Do you believe in Aliens? (Page 8)

StuckInTheSixties:

hellboy, you're repeatedly using the word "theory," putting it in CAPS, putting it in "quotation marks," and obviously putting emphasis on that word.

That word has multiple definitions. Can you provide the definition that you're using?

lavendar_star: Well I have to say I'm a person who wants proof or at least a convincing sound argument that supports a belief or statement based on rational and verifiable evidence,
hence why I'm a agnostic atheists but at the same time this is wire club not the open university so I'm not to hang up on that too much.

Well I personally think that not necessarily in our life time but maybe sooner then we think there could be a chance that our global leaders and their puppet master could lead us into world war 3 and unlike the previous war, biological warfare and nuclear warfare could led to the destruction of all life on this planet ala Terminator 2 but Earth and all that lives within is quite robust so something would survive and be re ignited to bring forth life again. Our planet is quite amazing.

DiIIy: So when an Alien lands on earth and says hes God, would we believe.

calybonos: Some would say he is God,some would say he is a goddamned liar.

hellbhoy: ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
SITS I can't believe you asked me to define theory FFS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.How about put it in a way everyone on wireclub can understand ! in a nutshell without using a dictionary definition because theory isn't a definite "GUESSWORK" or how about "SPECULATE".

StuckInTheSixties:

Right. That's what I thought.

As I mentioned, the word has "multiple definitions."

You're using one usage, that a theory is guesswork, or speculation.

That's the COLLOQUIAL usage, not the SCIENTIFIC usage.

This is the scientific usage (my emphasis added in CAPS) :

A scientific theory is A SET OF PRINCIPLES that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and TESTED FOR ACCURACY THROUGH OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS. Once a hypothesis is VERIFIED, it becomes a theory.

calybonos: @Dilly
I think the way it would all play out is like this;

At first,everyone would stop what they were doing for a second and stare in shock.
Then,someone would end up throwing their shoe at him and then we would all go back to
business as usual...killing each other in the name of the one true God.

Lanra: dilly and caly, this movie is hilarious

hellbhoy: SITS absolute pish your post because theory in it's ultimate finite definition is SPECULATION and if you accept speculation as truth or evidence then why not just admit you believe there is alien life out there on that basis.

I have a theory FFS that this thread is totally ruined on a hypothesis that someone is right and has been calculated through observations and tested for accuracy through a set of principles and rigorous experimentation by argument to achieve the same outcome that there will be no agreeable solution.

You believe the scientists SITS and here's an evident truth ! scientists get things wrong all the time when some smart arse and not only just scientists eventually does come up with definitive answers that prove them wrong.

Google accepted scientific factual data that was eventually proved wrong then come back in a year or so !.

StuckInTheSixties:

That's a curious, not to mention contradictory, point of view.

You're been posting elaborate essays with all sorts of "facts" based on science as you "understand" it, and now, you're essentially saying that science is unreliable guesswork and speculation because of "accepted scientific factual data that was eventually proved wrong."

That you don't comprehend - or accept - that there is a difference between what is referred to as Scientific Theory and the colloquial usage of the word speaks volumes, and dovetails perfectly, with your posts.

DiIIy: @ Caly

Id be hoping it to be an Alien who comes in peace and obviously has a sense of humor.

@ Alura, dont think ive watched that one, ill have a look for it.

hellbhoy: OH YEH SITS I have a better understanding of the workings of scientific proofing on the universe than you do.Yes we know some things for certain about it "5%" but the rest is all guesswork as you plainly typed back at me.And if you can't understand what I typed in previous posts then clearly shows you suffer from lack of understanding the complexities involved.

I don't know what they are going to call the new laws of physics from Cern but our understanding of the universe is going to change.Even NASA has dismissed Einsteins theories before Cern began.

If you didn't know ! ALL we supposedly know ! less "5%" ! about the universe or everything in it at the moment is based on Einsteins theory of relativity.

LiptonCambell: Okay, we're getting way off topic;

Hellbhoy- do you have any SPECIFIC challenges in our logic on the issue(the existence of aliens)- or do you intend on just listing all the reasons why you doubt some unrelated scientific conclusions, and imply that we should have the same conclusions elsewhere?

As I said earlier this week, and 60's pointed out recently, you reject science for some answers, but support it for others. Why is that? It seems like you want to hold a contradictory viewpoint

hellbhoy: YES 60's challenges after my posts on my reasons why the possibility and probability FOR alien life and then we end up where we are by questioning my reasoning or asking proof for and why I believe there COULD be alien life.Then he has the cheek to post I'm a BELIEVER there IS when all the time I clearly stated I believe there could be and make a good argument for by reasoning of it could be on a planet around a sun but not like ours.Then we end up on the the universe and it's complexities that the things we know about it mostly are just theoretical speculation and he just won't back off on that one.We know there are stars and planets around some of them so why not the probability for alien life even if it doesn't have DNA like us or have to have an atmosphere like us or breath oxygen like us or carbon dioxide like the plants (life) or be carbon based like us or mostly 90% water like us ?.I think I have just increased the odds there of alien life by not just theorizing by life on earth ?.Also I pointed out one piece of evidence for ! there is life on earth and to assume earth is the only planet in the ever expanding universe that has or ever did or ever will without proof or evidence is just plain silly in my opinion.

