5 ms·

It's easy to ridicule this, but I wish we would be more open towards "crazy" ideas in general. I believe that every person has something to teach me and contrib

It's easy to ridicule this, but I wish we would be more open towards "crazy" ideas in general. I believe that every person has something to teach me and contribute to the world, and if I have any strong preconceptions in my interaction with them that severely limits my power to benefit.

blocked_again 7y ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.
gruez 7y ago
On the flip side, being open towards "crazy" ideas opens you to DDoS attacks from legitimate lunatics, in the form of you having to spend mental energy analyzing and responding to them.
- dionian 7y ago
  but appeal to popularity/authority is not the proper way to validate a hypothesis no matter what
  - mikeash 7y ago
    What does “proper” mean? Because it’s certainly the only practical way to validate most hypotheses. Sure, I could spend a couple of decades independently evaluating the effectiveness and safety of the flu vaccine, but in the meantime I’m going to have to decide whether to wear my seat belt and whether these apples I bought are safe to eat and how often to water my plants and so many more things. Appeal to authority is necessarily the way most people validate most hypotheses they depend on.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - brador 7y ago
    Nor is appealing to the absence of popularity/authority. Step 1 of the scientific method is a plausible hypothesis.
abcc8 7y ago
Many 'crazy' ideas are supported by at least some evidence that is rational and grounded in reality. I doubt such evidence exists for this claim.
- tyingq 7y ago
  Oddly specific claims also: "Dr Chi believes that there are four types of aliens: small; tall and bold; aliens with scales and snake eyes; and finally, insect-like aliens. The latter of these seems to be the highest in the hierarchy, he said, and gives orders to the lower ranks."
  - Sharlin 7y ago
    Hmm. Small: https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Sectoid_(XCOM:_Enemy_Unknown) https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Sectoid_(XCOM:_Enemy_Unknown) Tall and bold: https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Muton_(XCOM:_Enemy_Unknown) https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Muton_(XCOM:_Enemy_Unknown) Scales and snake eyes: https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Thin_Man https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Thin_Man Insect-like: https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Chryssalid https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Chryssalid Coincidence?
    - CaptainJustin 7y ago
      Could be some advanced trolling going on here.
  - masonic 7y ago
    Perhaps Dr. Chi fell asleep listening to "Enterprise" episodes about the Xindi?
  - divs1210 7y ago
    Half Life 3 confirmed.
microwavecamera 7y ago
Honestly, if someone were to look at at all the science and evidence objectively it would be scientifically unsound to conclude that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere in our own universe or even outside it.
- revscat 7y ago
  Explain, please. The only justifications for life elsewhere to exist that I am aware of are statistical, not evidential.
  - microwavecamera 7y ago
    It's an involved topic. More than I can just briefly summarize, but what's the scientific argument against it?
  - AlanSE 7y ago
    I see the fallacy in the parent comment just a little differently. It suffers from the "can't prove a negative" problem. The comment never argued in favor of life elsewhere, and certainly not in any concrete form. It only said that we can't conclude that it doesn't exist. There is only an emotional suggestion that it does exist. So it just boils down to an unhelpfully weak statement. Virtually all scientific minded people agree with the statement. The suspiciousness (like with religion) is placing such a weak statement about the general proposition in the middle of a discussion about a specific proposition (reptiles, interbreeding, etc.), and that doesn't make much sense on closer inspection. Why bring the straw-man up THEN if not suggesting a stronger form of belief?
    - microwavecamera 7y ago
      > n the middle of a discussion about a specific proposition (reptiles, interbreeding, etc.) Reptiles? Who said anything about that? If we're just refuting David Icke here, than yes, he's a crackpot and should just be ignored. Seriously, that guy is a lunatic at best and a scam artist at worst. Probably some combination of the two.
  - 7y ago
sohkamyung 7y ago
Apt quotation: "Do Not Be So Open-Minded That Your Brains Fall Out" [1] [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/
zwaps 7y ago
I agree and think it is better to have some crazy and unconventional ideas than to restrain free research. While this is probably some misapplied statistical analysis, I hope the worst consequence is a harsh rejection based on methodology. Free research will and should probably also lead to crazy ideas once in a while. The status system in academia is pretty strong. This guy will face judgement among his peers.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

blocked_again 7y ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

gruez 7y ago

On the flip side, being open towards "crazy" ideas opens you to DDoS attacks from legitimate lunatics, in the form of you having to spend mental energy analyzing and responding to them.

