a thought.



ugh1979 said:


> I think you're confusing what people believe to be true and what people state to be true. Most scientists believe aliens exist but none will state they have proof that they do. That's not the same as refusing to accept they exist. Accept as in believe, rather than accept as in know. Just because they are a scientists it doesn't mean they aren't allowed to believe things that aren't proven. Also, the basis of science is starting with a hypothesis which hasn't yet been shown to be true.


Nah, I have heard scientists who present themselves as totally adherent to the requirement of proof for their beliefs. I don't know where you're getting this statistic that most scientists believe aliens exist. Do you have a source for that?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

joolz said:


> Nah, I have heard scientists who present themselves as totally adherent to the requirement of proof for their beliefs. I don't know where you're getting this statistic that most scientists believe aliens exist. Do you have a source for that?


It's rare for someone not to have an opinion of a subject they know about. We naturally make judgement calls on everything based on what case there is for the subject being true or false. That doesn't mean they have to say they _know _that it's true or false, as that requires substantial evidence, but they can say they believe things are true or false for the reasons I just mentioned.

Anybody who thinks about the subject either believes aliens probably exist, believes they probably don't, claims to know that they exist, or that they know they don't exist. The latter two positions are untenable IMO, and you won't hear scientists claim they have proof either way. However, based on probability, most scientists if quizzed will say they believe it's likely they exist rather that likely they don't, as it would be far more unusual for them not to if you have the knowledge of the sheen number of chances there are in the universe to support life.

I could give you a few token citations of scientists talking about how they believe they exist, but that would mean nothing as I'm saying most scientists in my experience believe it's probably true. That's a consensus I've observed over the last 15 or so years reading the scientific press. I'm never ever heard a scientist state they believe humans are unique in the universe.

If you have heard certain scientists say they refuse to believe either way until they have absolute proof so be it, but it's very difficult to not make a judgement and favour plausibility or implausibility when thinking about such a subject.


----------



## ilsr (Aug 29, 2010)

I used to believe there were aliens. Now I've come to think they are extradimensional beings probably demonic or angelic. Too many properties of the sightings defy laws of physics.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

ilsr said:


> I used to believe there were aliens. Now I've come to think they are extradimensional beings probably demonic or angelic. Too many properties of the sightings defy laws of physics.


Delusions don't need to obey the laws of physics.

Also, the idea there are 'demonic or angelic' extra-dimensional beings sounds like something from a bad science fiction book. For a start, do you actually believe in objective good and evil?


----------



## Xenos (Jun 24, 2012)

Most likely scenario, it seems to me, is that they exist, or have existed, but have never been here and never will. The scale of space combined with the laws of physics just makes interstellar travel impractical, probably regardless of technology.

We might someday intercept a wayward radio signal but I think that is probably the most the human race can expect in terms of contact with aliens.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

joolz said:


> Of course I wasn't saying they do. But they send it, or it gets sent by the wind, to other flowers. Humans may be to planets as pollen is to flowers. Just a thought.


 But the flowers don't make it happen. The pollen doesn't make it happen. Even the wind doesn't make it happen. It just happens because all of these things just happen to line up and work together naturally. It's incidental. It works because it takes advantage of things that never fail to happen. It doesn't have to be artificially forced by intelligence.

Humans don't accomplish anything incidentally (Or I guess I should say there is rarely anything we like to crow about that happens by accident). We're always deliberately fighting the wind to try to accomplish something that isn't supposed to happen.


----------



## ilsr (Aug 29, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> I think you're confusing what people believe to be true and what people state to be true. Most scientists believe aliens exist but none will state they have proof that they do. That's not the same as refusing to accept they exist. Accept as in believe, rather than accept as in know. Just because they are a scientists it doesn't mean they aren't allowed to believe things that aren't proven. Also, the basis of science is starting with a hypothesis which hasn't yet been shown to be true.





ugh1979 said:


> It's rare for someone not to have an opinion of a subject they know about. We naturally make judgement calls on everything based on what case there is for the subject being true or false. That doesn't mean they have to say they _know _that it's true or false, as that requires substantial evidence, but they can say they believe things are true or false for the reasons I just mentioned.





ugh1979 said:


> Delusions don't need to obey the laws of physics.
> 
> Also, the idea there are 'demonic or angelic' extra-dimensional beings sounds like something from a bad science fiction book. For a start, do you actually believe in objective good and evil?


So I'm the only one 'deluded'. I don't think so.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

ugh1979 said:


> I'm never ever heard a scientist state they believe humans are unique in the universe.


As far as I'm aware that used to be the standard view. Hence the past reactionary assertion by UFO "believers", media, and certain scientists, that "the universe is so big how can life not exist?"

