[Closed] Evidence driven sciencey types...

They're all legitimate questions though and worth thinking about, even if nothing conclusive can be established either way.

Define "legitimate". And "worth thinking about", while we're at it.

In what respect did he not reply?

Serious face?

Define "legitimate"

Didn't you know all the seriously legitimate questions start with 'What gives?'

I've ringed the planets/moons that have harboured the lifeforms that have contacted me. Stay away from the red ones... probers.

[img] [/img]

* Goes up another gradient on the learning curve. 🙂

PS - re the above I think "probers"=coke and hookers.

If contact with alien life had already been established, would it be publicized?

I'm almost more prepared to believe in god than a hushed-up conspiracy that we've been in contact with alien life.

I believe that there is life out there (and it is a belief, I have no proof). I also believe that due to the distances involved the chances of us talking to them are as close to 'none' as makes no odds. Which is a damn shame, but there it is.

It's possible that life is out there but sparsely distributed enough for no-one to be able to male contact in any reasonable time frame. If faster than light travel is not possible then we might never know if ojr nearest neighbours ar living 100,000 ly away.

In an infinite Universe, there are an infinite number of possibilities.

Which means that somewhere, there is a planet where mattresses grow on trees. 8)

If the universe really is infinite, then anything which could possibly happen, must happen.

In an infinite Universe, there are an infinite number of possibilities.

Only if it's infinite and [i]non repeating[/i].
1/3 written as a decimal is an infinitely repeating string of 3s. It will never contain a 4

Show me the conclusive evidence of the origins of life... or is it just conjecture?

Well creating 'cells' is fairly straightforward, and most of the basic building blocks and chemicals do occur naturally without life (amino acids, ammonia etc). So these 'cells' can do chemical reactions, and be fairly self sustaining. The leap from that to RNA and replication? That's the difficult bit! Once it's there it's self sustaining and evolution takes care of the rest, but the shear mindbogling complexity and shear luck of a molecule of RNA spontaneously forming inside a cell? It'll happen, but IMO that's the limiting step, everything upto that point and everything after it is inevitable, it's the transcription/replication that's important.

Our comprehension of errrr... Everything seems to have evolved so rapidly over the last couple of hundred years, that to my mind it's completely feasible that our understanding could be turned on it's head (again) at any given moment..

For this reason I keep an open mind about whether or not what we think we know as a species will continue to have as much relevance in 10, 50, 100, or 1000 years time

Which means that somewhere, there is a planet where mattresses grow on trees.

Squornshellous Zeta.

JIVE I gave you the definition of conspiracy theroy there was no need for you to redefine it yourself using the 4 th definition from the online dictionary whilst ignoroing the one below it

conspiracy (k?n?sp?r?s?)
n, pl -cies
1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot
2. the act of making such plans in secret

and the same was done for theory - you ignored the scientific version whish was odd as you were talking about science

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

see the testable bit and make predictions bit ....VERY IMPORTANT
You and facts dont ever interesct except when you need to cherry pick some to support your beliefs.

you wont ever find the truth but you will wallow in confirmation bias and the first stage of competence.

Can Junkyard and Jivebunnyjive* just bang already.

*Misread as this initially, and my brain refuses to make the correction.

eep

Thanks for the link to the Fermi Paradox. I didn't know that was its name so couldn't find it

To various others

The observable universe is finite. The rest of it who knows, but the whole infinite business is very Newtonian

Still surpised that so many people think that they can make a stab at the chances of life occurring term in the drake equation

I'm pretty sure there's other life out there, of varying levels of complexity, with any complex, intelligent ones (i.e. ones we could conceivably communicate one) being much rarer than simpler, microbey ones. I don't think we'll ever find anything more complex than a microbe though, or communicate with another intelligence.

Good to see the large amount of faith being placed on this issue.

Good to see no one is preaching about it nor expecting anyone else to be forced to study their beliefs nor making others live by their beliefs nor claiming their belief is divine etc

Good to see everyone knows its a GUESS and they can explain the basis for the guess and the limits of this
Most importantly they know its not true nor a fact.