dionian 7y ago
but appeal to popularity/authority is not the proper way to validate a hypothesis no matter what
- mikeash 7y ago
  What does “proper” mean? Because it’s certainly the only practical way to validate most hypotheses. Sure, I could spend a couple of decades independently evaluating the effectiveness and safety of the flu vaccine, but in the meantime I’m going to have to decide whether to wear my seat belt and whether these apples I bought are safe to eat and how often to water my plants and so many more things. Appeal to authority is necessarily the way most people validate most hypotheses they depend on.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- brador 7y ago
  Nor is appealing to the absence of popularity/authority. Step 1 of the scientific method is a plausible hypothesis.

abcc8 7y ago

Many 'crazy' ideas are supported by at least some evidence that is rational and grounded in reality. I doubt such evidence exists for this claim.

tyingq 7y ago
Oddly specific claims also: "Dr Chi believes that there are four types of aliens: small; tall and bold; aliens with scales and snake eyes; and finally, insect-like aliens. The latter of these seems to be the highest in the hierarchy, he said, and gives orders to the lower ranks."
- Sharlin 7y ago
  Hmm. Small: https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Sectoid_(XCOM:_Enemy_Unknown) https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Sectoid_(XCOM:_Enemy_Unknown) Tall and bold: https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Muton_(XCOM:_Enemy_Unknown) https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Muton_(XCOM:_Enemy_Unknown) Scales and snake eyes: https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Thin_Man https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Thin_Man Insect-like: https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Chryssalid https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Chryssalid Coincidence?
  - CaptainJustin 7y ago
    Could be some advanced trolling going on here.
- masonic 7y ago
  Perhaps Dr. Chi fell asleep listening to "Enterprise" episodes about the Xindi?
- divs1210 7y ago
  Half Life 3 confirmed.

microwavecamera 7y ago

Honestly, if someone were to look at at all the science and evidence objectively it would be scientifically unsound to conclude that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere in our own universe or even outside it.

revscat 7y ago
Explain, please. The only justifications for life elsewhere to exist that I am aware of are statistical, not evidential.
- microwavecamera 7y ago
  It's an involved topic. More than I can just briefly summarize, but what's the scientific argument against it?
- AlanSE 7y ago
  I see the fallacy in the parent comment just a little differently. It suffers from the "can't prove a negative" problem. The comment never argued in favor of life elsewhere, and certainly not in any concrete form. It only said that we can't conclude that it doesn't exist. There is only an emotional suggestion that it does exist. So it just boils down to an unhelpfully weak statement. Virtually all scientific minded people agree with the statement. The suspiciousness (like with religion) is placing such a weak statement about the general proposition in the middle of a discussion about a specific proposition (reptiles, interbreeding, etc.), and that doesn't make much sense on closer inspection. Why bring the straw-man up THEN if not suggesting a stronger form of belief?
  - microwavecamera 7y ago
    > n the middle of a discussion about a specific proposition (reptiles, interbreeding, etc.) Reptiles? Who said anything about that? If we're just refuting David Icke here, than yes, he's a crackpot and should just be ignored. Seriously, that guy is a lunatic at best and a scam artist at worst. Probably some combination of the two.
- 7y ago

sohkamyung 7y ago

Apt quotation: "Do Not Be So Open-Minded That Your Brains Fall Out" [1] [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/

zwaps 7y ago

I agree and think it is better to have some crazy and unconventional ideas than to restrain free research. While this is probably some misapplied statistical analysis, I hope the worst consequence is a harsh rejection based on methodology. Free research will and should probably also lead to crazy ideas once in a while. The status system in academia is pretty strong. This guy will face judgement among his peers.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]