I don't know how you've never heard a scientist assert they believe life on Earth is unique. This is from the Wikipedia entry on the Fermi paradox:

"Those who think that extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist argue that the conditions needed for the evolution of life - or at least the evolution of biological complexity - are rare or even unique to Earth. Under this assumption, called the rare Earth hypothesis, a rejection of the mediocrity principle, complex multicellular life is regarded as exceedingly unusual. Similarly, it is possible that even if complex life is common, intelligence and technological civilizations are not. To skeptics, the fact that in the history of life on the Earth only one species has developed a civilization to the point of being capable of spaceflight and radio technology, lends more credence to the idea that technologically advanced civilizations are rare in the universe."


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

ilsr said:


> So I'm the only one 'deluded'. I don't think so.


Who said you were the only one that is deluded? The world is full of delusional people.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

Xenos said:


> Most likely scenario, it seems to me, is that they exist, or have existed, but have never been here and never will. The scale of space combined with the laws of physics just makes interstellar travel impractical, probably regardless of technology.
> 
> We might someday intercept a wayward radio signal but I think that is probably the most the human race can expect in terms of contact with aliens.


These are what I regard as flawed arguments, because I don't think we're in a position to say what is practical or impractical. We don't understand all of existence, therefore we can't make any judgement about the probability of technology and reality that is beyond our comprehension. For all we know, there's a level of reality that's moving faster than the speed of light, and it occupies 100 times the existence that our own sub-light speed reality does.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

joolz said:


> As far as I'm aware that used to be the standard view. Hence the past reactionary assertion by UFO "believers", media, and certain scientists, that "the universe is so big how can life not exist?"
> 
> I don't know how you've never heard a scientist assert they believe life on Earth is unique. This is from the Wikipedia entry on the Fermi paradox:
> 
> "Those who think that extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist argue that the conditions needed for the evolution of life - or at least the evolution of biological complexity - are rare or even unique to Earth. Under this assumption, called the rare Earth hypothesis, a rejection of the mediocrity principle, complex multicellular life is regarded as exceedingly unusual. Similarly, it is possible that even if complex life is common, intelligence and technological civilizations are not. To skeptics, the fact that in the history of life on the Earth only one species has developed a civilization to the point of being capable of spaceflight and radio technology, lends more credence to the idea that technologically advanced civilizations are rare in the universe."


Your citation doesn't mention scientists, never mind that being the usual position of scientists.

There's nothing wrong with believing technologically advanced civilizations are rare in the universe though, at least compared to the number of stars. When we are dealing with the numbers involved in cosmology even a billion technologically advanced civilizations in the universe would still mean they are very very rare.

I think some people forget or don't realise the vast numbers involved.


----------



## joolz (Aug 28, 2015)

ugh1979 said:


> Your citation doesn't mention scientists, never mind that being the usual position of scientists.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with believing technologically advanced civilizations are rare in the universe though, at least compared to the number of stars. When we are dealing with the numbers involved in cosmology even a billion technologically advanced civilizations in the universe would still mean they are very very rare.
> 
> I think some people forget or don't realise the vast numbers involved.


I think it's reasonable to assume the explanation has been proposed by scientists, if it has any place at all in the article, at least given the language. Specifically the "rare Earth hypothesis". But to be sure I checked the citation for that, and it lists a "Peter Ward" (paleontologist), with "Donald Brownlee", who, of all things is "a professor of astronomy at the University of Washington (Seattle) and the principal investigator for NASA's Stardust mission."

Also cited is an article from the New York Times ("The Intelligent-Life Lottery"), which describes a debate between Carl Sagan and Ernst Mayr within a Bioastronomy News publication:

"Carl Sagan, as eloquent as ever, gave his standard answer. With billions of stars in our galaxy, there must be other civilizations capable of transmitting electromagnetic waves."

"the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, thought the chances were close to zero. Against Sagan's stellar billions, he posed his own astronomical numbers: Of the billions of species that have lived and died since life began, only one - **** sapiens - had developed a science, a technology, and the curiosity to explore the stars. And that took about 3.5 billion years of evolution. High intelligence, Mayr concluded, must be extremely rare, here or anywhere. Earth's most abundant life form is unicellular slime."

I'm not saying that's the usual position of scientists today, as I know it's not. It was, as far as I can remember, maybe 20 years ago.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Here's one for you that I don't think is all that flawed.
> 
> Intelligent life is actually kind of a freak of nature. We're inherently destructive creatures. I can't really even imagine a non-destructive intelligent life form that could harness the kind of knowledge and power it would take to even travel to it's closest stellar neighbors. And if they're not non-destructive, wouldn't they have destroyed themselves before they ever got close? It seems that conquest and aggression is what really drives us. We're looking for the worst life forms possible and expecting them to be benevolent. Just look at what humanity does and imagine this species with technology and knowledge advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel. It would be a nightmare.


