4 ms·

I don't think that's how probability works. There are lots of things that are hypothesized, and later found to exist (sometimes after explicitly searching, som

I don't think that's how probability works. There are lots of things that are hypothesized, and later found to exist (sometimes after explicitly searching, sometimes not). Comparing to Santa Claus without taking into account things like laws of physics/magic/supernatural doesn't make a lot of sense. Also, "zero ET" have been found because, although we are speaking of life, you have explicitly defined it as excluding the one example of life we know about, that on Earth. That seems a bit unfair. Given that we know of one example, hypothesizing another example isn't that extreme.

rumanator 7y ago
> I don't think that's how probability works. It actually is. Currently the empirical distribution for the likelihood of ET sightings stands as a big ass step function that reaches 100% at zero sightings. It's exactly equal to the likelihood of seeing santa. There is no way around it. > Comparing to Santa Claus without taking into account things like laws of physics/magic/supernatural Your assertion is simply wrong. So far the odds you come across an ET is a big fat zero. That's because in reality zero ETs have been confirmed to exists. There is no way around it. You may argue that there might be theoretical models that suggest X or Y but reality does not lie and ETs are as frequent as flying spaghetti monsters and santa claus, thus it makes as much sense to pin the blame on santa claus and the flying spaghetti monsters as ETs.