I think originally the thread may have presumed to most people,little green or grey men with big heads in spaceships when they first read it and it has evolved a little further now maybe ?.

LiptonCambell: >>>We know there are stars and planets around some of them so why not the probability for alien life

Because. there. is. no. evidence. to. support. such. a. claim.

For starters, we don't know the "probability for alien life"- such a probability cannot be made because we don't know much of our own origins.

>>>even if it doesn't have DNA like us or have to have an atmosphere like us or breath oxygen like us or carbon dioxide like the plants (life) or be carbon based like us or mostly 90% water like us ?

I agree with you there- but then again, where does that leave us for determining probability? I mean, I agree- the drakes equation is flawed, along with the previously stated reason above, because life could form in circumstances we do not yet know or understand.

So how do you determine probability? Just what feels right?

>>>I think I have just increased the odds there of alien life by not just theorizing by life on earth ?

Again, we don't know. We need more information to really say yes or no to that answer- but one fact remains- we are the only example of life known in the universe......

>>>there is life on earth and to assume earth is the only planet in the ever expanding universe that has or ever did or ever will without proof or evidence is just plain silly in my opinion.

Regardless if you think it silly, as far as we can tell, that's how the universe is. Ignoring the only facts we have because you think its "silly" is....well....silly....

Aura: You know, In my opinion we need to believe something is possible for it to ever get done. Just look at the light bulb, heavier than air flight, even faster than sound travel. There were a lot of people saying it could not be done, some where saying it was too hard to do, some were even saying that it was 'silly' to try. And then there were a few stubborn souls who insisted it was possible and they happen to do it. There are probably twice as many examples of people who tried to do something 'impossible' and failed, but those people didn't get famous.
But the mother of invention (or discovery) isn't really necessity, as common wisdom dictates, but dreams. You are much more likely to invent or discover something by starting to invent or look for something. Sometimes it's what you are looking for, sometimes it is not, sometimes you end up with a winner while you set out to do something different all together. For instance, Viagra was originally looked at as a new medicine for the heart. Turns out it worked on a very different body part But that happy accident would not have happened had researches not come up with the theory that Sildenafil citrate would have a positive effect on blood vessels. And it does just that, just not in the way they thought it would. Were they being 'silly' for making a theory around very little evidence about Sildenafil citrate? Depends on how you look at it. They did 'fail'.....
So we need the dreamer who can say with enough certainty that life exists outside of our solar system to dedicate their time to it for there ever being any hope to finding it, or something else as amazing.

StuckInTheSixties:

It's really not necessary at all to "believe" in aliens in order to search for them. The most ardent searchers for alien existence in the scientific community, such as SETI or NASA researchers,will, on one hand, cheerfully tell you that there's no conclusive evidence whatsoever for alien existence, but on the other hand, they're devoted to the search for it.

Aura: Ofcourse, just look at the responses here. If one was to say they believed their search would one day be successful, their reputations would be down the drain, people would write them off as hacks. But with all the fascinating branches in science, all the thing still left undiscovered here on earth, why would anyone who believes there is no life elsewhere in the universe dedicate their time searching for it? Just so they can proof themselves right? That is a little too cynical for me to buy. I think they do secretly believe, just hiding behind this conclusive evidence line. A true scientist will say that absence of proof is no proof of absence, so no one will deny that the search should be done, but they all want to be part of something that is ultimately successful, or at least increases our understanding of things in some significant way. That means if they thought there was no chance they would find something they would spend their time on something more productive

StuckInTheSixties:

That entire post seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what I said. You seem to have concluded that I'm characterizing SETI and NASA researchers as "believing there is no life elsewhere in the universe." That's not at all what I said.

CaffeinatedZen says:
"If one was to say they believed their search would one day be successful, their reputations would be down the drain, people would write them off as hacks."

Well, not necessarily "hacks," per se. But if that was the case, they would correctly be seen as lacking objectivity.

CaffeinatedZen says:
"But with all the fascinating branches in science, all the thing still left undiscovered here on earth, why would anyone who believes there is no life elsewhere in the universe dedicate their time searching for it? Just so they can proof themselves right? That is a little too cynical for me to buy."