Good to see the large amount of faith being placed on this issue.

More opinion than faith I'd say. I don't see anyone saying it's anything more than that, or going on to base anything else they do on it- just making an observation really.

Plenty of evidence that the nearest planet to us is populated with robots.

Evidence driven sciencey types...

Euro - Member

I'm interested in your take on the possibility of life existing on other planets.

I am not a person of science but a person of science will answer in such logic ...

1. Whatever we don't know, we know they don't exist ...

2. Whatever we know, we know they are [b]absolute[/b] ...

To answer OP's question the land is flat until they take the courage to inch forward ... in the meantime the land is still flat.

🙄

Plenty of evidence that the nearest planet to us is populated with robots.

If you mean rovers on Mars, then Mars isn't our nearest planet.

Looks like it is at the moment

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar/action?sys=-Si

I am not a person of science but a person of science will answer in such logic ...
1. Whatever we don't know, we know they don't exist ...
2. Whatever we know, we know they are absolute ...

You're right - you're not a person of science, because that isn't how any good science operates at all.

You're right - you're not a person of science, because that isn't how any good science operates at all.

It's like a Johari window with the blind half drawn.

slowoldman - Member

"There's the odd unexplained radio signal"

Ooh tell me more.

we've had the 'wow!' signal, so called as that's what got written on the paper-printout that it was recorded on.

[img] [/img]

(the letters/numbers just indicate signal strength, it's not a 'code')

but it only amounted to roughly one short 'beep' - and that was 37 years ago.

i don't know of any more...

GrahamS - Member
You're right - you're not a person of science, because that isn't how any good science operates at all.

So how does good science operate? Quick summary please as I have one eye on Red Dwarf at the moment.

thisisnotaspoon - Member
It's like a Johari window with the blind half drawn.

Who is like the Johari Window? Science? 😯

but it only amounted to roughly one short 'beep' - and that was 37 years ago.

Hmm. There was conjecture that the signal detected by Jocelyn Bell in 1967 was possibly from an "intelligent extraterrestrial civilisation". It turned out to be a natural phenomenon - a pulsar. One beep does not an advanced culture make. That's chewkw or jivehoneyjive physics.

slowoldman - Member
That's chewkw or jivehoneyjive physics.

I just want to know how good science operates. 🙄

Hey everyone knows one beep counts for nothing and you don't even have to be a scientist to know that ... 😯

Well let's start with what it's not:
"Whatever we don't know, we know they don't exist ..."
It's not this.

Looks like it is at the moment

Touche gwaelod

slowoldman - Member

Well let's start with what it's not:
"Whatever we don't know, we know they don't exist ..."
It's not this.

I hear you.
To answer my question?

😮

Hypothesis is tested by observation and peer review leading to theory.

slowoldman - Member

Hypothesis is tested by observation and peer review leading to theory.

Where does the [u]hypothesis[/u] come from? (seriously)

😯

Where does the hypothesis come from? (seriously)

you fill your brain up with stuff based around the subject, think about it, have an idea, then you design experiments, collect data, and see if it proves or disproves the idea. you then write it up in a convincing fashion and experts in the area review it to see if it makes sense.

allegedly. you hope it all works out because there so little money out there, that you don't have time or funding to have the luxury of being wrong.

bigrich - Member

Where does the hypothesis come from? (seriously)

[b][u]you fill your brain up with stuff based around the subject, think about it, have an idea,[/u][/b] then you design experiments, collect data, and see if it proves or disproves the idea. you then write it up in a convincing fashion and experts in the area review it to see if it makes sense.

Based on Slowoldman's explanation the hypothesis has already existed (my understand of English in that sentence) but are you saying you simply choose/pick some ideas out of the blue? Which/who is right?

