3 ms·

There is a BIG difference between Bigfoot which would be limited to the forested areas of the earth and UFOs which would have the entire universe to inhabit and

There is a BIG difference between Bigfoot which would be limited to the forested areas of the earth and UFOs which would have the entire universe to inhabit and hide in. With our most advanced cutting edge telescopes and other remote sensing tech we have trouble detecting planets and other not glowing large bodies of mass if they aren’t orbiting a star, how on earth does anyone think we can confidently say there are no space craft present that we cannot see? Sounds more like everyone wants to believe that rather than it being based on any type of observation.

wpietri 5y ago
Sure. The same logic is true of angels. How can we confidently say that supernatural beings aren't everywhere around us right now? How can you say I'm not a demon here to trick you into denying God's glorious helpers? The answer to this is that there are infinite possible things that could be true. But until there's decent evidence, nobody is obliged to take it seriously. Do I think there is alien life somewhere in the universe? The odds seem very good. Do I think that a bunch of them have crossed the galaxies just to spend decades hanging around and fucking with people? I don't in the slightest. The simpler explanation is that primate brains evolved to survive on the African savannas are maybe not perfectly tuned to dealing with a universe 93 billion light-years across. That all of these ever-liminal phenomena share a pretty mundane set of explanations in the evolutionary history of the human cognitive architecture.
- gadf 5y ago
  What if they are already in our solar system, hidden, or holed up on some moon somewhere, and they have been for eons. They don't have to come across the galaxies to get here (even if they can, even if that's where they're from). If they're already in our local area you don't need to pretend aliens are physically impossible to arrive. And that possibility seems equal with all others in this speculation, but people rarely consider it, and instead sight the (shortsighted) "physical impossibility" of travel from far away regions in milky way or outside, as "explanation" for why anything we see cannot be aliens. But it's lazy and stupid and doesn't consider this local cluster possibility. No one's ever "obliged" to do anything, particularly about this, but "decent" is your judgment. What the decent evidence your family loves you? It's not hard data. it's a story you piece together and your existence depends on it. Far less high stakes whether or not aliens are visiting us or not, for you personally, for easier to accept or reject this belief for personal reasons. I think something else is involved in what makes this hard for people to consider. Not sure what it is. Maybe something like ridiculous anthropocentrist arrogance? "Aliens can't travel here because we don't know how they could."
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Anything's possible, but I deny aliens being resident in the solar system is equally possible. What you're doing is classic "god of the gaps" thinking. Science fiction from 100 years ago imagined aliens on Venus and Mars. From early telescope images, people believed there were canals on Mars. It was all bunk, of course. We have enough data that current live on Mars and Venus looks much less likely. So now you've pushed the little green men back to the parts we can't see as well. That's not because there's any evidence there, but because you have started with a conclusion and you're reasoning toward it.
    - gadf 5y ago
      And what you're doing is denying looking at stuff because it doesn't confirm your biases. There's a bunch of weird things in solar system and mountains of evidence for weirdness on Earth that you'd have question marks over if you were being honest about this. You may say you want there to be aliens here but you're not acting like you're willing to engage with the evidence about this. You're viewing it through a preconceived idea. Right there's no smoke gun evidence for solar residence but there's no evidence for them not being there. Circumstantial evidence for proximity to help explain the evidence that they're here on Earth. "God of the gaps" is a biased and weird way to describe something you do every day. You have a hypothesis, you know there's something wrong, somewhere, but you don't know where it is. So you go looking. Is it in your fridge? No. The closet? No. Under the rug? Backseat of the car? No. Where could it be? Maybe you just imagined the thing. But you were so sure. But there's no evidence....But there is. You sensed something was wrong. You saw the thing yesterday, and now can't see it. Because you have some Wikipedia page and fancy scary name for some thing that's a normal part of human thinking (and science -- where are all those particles? Let's search in other energy levels and collisions ...) then any thing that looks like that is "little green men" and "bunk"? Come on. By that logic the housemate's lost package, the smell in the living room and the bug you hunt down in your program is bunk. You're sure there's a bug (might it not just be how you're measuring it?), and you employ a process of elimination. That you employ that process does not make you crazy...but it seems you would look yourself in the mirror and think, "I'm crazy for doing god in the gaps thinking about this bug." Or is that just what you say about others but not yourself? I just think it's not the type of erroneous thinking you think. It's actually logical. We have a big search space, we have some signals, now go find where they originate. It's a big space, and you don't have access to any of it. If you want to sit there and say, there's nothing there. That's completely illogical. It's not even "unlikely" that there's nothing there. You have signals on Earth, and by your logic of the impossibility of intergalactic travel, the signals are more likely to originate locally. So... just because you didn't find it on Venus or Mars (so far, but have you been there?), doesn't mean they're not here. There's a lot of places we haven't looked, and they could be there. You may deny it but that doesn't change one iota of the reality. It's just your belief about it. "God of the gaps" cuts both ways. Every time you see a gap, "You can say, see this is more support to what I'm saying." I can say that. SO can you. It doesn't disprove what you think is unlikely. It doesn't make it more likely. People used to say Marilyn Monroe made a man more of what he was. Cocky men became more cocky in her presence. Timid men more timid. Maybe the gaps show us what we really think, not what's really there? It doesn't show you anything. It's not "god of the gaps" it's unknown in the gaps. Only thing it shows is we're both willing to fill in the gaps with certainty. You're certain they're not in the solar system. Another idea that supports the notion that aliens visiting Earth is more likely than without them being in the solar system? You deny it. To support your pre-existing belief? Of course not. Simple because the evidence guides you toward that in your unbiased appraisal of it. Come on... You're blind to the interpretive nature of your conclusions, and still hide that in the perception that the "sensible majority consensus" aligns with your view. But that very conservatism makes you an unreliable speaker about these mysteries. What value can you add if you're not willing to engage with the gaps? "Ah, it's a big black unknown. Leave it alone. Nothing to see there." You're saying it's all bunk, is the bunk. Because you don't know. Have you searched every crevice of the solar system to prove there's no life there? That someone had a story that was a wrong interpretation of the data, but if true supports a 'they're here' hypothesis, does not disprove that hypothesis if their interpretation is wrong. I'd say we don't have nearly enough data to rule it out. 'Much less likely' compared to a strawman? Still can be very likely. You've kept the little green men out of your garden because it doesn't make sense to you that they're here. Or you felt in the past it's just too much fun for you to argue with those that believe. And you think the time is still here when denying evidence of this stuff still looks rational. But that time has passed. It now looks crazy to say the evidence leads you to stretch denials into invoking a certainty of impossibility in the face of ambiguity and lots of signal.
- suifbwish 5y ago
  You are making up a magical unicorn extreme example. Yes technically you cannot use deductive reasoning to prove there are no angels or gods or supernatural entities we cannot see. For our purposes an extraterrestrial intergalactic species that could reach our planet would be exactly what you just described. We cannot prove these entities are not out there. Just remember science and reason do not allow us say anything with certainty that cannot be calculated or measured, it’s just as much a fallacious religion to claim they don’t exist as they do, one real risk is what happens if either side is correct. If you are correct and aliens do not exist, it doesn’t matter at all however if you are wrong and they do, there are entire classes of possible dystopian and utopian realities that become actual possibilities. Moderate Preparation and risk minimization is really all anyone can do to address the unknown.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> There is a BIG difference between Bigfoot which would be limited to the forested areas of the earth and UFOs which would have the entire universe to inhabit and hide in. No. Bigfoot, as with UFOs, could exist on other planets. That's not the assertion being made with these recent videos, though. Just like Bigfoot, they're alleged to be here, on Earth.

