Evidence driven sciencey types…

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)

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.

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 😉

MrSalmon – Member
If it’s fairies or something the answer might be different.

Why different? Fairies cannot be proven nor do aliens? Yes? No?

slackalice – Member

Does the observer not change the reality?

Ya, that … how does that work? Are scientist now selling advanced snake oil?

slowoldman – Member
Yes. Hence the term “Blue sky thinkin

I see. Basically, you just think of something that interest you? Yes?
If that is the case anything that does not interest science/you will not be investigated so if the funding is not available … no experiment will take place …

😯

Why different? Fairies cannot be proven nor do aliens? Yes? No?

Really?
There is nothing in our understanding of the universe to say that aliens couldn’t exist. In fact there is a rather large hint that they might because of, well, us being here to wonder about it. We can’t say whether they do or not because we can’t look everywhere. We don’t have to invent any excuses for why we can’t photograph them or see them or hear them.

Chewkw:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

MrSalmon – Member
Really?
There is nothing in our understanding of the universe to say that aliens couldn’t exist. In fact there is a rather large hint that they might because of, well, us being here to wonder about it. We can’t say whether they do or not because we can’t look everywhere. We don’t have to invent any excuses for why we can’t photograph them or see them or hear them.

aaa-hhhhaaaa … now you do not make sense.

Your answer can equally apply to both alien and fairies. The former is a rather new term associated with science while the latter with religion.

Both cannot be proven right or wrong so why do you think you can make a logical assumption there is a possibility that there are small green persons in space?

😯

Cougar – Moderator

Chewkw:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

No good that as I don’t understand their jargon and their scientific slang.

Scientists say these mysterious shrimp may hold keys to alien life
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/scientists-say-these-mysterious-shrimps-may-hold-the-ke-1661989274
Chewkw, just because your level of comprehension precludes your being unable to understand why there’s a clear and unequivocal difference in believing there is a likelyhood of alien life elswhere in the universe and there being virtually no likelihood of faeries existing doesn’t mean the rest of us followi the same train of thought.
The fact that you insist on using the term ‘little green men’ shows you really don’t understand, still, that ‘life’ can mean anything at all; the link above clearly shows that life exists on our own planet in an environment that’s about as alien as it’s possible to imagine, but there’s no ‘little green men’ down there.
The environment here could easily be remarkably similar:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/11/nasas-new-view-of-jupiters-ocean-moon-is-europa-the-solar-systems-best-bet-for-life-the-puzzling-fascinating-surface-of.html
And believing in faerie has nothing at all to do with religion, as such, it’s all part of the myths and legends of various societies, more closely attached to pagan beliefs than what is considered to be any formal religion. People who are ‘religious’ would almost certainly deny quite vociferously any belief in faeries, while scientists would just laugh in your face.

CountZero – Member
Scientists say these mysterious shrimp may hold keys to alien life

Where? Shrimp on earth? Or other planets? Does not make sense here sounds like a stab in the dark again …

Chewkw, just because your level of comprehension precludes your being unable to understand why there’s a clear and unequivocal difference in believing there is a likelyhood of alien life elswhere in the universe and there being virtually no likelihood of faeries existing doesn’t mean the rest of us followi the same train of thought.

If scientists cannot even make the population understand what they are doing there is really no hope for mankind or womankind.

The term alien/fairies can be used interchangeably if you want with the same logical investigation if you wish and I bet you, you will not find answer to both …

The fact that you insist on using the term ‘little green men’ shows you really don’t understand, still, that ‘life’ can mean anything at all; the link above clearly shows that life exists on our own planet in an environment that’s about as alien as it’s possible to imagine, but there’s no ‘little green men’ down there.

FFS! How anal can you get? How can such term, green man, be affecting the discussion of alien? Stop focusing on the language and get back to the alien (let’s call it “life”) existence.

And believing in faerie has nothing at all to do with religion, as such, it’s all part of the myths and legends of various societies, more closely attached to pagan beliefs than what is considered to be any formal religion. People who are ‘religious’ would almost certainly deny quite vociferously any belief in faeries, while scientists would just laugh in your face.

I used the term loosely. You can call it life force/soul/energy/spirit whatever suits you. Pagan or religion this is a western term.

Okay, back to the scientific question … have they found shrimps in other planets?

There is a big difference between fairies and aliens. Fairies would have to exist on Earth, a place that has been extensively studied. They would have to have left evidence of their presence and it is likely (though not certain) that we would have noticed.

Aliens are nothing magical or special, and they would have to exist on another planet a very long way away where no-one has ever been. So we would not be able to see any evidence.

Fairies could exist in the fairy realm I.e. A parallel universe. I don’t think many physicists would be able to disprove that and they would know it.

Okay, back to the scientific question … have they found shrimps in other planets?

I don’t think so. Not yet anyway.

However, that the Observer changes the reality, if we do find these shrimps et al on other planets, they may not be shrimps or little green dudes at all, for what we observe is our own interpretation of the truth. An interpretation based upon our own human condition. Which, as far as human science is concerned, appears to me as rather arrogant.

Which in turn, makes the whole STW repetitive of: “prove it and we shall believe you – its got to be black and white yadda yadda” sciencey bit (especially when ‘discussing’ faith and religion) somewhat questionable as we simply can only define the truth as we observe it, which is possibly not the actual truth.

Which is also quite possibly okay too. 😯

Which, as far as human science is concerned, appears to me as rather arrogant

Science is arrogant? Really? Or is it simply portrayed that way by media?

Just watch the clip posted by joolsburger^^^^ of the Feynman chap as an example.

Whlst he speaks quite eloquently of the methodology of everything being open to further investigation, the various snide comments towards the more left field hypothesis’ and the following self-congratulary sniggers from the audience struck me as arrogance.