What I am trying to understand is if there is no interest in a particular topic/subject/alien etc ... I mean nobody thought about it before or no interest in then no research will be done hence the answer will probably be ... "no such thing"? Yes?

allegedly. you hope it all works out because there so little money out there, that you don't have time or funding to have the luxury of being wrong.

Are you saying a proper experiment is either not possible or difficult due to lack or funds or simply half-baked (because of fearing wrong and waste of fund so better to produce a positive result rather than a negative one)?

I can safely say that if aliens have picked up much of our cultural / news transmissions from the last hundred years they have probably decided not to pop by for tea.

you simply choose/pick some ideas out of the blue?

It's an idea that might explain some things that you have observed and that is falsifiable, which isn't the same as any old toot you could dream up.

if there is no interest in a particular topic/subject/alien etc ... I mean nobody thought about it before or no interest in then no research will be done hence the answer will probably be ... "no such thing"? Yes?

Depends what you're suggesting. If it's aliens the answer shouldn't be "no such thing" because it doesn't contradict anything and it's basically unknowable at the moment.
If it's fairies or something the answer might be different.

Does the observer not change the reality?

We can all recount a shared experience differently and thereby alter the reality or truth according to our observation and experience.

Surely all observation is experiential?

I'm also of the belief of keeping an open mind on many things that we humans proclaim is the reality as we see and observe them. Not that it particularly matters of course. There's plenty of realities to be had and we can all choose our own if we do indeed feel the desire to choose.

I do. 😀

are you saying you simply choose/pick some ideas out of the blue?

Yes. Hence the term "Blue sky thinking".

More generally there is some scientific question or problem which interests a particular scientist and they choose to investigate it (e.g. Einstein - time and space - thought experiments - relativity - hypotheses). Peer review and experimental verification leads to accepted theories.

NB, scientists tend to deal in theories not facts, because science never claims 100% certainty.

If contact with alien life had already been established, would it be publicized?

Did the Dogon tribes have ancient knowledge of stars invisible to the naked eye?

Are the pyramids of Egypt and Central America or Stonehenge constructed for accurate celestial alignment?

What gives with Area 51?

Is this legit, or is it bonkers?

Well, we can communicate with certain cetaceans, which could easily be defined as an alien species, mammalian, air-breathing, not humanoid.
Dogon? Dunno, did they? It's entirely possible.
Of course the pyramids and Stonehenge are aligned celestially, that's certainly what Stonehenge and Avebury, along with most other henges were built for, as well as being a focus for massive feasts and piss-ups.
And why wouldn't they be? 5000 years ago they had clear night skies with no bloody light pollution, and could easily work out by extended observation over extended periods where the sun and moon would rise and fall at particular times of the year that would coincide with the appropriate times of the season for planting, harvesting, and the longest and shortest days of the year, with the associated excuse for partying, feasting, and getting shitfaced.
Area 51? You'll have to ask Lockeed, it's where Skunkworks used to have their test area.
That's been moved, though, because there were places on nearby mountains outside the security area that allowed parts of it to be seen.
Nobody quite knows where the main skunkworks test area is now, it's literally in the middle of nowhere, and there's shitloads of that in Nevada.
Thus giving the likes of you plenty of nothing to build conjecture and conspiracy on to your heart's content.
Keeps you off the streets, though, which can only be a good thing; think how much trouble you could get into otherwise... 😉

slackalice - Member
Does the observer not change the reality?

We can all recount a shared experience differently and thereby alter the reality or truth according to our observation and experience.

Surely all observation is experiential?

I'm also of the belief of keeping an open mind on many things that we humans proclaim is the reality as we see and observe them. Not that it particularly matters of course. There's plenty of realities to be had and we can all choose our own if we do indeed feel the desire to choose.

I do.

Hello Mr Heisenberg! (Waves) 😆
Trouble with keeping an open mind, others try to fill it up with rubbish! 😉

There's plenty of realities to be had

One man's reality is another man's delusion.

One man's reality is another man's delusion.

And both men hold their own truth's. Fun isn't it?!

Heisenburg incarnate I am not, however, thanks for the wave 😉