You're apparently misunderstanding. I didn't say that those scientists searching for extra-terrestrial life DON'T "believe there is no life elsewhere in the universe." They would need evidence to support such a belief. There's simply no evidence either way.

CaffeinatedZen says:
"I think they do secretly believe, just hiding behind this conclusive evidence line."

I'll take their word for it rather than reading their minds, or amateur psychoanalyzing them.

CaffeinatedZen says:
"A true scientist will say that absence of proof is no proof of absence ..."

True. But by the same token, absence of proof certainly isn't proof of presence, either. Absence of proof is merely absence of proof, nothing more.

CaffeinatedZen says:
"... no one will deny that the search should be done, but they all want to be part of something that is ultimately successful, or at least increases our understanding of things in some significant way."

I agree. A successful search must be gratifying. But how does that support your hypothesis that they must subjectively "believe" else they wouldn't conduct the search? Why do you see it as impossible to objectively wait for the evidence before harboring a belief one way or the other?

CaffeinatedZen says:
"That means if they thought there was no chance they would find something they would spend their time on something more productive."

Again, you appear to misunderstand. You seem to be suggesting that there are only two ways to consider the notion of extra-terrestrial life:
~ It must exist
~ It must not exist

Neither of those positions is rational without evidence (and there is no evidence). Without evidence, the only rational position is:
~ It might exist

If you can accept that, then you might modify this question of yours ...

"why would anyone who believes there is no life elsewhere in the universe dedicate their time searching for it?"

... in to this question:

Why would anyone who believes there MIGHT BE life elsewhere in the universe dedicate their time searching for it?

My answer to that is that if that if the question can be answered, it will be the most important discovery in history. That's plenty of justification for the search.

Aura: Okay, I see where the problem lies
See, to me 'believe' really is a yes/no thing. If we find proof, believe would not be necessary because there is proof. Then it would be a certainty. Debate after proof really is kind of silly. That would be like those saying the concentration camps were never real, or we never went to the moon, or that the are cloned humans walking around.

'Believe' to me is not a certainty. When I say I believe it means in my mind it is possible. It doesn't mean I'm certain. But If I were to say I didn't believe, then it would not be possible in my mind, and I would not 'waste time' on the subject.

It is correct that believe is not rational. The whole point of believing is that there is a lack of evidence. But I can not say I do not have an opinion because there is a lack of evidence, I form opinions all the time and it almost happens on their own. Objectivity is a nice ideal and I might act as if I were objective as to not color the interpretation of data gathered, but I don't think I've ever been truly objective about anything. However my believes and opinions are not set in stone and I am very willing to admit to myself or anyone that I was wrong

StuckInTheSixties:

You say:
"See, to me 'believe' really is a yes/no thing."

What if the question is one in which you have no basis to decide "yes or no"?

For instance, if I said, right now: "My shirt is red" (particularly in the context of my making that statement as an example here), you have absolutely no indication whether or not that statement is true or false. There are plenty of reasons why, for the purposes of this little demonstration, I would make that a true statement, or a false statement. It's a coin toss. The only rational thing for you to say is "I don't know" because you have no positive indication one way or the the other.

'Believe' to me is not a certainty. When I say I believe it means in my mind it is possible. It doesn't mean I'm certain. But If I were to say I didn't believe, then it would not be possible in my mind, and I would not 'waste time' on the subject.

Here's the dictionary definition of "believe" :

1. accept something as true; transitive verb to accept that something is true or real

If you're assigning your own (incorrect) meanings to words, that makes it difficult to communicate in any sort of meaningful way.

Aura: Well yes, you accept something to be true.
As with your statement, if you were to say your shirt is red, i would believe you. Why? because I've seen you posts and I accept you as true (not a faker or troll). I am still not sure that your shirt is indeed red. I do believe you.
True I should have said 'probable' instead of 'possible'. I believe aliens exist somewhere in this universe, i accept that this is true. I'm still not certain because certainty would require proof. Once proof is given one way or the other, I do not need to believe anything.

StuckInTheSixties:

But you missed the point about the "red shirt" business. I purposefully included the phrase ...

"particularly in the context of my making that statement as an example here"

... and I even put it in parentheses for emphasis. I constructed that example purposefully to remove any way that anything like my previous posts, whether I'm seen as a faker or troll, or ANYTHING ELSE you could possibly conceive could be useful as any sort of evidence or indication.

And again, you say: "I am still not sure that your shirt is indeed red. I do believe you."

I don't know of any other way to say this other than to point out that this usage of the English language is nonsensical.

And in exactly the same way, you say: "I believe aliens exist somewhere in this universe, i accept that this is true. I'm still not certain because certainty would require proof."

This usage of the language is, again, simply nonsensical. In any rational use of English, not to mention logical thought, you can't accept something as "true," yet not be certain of it.

Aura: okay.