Other responses are available.

Lets hope they don’t find shrimps on Europa. Could be the worst news ever

Isn’t describing pseudoscience as “left field hypothesis” just as arrogant though?
Trying to dignify fantasy by pretending it is just another branch of science.

Feynmann is not science, he is a scientist. Or was.

But making snide comments is not the same as institutional arrogance. A lot of alternative theories make absolutely no sense from a scientific point of view but their proponents don’t understand this. Imagine the ebay seller with the bso mishmash with 180mm dual crown forks telling you it’s an awesome dh bike.

Some theories do make sense and they are considered.

Isn’t describing pseudoscience as “left field hypothesis” just as arrogant though?

I don’t know. What do you define as ‘pseudoscience’?

Wikipedia summarises it far more eloquently than I could.

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories

I specifically used that Feynman clip because it shows the humility of science quite clearly. I’m amazed anyone could find something to criticise in it but hey ho… I don’t think a nobel prize winning, very highly regarded physicist saying that ESP has no evidence is arrogant..

I think some of you lot could do with watching this…

And I think it’s a pity that such programmes don’t get made by the Beeb or anyone else any more…

Just goes to illustrate how we can each interpret what we observe in different ways.

I will watch it again when I have the time, to see if my initial feelings remain.

Oh, and I wasn’t dissing the vid, I thought it was very good.

I’ll have a go at this one…

The term alien/fairies can be used interchangeably if you want with the same logical investigation if you wish and I bet you, you will not find answer to both …

If we had definite undeniable evidence of one fairy existing then it would be a “logical investigation” to wonder if there might be more of them. And it would seem a pretty reasonable hypothesis that there were.

So it is with life in space. We know with 100% certaintity that a planet supporting life is possible and has definitely happened once. So the “logical investigation” is to look for other examples.

Which in turn, makes the whole STW repetitive of: “prove it and we shall believe you – its got to be black and white yadda yadda” sciencey bit (especially when ‘discussing’ faith and religion) somewhat questionable

You appear to have fundamentally misunderstood this ‘STW repetitive’ despite its, ah, repetitive nature.

No one is saying, “prove it and we’ll believe you,” rather we require some form of evidence that a poisited claim has some substance to back up why we might take it seriously. This is how science works. I could claim, for instance, that I have invisible miniature unicorns living in my skirting boards. I cannot disprove this theory. However, there needs to be some shred of evidence to substantiate this theory; maybe I’ve found unicorn-holes or little rainbow-coloured droppings. In and of itself that wouldn’t prove anything, but it is at least some form of evidence that it might be true rather than some wild idea I’ve just pulled out of my arse.

See also, Russell’s Teapot (and for that matter, Occam’s Razor).

A scientific theory, despite the misleading name, isn’t “hey, I’ve got a theory, there might be unicorns!” Rather, it’s something which has been widely tested and appears to be true. Theories which hold up to scrutiny become stronger, whereas theories which don’t hold up to experimentation are rejected. This isn’t the same as requiring absolute proof, nor is it analogous with ‘making shit up’.

I’ll have a go at this one…

The term alien/fairies can be used interchangeably if you want with the same logical investigation if you wish and I bet you, you will not find answer to both …
If we had definite undeniable evidence of one fairy existing then it would be a “logical investigation” to wonder if there might be more of them. And it would seem a pretty reasonable hypothesis that there were.

So it is with life in space. We know with 100% certaintity that a planet supporting life is possible and has definitely happened once. So the “logical investigation” is to look for other examples.

Wot he said!
Also, looking for proof that something exists when you have some indication that it might, and looking for proof that another thing doesn’t exist when you have no indication that it does are not just different ends of the same stick. The first one might actually yield a result, or at least more information about what you’re looking for. The second one never will.

Not being able to say absolutely that something doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that you should give serious consideration to the idea that it might. It just puts it in the same category as Cougar’s skirting board unicorns, or Russell’s teapot, or the FSM. There’s no point thinking about it.

I’m particularly impressed by that.

IMO, I think you’d have to be pretty naive to think that we’re the only life in this lot.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/the-universe-is-scary?bffbuk&s=mobile

Where? Shrimp on earth? Or other planets? Does not make sense here sounds like a stab in the dark again …

Makes perfect sense if you’re not being deliberately obtuse. The point I’m trying to make is that there are creatures existing on our planet under the most extreme conditions, conditions that are quite likely to exist on a moon like Europa, or planets around other stars. If life, and fairly complex life at that, not just bacteria, can exist where temperatures can reach 700C, with total darkness and staggering water pressure, then it’s clearly not beyond the realms of possibility that similar life could be found in Europa’s oceans.
Faerie, on the other hand, is a fantasy realm created by people to tell stories involving imaginary things that they believed existed in the dark.
Try to find any proof of the existence of the aos sí, like the
Abartach
Alp Luachra
Bean Nighe/Caoineag
Bean Sídhe/Bean Sìth
Cat Sídhe/Cat Sìth
Cu Sídhe/Cu Sìth
Clurichaun
Dullahan
Fachen
Fear Dearg
Fuath
Gean Cánach
Gille Dubh
Glaistig/Glashtyn
Leanan Síd
These are all names of those of Faerie, The Fair Folk, People of the Mounds. People who were belived to live inside the Neolithic burial mounds that littered the countryside.
Now, if you can honestly provide convincing scientific evidence for the existence for such creatures, then please, by all means share it with us.
I rather think you’ll find much more convincing evidence for the likelihood of there being life on alien planets than you’ll find it for the existence of ghostly creatures living inside a 5000 year-old burial mound.

These are all names of those of Faerie, The Fair Folk, People of the Mounds

I thought they were whiskeys.