The problem with Alien debates.

[Brick-top]

I've noticed a recurring theme with people who absolutely believe Aliens exist outside our solar system.

Here's the problem, they ALL use the same argument. It's obvious they phrase it differently. They claim the possibility is incredibly high for alien life, then they say there are million and billions and trillions of stars/planets/galaxies so there must be life.

Apart from the fact they usually give inaccurate numbers this does not prove alien life exists outside the solar system. You prove something by using evidence, not some obscure possibility.

Let's not forget this argument violates every single probability fallacy ever conceived.

Any thoughts?

[NeoBlueFalcon]

I'm a bit of a skeptic myself when it comes to alien life myself.
I would rather see actual physical evidence rather than listen to someone go on and on about the sublect. Until then, I just refuse to believe it.

I think the argument largely leans on falsifiability, as in, the prescence of aliens cannot be proved or disproved, because it cannot be shown in a direct scientific experiment. If we had the ability to see everywhere in the universe, then we could perhaps make extraterrestrial prescence a scientific theory. Since we don't have that ability, we have to settle with these arguments we have now, based on prediction, which in turn are based on the pieces of evidence we currently have on either side.

If I have that right, that is. Argh, I hate you Karl Popper.

[aninjaman]

Is this just about aliens?

[RubberTrucky]

It doesn't prove the existence of extraterrestrial life forms, but it simply indicates there is a possibility they exist.

The Higgs particle for instance has yet to be observed and it existence is predicted only by indirect interactions and abstract theories. Can we refute the hypothesis just like that because there is only a theoretical possibility it exists?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 3/26/09 05:00 PM, Scarab wrote: If I have that right, that is. Argh, I hate you Karl Popper.

Popper is amazing. He's the only philosopher I've ever read who writes in a style that is actually easy to understand.

Fuck you Bhaskar! Fuck you and your stupid verboseness....

[stafffighter]

At 3/26/09 05:08 PM, aninjaman wrote: Is this just about aliens?

Unlikely.

What sepersates this argumnt from say, the existance of a God, is that space is proven to exist. That there is a great expanse out there with other stars and orbiting bodiesin it is a point of repeatedly substantiated fact. With that considered the mathmatical probability that through all this only one instance of intelligent life occured is almost unfathomable. It's like looking at a hospital and wondering if there's more than one sick person in it.
Note that I am not defending abduction stories, just the existance of other life.

At 3/26/09 05:17 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Popper is amazing. He's the only philosopher I've ever read who writes in a style that is actually easy to understand.

Admittedly, I've never read any of his original texts, but rather pieced together falsification principle through texts on him. I think more accurately I have a thing against the philosophy of science, haha.

Fuck you Bhaskar! Fuck you and your stupid verboseness....

I'm curious now. Skimming Wikipedia, I noticed the slight similarities between him and those of critical theory, so I might end up meeting him soon in my own time. I'll look forward to it!

[Brick-top]

At 3/26/09 05:18 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 3/26/09 05:08 PM, aninjaman wrote: Is this just about aliens?

Unlikely.

What sepersates this argumnt from say, the existance of a God

They're completely separate.

Aliens = Natural.
God = Supernatural.

And you used the exact same argument I mentioned in my earlier post.

[Patton3]

I believe life is out there, but I think it's ridiculously remote from our solar system, and probably something microscopic and completely unlike what is found on this little blue oasis of ours. As for those that believe crap like they're studying us, the government is "in on it", and any other phrases that are syptoms of diarhea of the mouth, they can just stay on YouTube and in the South-west.

[stafffighter]

At 3/26/09 05:42 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 3/26/09 05:18 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 3/26/09 05:08 PM, aninjaman wrote: Is this just about aliens?

Unlikely.

What sepersates this argumnt from say, the existance of a God

They're completely separate.

Aliens = Natural.
God = Supernatural.

And you used the exact same argument I mentioned in my earlier post.

Yes, the one you hastily misunderstood to enforce your feeling of being correct, which is why I mistook you for an aithist, my bad.