What is so intelligent about **** sapiens anyway?
Intelligence has nothing to do with building fancy high tech **** and being able to count up to a million.
If we are logical here, the **** sapiens are actually the most dumb species on this planet.
What other animal destroys his own enviroment just for something it doesn't need to survive?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

joolz said:


> I think it's reasonable to assume the explanation has been proposed by scientists, if it has any place at all in the article, at least given the language. Specifically the "rare Earth hypothesis". But to be sure I checked the citation for that, and it lists a "Peter Ward" (paleontologist), with "Donald Brownlee", who, of all things is "a professor of astronomy at the University of Washington (Seattle) and the principal investigator for NASA's Stardust mission."
> 
> Also cited is an article from the New York Times ("The Intelligent-Life Lottery"), which describes a debate between Carl Sagan and Ernst Mayr within a Bioastronomy News publication:
> 
> ...


In the past there were probably more scientists that were less open to it (just as there were less lay people open to it), but as you admit, it's not the case these days, especially as the term rare is pretty meaningless in the context of cosmology. As I say, a billion intelligent civilisations in the universe would still be considered very rare given that there's an estimated 1 billion trillion stars in the universe. I know i'd call 1 in a trillion rare!

We've also come a long way in the last 20 years in related areas which make the plausibility of extra terrestrial life existing all the more plausible, and it's of course science which leads that investigation, such as exoplanet hunting and studying of potentially life friendly moons in our own system etc.


----------



## Xenos (Jun 24, 2012)

joolz said:


> These are what I regard as flawed arguments, because I don't think we're in a position to say what is practical or impractical. We don't understand all of existence, therefore we can't make any judgement about the probability of technology and reality that is beyond our comprehension. For all we know, there's a level of reality that's moving faster than the speed of light, and it occupies 100 times the existence that our own sub-light speed reality does.


But we'll never "understand all of existence," and even if we did, we wouldn't be able to _prove_ that we did. If your threshold of evidence for considering that aliens are visiting is us that there might be some alternate level of reality that we can't see, then you can never have any opinion on the matter. Because that premise will always be unfalsifiable, no matter how much you know.

Based on what we can see of the universe and what we know of its laws, it would take an alien spaceship tens of thousands of years (minimum!) and an unbelievable amount of energy to come here, and I don't see that we've ever had anything here that could've possibly made it worth their trouble. Is it ironclad proof of the negative? Of course not. But based on what we _do_ know, there are lots of good reasons to think that alien visitation would be prohibitively difficult, no good reasons to think it would be feasible, and no evidence that it's happened.

I just think if you want us to consider something like aliens coming to earth we need more to go on than 'there might be some alternate reality or amazing technology we don't know about.'


----------



## ilsr (Aug 29, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> It's rare for someone not to have an opinion of a subject they know about. We naturally make judgement calls on everything based on what case there is for the subject being true or false. That doesn't mean they have to say they _know _that it's true or false, as that requires substantial evidence, but they can say they believe things are true or false for the reasons I just mentioned.
> 
> Anybody who thinks about the subject either believes aliens probably exist, believes they probably don't, claims to know that they exist, or that they know they don't exist. The latter two positions are untenable IMO, and you won't hear scientists claim they have proof either way.





ugh1979 said:


> Delusions don't need to obey the laws of physics.





ilsr said:


> So I'm the only one 'deluded'. I don't think so.





ugh1979 said:


> Who said you were the only one that is deluded? The world is full of delusional people.


I would recommend books on the subject by Jacques Valles. "Mr. Enigma"'s youtube compilation of sightings are the compelling ones. I would avoid "thirdphaseofmoon" channel hoaxes.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

ilsr said:


> I used 'deluded' quotes to show I don't buy your opinion that I'm deluded in my viewpoint of ufos considering your own words say beliefs can be expressed. With all the sightings by professionals, airline pilots, and former presidents and beliefs and opinions of others who've seen or come to believe in ufos, it doesn't follow to call them "deluded" to singularly call me "deluded" about the objects defying the laws of physics.


You were talking about aliens, not UFOs. There's a distinct difference. I don't disagree about the existence of unidentified flying objects. What those UFOs are is occasionally the contentious question. Of course the vast majority of UFO sightings have rational explanations, (that's if they aren't hoaxes), and I believe the others do too.

I'm also sceptical of anecdotal accounts from anyone, regardless of their position.



> I would recommend books on the subject by Jacques Valles. "Mr. Enigma"'s youtube compilation of sightings are the compelling ones. I would avoid "thirdphaseofmoon" channel hoaxes.


A the old classic blurry grainy ambiguous footage. :roll When someone has managed to use an HD camera and zoom, let me know. :lol


----------

