Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If you can spare the time, they’re enjoyable, if often times frustrating, debates. You’ll see the tactics I mentioned above used by the conspiracy theorists.
I prefer the term "crackpot" to "conspiracy theorists" because there are actual conspiracies whose existence could only be proven many years after the fact. That term was invented in part to aid in their concealment.
Call 'em what they are: crackpots, because the problem with their theory is that its illogical, not that it involves a lot of people.
Of course, the crackpots will point to any former conspiracy theory now proven true, however unrelated to their drivel, that therefore they must be right as well.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
This was broadcast again last night, only caught bits and pieces as I had family obligations, but well worth a watch if you have a means of accessing iPlayer.
What's most striking is the level of certainty many very highly qualified minds have about the presence of alien life.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/06/18 20:59:50
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Honestly for a long time now I think most people who have a scientific take on the world around them accept that aliens life is very likely to the point where it would be baffling if it weren't.
The real issue is intelligent life not just microbial and also that we might never actually get to meet or see any within our lifetimes as the distances are so impossibly vast as to require a whole new subset of physics and science to create technology that could cross the gulf.
And honestly we still have hope of that even if its not within our grasp now. One only has to look not very far back to when space was an impossibility; when flight was an impossibility; when the depths of the sea or lands far off were impossible. They became possible; then they became practical and now many are necessary to regular life.
While I doubt UFO’s are actually extraterrestrial craft, I find some of the reasoning against the possibility unconvincing. Earth has had an atmosphere visibly altered by photosynthetic life for what, 300 million years? With our current understanding of physics, we can see how intelligent aliens could have had plenty of time to send a colony or scientific mission the slow way. There is lots of room in the solar system for a monitoring station and/or shipyard. There is room for the possibility they didn’t only come here specifically for us, or that they might have become more interested in earth with the advent of technological civilization, and stepped up their monitoring while camouflaging their local assets. Its not necessary to assume every atmospheric craft needed to cross 100 light years to get here.
Overread wrote: Honestly for a long time now I think most people who have a scientific take on the world around them accept that aliens life is very likely to the point where it would be baffling if it weren't.
Groupthink also applies to intellectuals.
See also: Eugenics, Phrenology, etc.
All the "smart people" being into something doesn't make it true, it merely makes it popular within a certain social caste.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/21 00:12:20
See I never said smart, I just said a scientific take. You can be into science and still get things wrong (flat earth).
However if you want the more wordy answer you could say that current scientific thinking leans strongly in the support of there being alien life in the universe on other worlds. From single to multi-cellular life.
Based upon our current understanding of the world around us and the universe we live in.
Also Eugenics does work scientifically. We've been doing it for thousands of years with livestock and plants. It's simply selective breeding. Of course Eugenics is when its applied to humans and was also strongly connected to elements such as racism, discrimination and flawed understanding of genetics and such. Understandably it gets wrapped up with political elements very quickly and becomes more than simple selective breeding. Furthermore to impose it upon a human population is socially and morally considered incorrect/horrific by many people's standards both today and in the past.
However the core concept of selective breeding to favour specific traits and avoid others is very much proven to work. Of course today we understand that genetics are way more complicated and that the timescales for a human population to have actual change would be quite long considering our slow reproductive rate (we are not fruit-flies). I also suspect most of us have seen extreme selective breeding results through pets and animals where favouring certain aspects, eg visual, at expense of all else, results in a very weak genepool and a higher instance of inbreeding/faults/health problems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/21 08:21:47
Adeptekon wrote: I really hate arguements that appeal to authority for their justistifcation of why you should accept them.
Depends who’s being asked though.
Me? I’m not a scientist. I got a Double Science “C” grade GCSE and 1996, and that’s about it.
So when some Flerfer, YEC or other fruitloop tries to “debate” me (because all they do is shout, gosh gallop and change the subject) I personally am left with nothing but Appeal To Authority. Because whilst I myself have not done the research or experiments, and in many cases could never hope to? I can point them toward relevant papers, explanations of given scientific theories and explain to them that scientific theories are just “theories” in the common meaning of theory.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Overread wrote: See I never said smart, I just said a scientific take. You can be into science and still get things wrong (flat earth).