[Brick-top]

At 3/26/09 05:47 PM, stafffighter wrote: Yes, the one you hastily misunderstood to enforce your feeling of being correct, which is why I mistook you for an aithist, my bad.

I do not know what an 'aithist' is. I was suspecting misspelling but your grammar is perfectly fine.

Do tell.

I was originally wishing to avoid the 'possibility of God' arguments being mentioned.

[stafffighter]

At 3/26/09 05:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:

I do not know what an 'aithist' is. I was suspecting misspelling but your grammar is perfectly fine.

Misspelling it was. I do that. I'm fair sure I did that with misspelling. But that's not the point.

Do tell.

Your argument was that the number of other stars and such is greatly exaggerated. Then can you tell us how many there are?

I was originally wishing to avoid the 'possibility of God' arguments being mentioned.

Consider it done.

[RubberTrucky]

At 3/26/09 05:58 PM, stafffighter wrote:
Your argument was that the number of other stars and such is greatly exaggerated. Then can you tell us how many there are?

There are 1011 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.

Quote Feynman...

[RubberTrucky]

10^11, I meant...

[stafffighter]

At 3/26/09 06:04 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 3/26/09 05:58 PM, stafffighter wrote:
Your argument was that the number of other stars and such is greatly exaggerated. Then can you tell us how many there are?

There are 1011 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.

Quote Feynman...

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, the bad economy proves that there aren't aliens?

[RubberTrucky]

At 3/26/09 06:16 PM, stafffighter wrote:
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, the bad economy proves that there aren't aliens?

Hey, Feynman said it, so it must be true.

[Brick-top]

At 3/26/09 05:58 PM, stafffighter wrote: Your argument was that the number of other stars and such is greatly exaggerated. Then can you tell us how many there are?

Wrong. I never said 'greatly exaggerated' I said: "usually give inaccurate numbers" Gotta love quote mines.

Here ya go. I thought this link would be amusing when the first line says: "The chances of"

This argument is being thrown around more than a baseball.

[RubberTrucky]

At 3/26/09 06:19 PM, Brick-top wrote:
This argument is being thrown around more than a baseball.

But do people actually claim that this possibility alone in fact proves that there is extraterrestrial life?

[Brick-top]

At 3/26/09 06:25 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 3/26/09 06:19 PM, Brick-top wrote:
This argument is being thrown around more than a baseball.

But do people actually claim that this possibility alone in fact proves that there is extraterrestrial life?

Sort of. Some people will draw a definite conclusion from it rather than remaining sceptical or waiting for evidence.

[RubberTrucky]

At 3/26/09 06:28 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Sort of. Some people will draw a definite conclusion from it rather than remaining sceptical or waiting for evidence.

But they don't say it is actual proof?
Then I can't see why this is so wrong.

I find it more stupid when they jump into conspiracy theories and observe every anomaly (UFO sightings) as a proof for alien life forms on earth.

[thedo12]

personaly I think its probabel there is at least some form of alein life , out there. even if its just single celled organisims.

no one can tell for sure though.

[stafffighter]

At 3/26/09 06:19 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 3/26/09 05:58 PM, stafffighter wrote: Your argument was that the number of other stars and such is greatly exaggerated. Then can you tell us how many there are?

Wrong. I never said 'greatly exaggerated' I said: "usually give inaccurate numbers" Gotta love quote mines.

Well given that I didn't actually attempt to quote you let me go ahead and whip myself like the big dude in the Da Vinci code over using that term.

Here ya go. I thought this link would be amusing when the first line says: "The chances of"

The complete sentence is "The chances of Earth being alone in the universe just got a whole lot smaller, as astronomers have dramatically raised the estimate on how many planets are out there. "

That, my friend, is a quote bomb.

This argument is being thrown around more than a baseball.

By people a lot more educated in the field than either of us so, I'm gonna go with them.

[Jon-86]

At 3/26/09 04:30 PM, Brick-top wrote: Any thoughts?

They just headr about being probed and hope it one day happens to them!

