3 ms·
Scientifically speaking, that it's an asteroid is the default or null hypothesis. That it's an alien artifact is the alternate hypothesis. The burden of proof
by SkyMarshal 8y ago
Scientifically speaking, that it's an asteroid is the default or null hypothesis. That it's an alien artifact is the alternate hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on the latter, this is just SoP in science. Otherwise we end up with a world full of superstition, as it was for most human history.
We have no evidence yet of other intelligent life in the universe. But we know there are quadrillions of asteroids all over the place, some of which pass by us every so often.
Occam's razor, correctly stated, says that, all else equal, the explanation that relies on the fewest assumptions is most likely the true one. Given our lack of evidence for intelligent life, and preponderance of evidence of asteroids, the former explanation requires far more assumptions than the latter.
- dogma1138 8y agoBy definition it’s not an asteroid, it’s a celestial body but we don’t have a classification for it since we never seen one before. It is also not a comet, so the null hypothesis is that it’s a rocky natural object but it doesn’t mean it’s an asteroid. The best classification we might have for it is a distant detached object (DDO) but since it’s likely not part of our solar system it can’t be classified as a detached object by the current minor planetary object classification system we have either.
- SkyMarshal 8y agoFair enough. Should probably just generalize that's some kind of naturally occurring thing that's not the result of alien intelligence.