However if you want the more wordy answer you could say that current scientific thinking leans strongly in the support of there being alien life in the universe on other worlds. From single to multi-cellular life.
Do we need to go into all the "current scientific thinking" that has been proven completely, abjectly and totally wrong?
Because you're going to need a much bigger thread.
Overread wrote: See I never said smart, I just said a scientific take. You can be into science and still get things wrong (flat earth).
However if you want the more wordy answer you could say that current scientific thinking leans strongly in the support of there being alien life in the universe on other worlds. From single to multi-cellular life.
Do we need to go into all the "current scientific thinking" that has been proven completely, abjectly and totally wrong?
Because you're going to need a much bigger thread.
I mean no because that's just science being science.
Everything is a theory based upon currently understood data. Once we get new ways to interpret that data and/or new data sources/types of data then we can evolve/change or develop new theories.
Overread wrote: See I never said smart, I just said a scientific take. You can be into science and still get things wrong (flat earth).
However if you want the more wordy answer you could say that current scientific thinking leans strongly in the support of there being alien life in the universe on other worlds. From single to multi-cellular life.
Do we need to go into all the "current scientific thinking" that has been proven completely, abjectly and totally wrong?
Because you're going to need a much bigger thread.
I mean no because that's just science being science.
Everything is a theory based upon currently understood data. Once we get new ways to interpret that data and/or new data sources/types of data then we can evolve/change or develop new theories.
That's the backbone of science.
That’s the key principle of science; accepting (even embracing) that you’re wrong when new evidence appears. Compared to religion/politics/conspiracy theories/most other aspects of human culture where people do their damndest to ignore or attack any evidence that doesn’t fit their personal narrative.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
From my forays into the daftness that is Flat Earth?
Not only do you need to lie to Flerf, but despite claiming science am the rubbish and totes wrongzors, remember to only claim that when you reckon it supports your argument.
If your staggering misunderstanding of the basic principles means a given theory supports your idiocy? Claim that big completely true.
And it’s pretty much the same for any conspiracy theory. Only the bits you think support you are true, everything else is a lie, and don’t forget a healthy dose of unsupported claims and “trust me bro”.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Jadenim wrote: That’s the key principle of science; accepting (even embracing) that you’re wrong when new evidence appears. Compared to religion/politics/conspiracy theories/most other aspects of human culture where people do their damndest to ignore or attack any evidence that doesn’t fit their personal narrative.
Please. Scientists are just as prone to bias as politicians and are happy to shape their findings to whatever their paymasters want them to say.
There are also plenty of scientists who proved just as illogically wedded to their theories as the most fanatical would-be prophet.
Absent empirical evidence, absent a theory that can be proven false, anything a scientist says is just opinion, nothing more.
Scientists have a massive built-in bias to say that space aliens are real because that opens channels of funding for them, allows new departments (and new department chairs!) and of course they can write books and be on TV shows. Scientists who take the contrary view get...nothing.
Jadenim wrote: That’s the key principle of science; accepting (even embracing) that you’re wrong when new evidence appears. Compared to religion/politics/conspiracy theories/most other aspects of human culture where people do their damndest to ignore or attack any evidence that doesn’t fit their personal narrative.
Please. Scientists are just as prone to bias as politicians and are happy to shape their findings to whatever their paymasters want them to say.
There are also plenty of scientists who proved just as illogically wedded to their theories as the most fanatical would-be prophet.
Absent empirical evidence, absent a theory that can be proven false, anything a scientist says is just opinion, nothing more.
Scientists have a massive built-in bias to say that space aliens are real because that opens channels of funding for them, allows new departments (and new department chairs!) and of course they can write books and be on TV shows. Scientists who take the contrary view get...nothing.
A) scientists =/= science. The principles are different from the people.
B) You are describing bad scientists. Good scientists are aware of their biases and take steps to mitigate them, they avoid speculation (or make it clear what is supported by their evidence and what is not) and they submit to the peer review process, the whole purpose of which is to provide independent verification and validation of their results.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A classic example of good science is the Italian lab from a few years ago that thought it had detected faster-than-light particles coming from CERN; they didn’t publish it as “we’ve discovered FTL!!”, but instead as “we have these weird results, which should be wrong, but we can’t figure out where the error is?”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/24 07:21:51
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Jadenim wrote: A) scientists =/= science. The principles are different from the people.