[Dawnslayer]

Before this topic goes any further:

Space is huge. We're one planet among countless others, orbiting one star among countless others, in one giant galaxy among countless others.

Does this mean there is absolutely life on other planets? No, and sentient life is even less likely.

BUT, at the same time it is not impossible. Our own existence is a fluke, and it cannot be proven or disproven that a similar fluke didn't occur somewhere else.

That said, one should examine the prerequisites for life as we know it to exist and the probably of those prerequisites occuring before passing judgement.

[Brick-top]

At 3/26/09 06:47 PM, stafffighter wrote: Well given that I didn't actually attempt to quote you let me go ahead and whip myself like the big dude in the Da Vinci code over using that term.

"Your argument was that the number of other stars and such is greatly exaggerated."

Exaggerated and inaccurate, have different definitions.

Here ya go. I thought this link would be amusing when the first line says: "The chances of"

The complete sentence is "The chances of Earth being alone in the universe just got a whole lot smaller, as astronomers have dramatically raised the estimate on how many planets are out there. "

That, my friend, is a quote bomb.

Chance is not evidence.

Not to mention they're estimates, not actual figures.

This argument is being thrown around more than a baseball.

By people a lot more educated in the field than either of us so, I'm gonna go with them.

If that is the case, we cannot debate science. Since they are 'a lot more educated'

But then again, when it comes to probability, possibility or chance I tend to throw the claim into the 'dismiss' bin till actual evidence is found and not just a repeat of the planetary contents of the universe.

The possibility of man-eating marshmallow's has now jumped to immensely high.

[RubberTrucky]

At 3/26/09 07:18 PM, Brick-top wrote:
"Your argument was that the number of other stars and such is greatly exaggerated."

Exaggerated and inaccurate, have different definitions.

What do you mean by inaccurate then?
Do you mean overestimating (thus exaggerating) or do you refer to the term millions, instead of 5 236789?

Chance is not evidence.

Neither do they claim it is evidence, at least a lot of them, as stated in your previous reply.

Not to mention they're estimates, not actual figures.

It would be odd if an astronomer can give the amount of stars up to unity...

But then again, when it comes to probability, possibility or chance I tend to throw the claim into the 'dismiss' bin till actual evidence is found and not just a repeat of the planetary contents of the universe.

A lot of science is based on statistics and estimates. Don't hold the power of probabilities in such low regards.

The possibility of man-eating marshmallow's has now jumped to immensely high.

Why is there a possibility for such creature to exist?

[Dawnslayer]

At 3/26/09 07:24 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 3/26/09 07:18 PM, Brick-top wrote: The possibility of man-eating marshmallow's has now jumped to immensely high.

Why is there a possibility for such creature to exist?

Because we chose the form of the destroyer.

Most useless post I've ever made in Politics. My apologies; I couldn't pass it up.

[Brick-top]

At 3/26/09 07:24 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: What do you mean by inaccurate then?
Do you mean overestimating (thus exaggerating) or do you refer to the term millions, instead of 5 236789?

Incorrect or not true.

Simple as that.

Chance is not evidence.

Neither do they claim it is evidence, at least a lot of them, as stated in your previous reply.

Many do use this as evidence.

Not to mention they're estimates, not actual figures.

It would be odd if an astronomer can give the amount of stars up to unity...

They can account for actual figures, however estimates have a higher chance of being inaccurate.

But then again, when it comes to probability, possibility or chance I tend to throw the claim into the 'dismiss' bin till actual evidence is found and not just a repeat of the planetary contents of the universe.

A lot of science is based on statistics and estimates. Don't hold the power of probabilities in such low regards.

Statistics have a higher level of accuracy because they're based on more viable number crunching.

The possibility of man-eating marshmallow's has now jumped to immensely high.

Why is there a possibility for such creature to exist?

Apparently the planetary amount means aliens, so why not marshmallow people? It's possible, yet you're going to dismiss it just like I'm dismissing aliens.

[zNelson24]

There hasent been any evidence to disapprove of life on other planets, so Im not giving my hopes up on looking for life out of this world.