B) You are describing bad scientists. Good scientists are aware of their biases and take steps to mitigate them, they avoid speculation (or make it clear what is supported by their evidence and what is not) and they submit to the peer review process, the whole purpose of which is to provide independent verification and validation of their results.
All people are fallible. There is no perfect practitioner of science.
A classic example of good science is the Italian lab from a few years ago that thought it had detected faster-than-light particles coming from CERN; they didn’t publish it as “we’ve discovered FTL!!”, but instead as “we have these weird results, which should be wrong, but we can’t figure out where the error is?”
I thought the fastest detectable object was the p.r. department rushing out a news release based on incomplete data to line up more grants before the results were challenged.
That the result you gave is atypical is why science has fallen into disrepute. Too many of its practitioners result to arguments from authority or withhold data on the grounds that it could be "misused" rather than show the spirit of open inquiry and free debate.
Even more worrisome are the research papers where authors hide their names to protect their careers. This should not be necessary because the dispute should be with the facts and findings, but a lot of big money is on the table, and challenging it can be fatal to one's career.
Declaring alien life is likely is a no-risk high-reward proposition. Gets your astronomy dept. a bump in grant funding and maybe some new donors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/24 12:23:53
Also SETI is the SEARCH for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence; they do not claim to have found it, but simply that you won't find anything if you don't look!
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Jadenim wrote: That’s the key principle of science; accepting (even embracing) that you’re wrong when new evidence appears. Compared to religion/politics/conspiracy theories/most other aspects of human culture where people do their damndest to ignore or attack any evidence that doesn’t fit their personal narrative.
Please. Scientists are just as prone to bias as politicians and are happy to shape their findings to whatever their paymasters want them to say.
There are also plenty of scientists who proved just as illogically wedded to their theories as the most fanatical would-be prophet.
Absent empirical evidence, absent a theory that can be proven false, anything a scientist says is just opinion, nothing more.
Scientists have a massive built-in bias to say that space aliens are real because that opens channels of funding for them, allows new departments (and new department chairs!) and of course they can write books and be on TV shows. Scientists who take the contrary view get...nothing.
A) scientists =/= science. The principles are different from the people.
B) You are describing bad scientists. Good scientists are aware of their biases and take steps to mitigate them, they avoid speculation (or make it clear what is supported by their evidence and what is not) and they submit to the peer review process, the whole purpose of which is to provide independent verification and validation of their results.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A classic example of good science is the Italian lab from a few years ago that thought it had detected faster-than-light particles coming from CERN; they didn’t publish it as “we’ve discovered FTL!!”, but instead as “we have these weird results, which should be wrong, but we can’t figure out where the error is?”
Sorry to say this, but in my opinion, and based on sort-of an inside view (i used to be a scientist, but am not anymore) the modal, and probably also median, scientist is a 'bad' scientist in as much as the typical scientific paper is written under pressure, has other main motives than furthering humanities understanding of the world (getting another grant, padding your resume, producing your term paper/thesis whatever, furthering some sort of political/social/personal agenda, and others besides) and is (again, mostly) produced to tick some sort of box and in consequence read by few to no people. Peer review is fine and dandy in theory, but it's also a huge can of worms and problems in practice: reviewers often have the same problems as other academics, i.e. are overworked, undermotivated and under all sorts of political and other pressures, have their own agendas, adhere to 'schools' or 'traditions' and so on, there are extreme issues with the realities of the publishing world (extortionate practices by reputed journals and presses, predatory practices from unsavoury publishers, open access questions and so on, i could deliver multiple 45min speeches on the problem and have in fact done so in the past). And that's all within the scope of the system working as intended, or at least by the rules, without any serious attempts at malfeasance or outright cheating.
That being said, there are notable positive examples, like the CERN people you mentioned above, but i stand by my pessimistic notion that the average piece of science is, in fact, bad science, and that the public notion of science (outside of some specific fields like e.g. Genetics, Nuclear etc.) is much better than is merited, and in fact much better than the inside view on it. I'd not go so far as to claim that the general public has rose-tinted glasses in this particular question, but people who know how the sausage is made are more pessimistic about it for a reason.
I could keep going, because there are tons of hits for universities announcing funding for this sort of thing.
And note that none of that is about them saying it is likely that aliens are out there, or have visited us. It is about identifying spectral signatures that might be a sign of possible life due to technology. Spectral analysis is already a key part of astronomy, this is just trying to expand on that.
Also:
This is the first NASA non-radio technosignature grant ever awarded
Hardly seems like a great way to try and get funding, hoping that NASA will throw money at you which has never been granted before, does it?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/06/24 14:17:14
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: No astronomy department is getting grant money by saying that it is likely that alien life exists.
This is your original post.
I proved that yes, they are getting grants on the assumption that it does exist and can be found. Otherwise, why look for it?
Now you want to add additional qualifiers, when all I did was pull the first post that hit on the search. There are many, and it's not worth my time to keep pasting them here.
A Town Called Malus wrote: No astronomy department is getting grant money by saying that it is likely that alien life exists.
This is your original post.
I proved that yes, they are getting grants on the assumption that it does exist and can be found. Otherwise, why look for it?
Now you want to add additional qualifiers, when all I did was pull the first post that hit on the search. There are many, and it's not worth my time to keep pasting them here.
No, none of that research is assuming that they do and can be found.
It is assembling a database that might be applicable if they do and have followed a similar technological advancement as us.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/24 15:15:11
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I tend to believe none of this is new. People tend to give themselves credit for being "alive", like their swirl of atoms is something unique in nature rather than a naturally occurring process that is attempting to happen everywhere under any circumstance in a multitude of ways, in a observable universe we just showed up in yesterday.
Do we need to go into all the "current scientific thinking" that has been proven completely, abjectly and totally wrong?
This is an intrinsic misunderstanding of what 'science' is on a conceptual level.
The bit where the 'current scientific thinking' was 'proven completely, abjectly and totally wrong' was done by...science. Science is both sides of the coin. Science disproves science. The alternative is claiming that 'God did it' or some other such thing and not looking for an explanation - but such things 'prove' nothing because 'proof' is unneeded. That's why they're not science.
The minute you attempt to test a hypothesis to produce 'proof', you did science, and therefore your thinking is now current scientific thinking. And your science disproved the other science, therefore proving the triumph of science as a method and reinforcing the triumph of current scientific thinking. You can claim that your particular science is 'good' science and the previous science was 'bad science', but its still science all around, and your 'good' science may well be susceptible to other flaws or problems or restrictions you haven't noticed yet.
Any disproven scientific thinking is therefore logically 'past scientific thinking' at best by definition, but even that gets it wrong, because scientific opinion and scientific thinking are two different brushes.
Really, this sort of discussion is a bit like how people think 'technology' is gadgets and gizmos and invention when it's knowledge.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/06/25 23:06:18
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
And to point to “ha, science was wrong about X” isn’t as interesting as trying to understand why it was wrong, and what changed in our understanding.
Nor is it a problem for science as a whole to say “we don’t know”. Or even “we’ll likely never know”.
Take the poorly referred to as “Big Bang”. Scads of evidence to support such as cosmic background radiation and that. But…what was there before and what caused it? I don’t know. And given our universe came from that….we may never come even close to finding out, on account what is now replaced what was then. If there was anything. That’s not flaw in the theory itself. And it’s certainly not something you can just say “well then God did it”. And even if a god did do it? That doesn’t mean they hung around, and if they did it, it still doesn’t mean it was your god.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Overread wrote: Not only that but the idea that they can all work together and agree on that.
They can't get peace or sort out finances or anything; but they CAN hide aliens from everyone else.
How'd the worldwide lockdowns come to being again?
Sure they can hide things from the public, for instance.. try going to the antarctic as an individual explorer and find out that there are world-wide agreements between literally all country governments to prevent you from that at gunpoint.
But that doesn't mean they "hide aliens from outer space", just that they universally hide things from the public.
Overread wrote: But doesn't a very large amount of the computing technology that you're using right now rely on stuff NASA researched, produced and said
Complaining about tracking chips goverment installs while carrying phones(aka super effective spy tracking devices) around you exposing more data about you any chip could
I don't own a phone personally, and my home computer (currently storaged) has no internet-connection (removed the chip) + I have no internet provider at home to begin with. (on a laptop at a family adress for internet use about 1-2 hours a day)
I'm no 'conspiracy theorist', just self relient and taking nothing the government says for granted, which is pretty healthy mind you.
Overread wrote: But doesn't a very large amount of the computing technology that you're using right now rely on stuff NASA researched, produced and said
Besides stuff like GPS, sattelite-based weather reporting and forecasting, satellite imaging of the earths surface and so on things like the popular .mp3 file format are the result of various space programs, and let's not even get started about material sciences and related fields.
I don't even listen to music, I have a guitar for that.. or used to make my own anyway (as an ex composer)
Music is at its core cymatic in- -formation, so it's best to be careful with that, just like with what you eat or drink.
Most material sciences are based on faulty presumptions easily disproven, take gravity for instance, while buoancy and density explains such affairs much better.
weather reporting was done with equal accuracy in ancient times, satellites float about on balloons and are generally limited. Why do you think Nasa is the number 1 buyer of helium in the world? GPS is simply a substitute to human in-telligence, like most digital tools are.. as noone had problems reading maps before, and when seafaring was concerned, that was a matter of life and death.
Leopold Helveine wrote: Sounds grifty to me, especially because I have a book of reasons not to believe in anything Nasa ever released.
Trouble there? Anyone can write and publish a book. Absolutely anyone. A scientific paper however is the work of months, years, perhaps decades, and unlike some conspiracy book? Subject to Peer Review, where others in the field actively try to debunk or find a flaw in the methodology.
We see this in the conspirasphere, where one can simply claim to be an expert. Sure, you may have a Doctorate. But if that Doctorate is in say, Geology, that by no means qualifies you as an expert in evolutionary biology. And those who fall for such nonsense are seemingly too busy desperately trying to debunk established science, they never stop to question their own source.
Quote mining, removing important contextual qualifiers, video editing to have the answers given to questions jumbled into an order which suits the conspiracy, misrepresenting scientific papers, the Gish Gallop in debates. Even just saying “nuh-uh”. God of the Gaps fallacy (even where one isn’t claiming “therefore God”, but some other oddity). Presenting a false dichotomy (only you or I are right, there is no middle ground or other hypothesis), word salad. They all play their role in promoting utter bunkum.
As I think I said earlier in this thread, a large part of the problem comes from Laymen expecting ever more complex and niche areas of scientific research to be easily surmised in relatively plain language, when that’s not necessarily possible. And when it’s not really possible? That’s where the Woo Peddler walks up with unearned confidence, offering an outrageously poor but easily worded alternative.
Couple of examples? Fair warning these are quite long “debates” featuring Professor Dave. First is against a Flat Earther, the other against a Creationist. He also has one against a specifically Young Earth Creationist, but given that bloke is a convicted tax cheat and wife beater, I don’t want to give him the oxygen of publicity.
If you can spare the time, they’re enjoyable, if often times frustrating, debates. You’ll see the tactics I mentioned above used by the conspiracy theorists.
Flat earth Dave is probably just a cultist.. trying to build a following to self importance while he is incapable of actually going through actual data and runs on speculation into the fantastical domain..
Weiss is the type that you see among those Q-anons explaining everything according to zohar or kabbalah reoccuring patterns pulling water from an endless well directly connected to the freaking river.
I think you would rather enjoy reading the Flat earth FAQ book written by Eric Dubay.
100% Science, 0% speculation or mythology.
I personally compare such a paradigm with my own work and study being that of Etymology, Symbology, Mythology and esoterics concerning granted, but that could not be done without at first being certain of the science.
I will admit that it is rather antireligious, considering I view religion as intentional encryption of the alchemical (chemistry of all things of our plane), but for instance there is a reason that the book of Enoch is considered Apocryphal and the Jesuits imposed the heliocentric model on most continents.
When taking the Etymology of extraterrestial, finally'.. it simply means (entities of whatever nature of) extra-land.
That refers to an expanse, not to empty space.
-Leopold Helveine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/26 08:17:41
"Why would i be lying for Wechhudrs sake man.., i do not write fiction!"