wpietri 5y ago

Sure. The same logic is true of angels. How can we confidently say that supernatural beings aren't everywhere around us right now? How can you say I'm not a demon here to trick you into denying God's glorious helpers? The answer to this is that there are infinite possible things that could be true. But until there's decent evidence, nobody is obliged to take it seriously. Do I think there is alien life somewhere in the universe? The odds seem very good. Do I think that a bunch of them have crossed the galaxies just to spend decades hanging around and fucking with people? I don't in the slightest. The simpler explanation is that primate brains evolved to survive on the African savannas are maybe not perfectly tuned to dealing with a universe 93 billion light-years across. That all of these ever-liminal phenomena share a pretty mundane set of explanations in the evolutionary history of the human cognitive architecture.

gadf 5y ago
What if they are already in our solar system, hidden, or holed up on some moon somewhere, and they have been for eons. They don't have to come across the galaxies to get here (even if they can, even if that's where they're from). If they're already in our local area you don't need to pretend aliens are physically impossible to arrive. And that possibility seems equal with all others in this speculation, but people rarely consider it, and instead sight the (shortsighted) "physical impossibility" of travel from far away regions in milky way or outside, as "explanation" for why anything we see cannot be aliens. But it's lazy and stupid and doesn't consider this local cluster possibility. No one's ever "obliged" to do anything, particularly about this, but "decent" is your judgment. What the decent evidence your family loves you? It's not hard data. it's a story you piece together and your existence depends on it. Far less high stakes whether or not aliens are visiting us or not, for you personally, for easier to accept or reject this belief for personal reasons. I think something else is involved in what makes this hard for people to consider. Not sure what it is. Maybe something like ridiculous anthropocentrist arrogance? "Aliens can't travel here because we don't know how they could."
- wpietri 5y ago
  Anything's possible, but I deny aliens being resident in the solar system is equally possible. What you're doing is classic "god of the gaps" thinking. Science fiction from 100 years ago imagined aliens on Venus and Mars. From early telescope images, people believed there were canals on Mars. It was all bunk, of course. We have enough data that current live on Mars and Venus looks much less likely. So now you've pushed the little green men back to the parts we can't see as well. That's not because there's any evidence there, but because you have started with a conclusion and you're reasoning toward it.
  - gadf 5y ago
    And what you're doing is denying looking at stuff because it doesn't confirm your biases. There's a bunch of weird things in solar system and mountains of evidence for weirdness on Earth that you'd have question marks over if you were being honest about this. You may say you want there to be aliens here but you're not acting like you're willing to engage with the evidence about this. You're viewing it through a preconceived idea. Right there's no smoke gun evidence for solar residence but there's no evidence for them not being there. Circumstantial evidence for proximity to help explain the evidence that they're here on Earth. "God of the gaps" is a biased and weird way to describe something you do every day. You have a hypothesis, you know there's something wrong, somewhere, but you don't know where it is. So you go looking. Is it in your fridge? No. The closet? No. Under the rug? Backseat of the car? No. Where could it be? Maybe you just imagined the thing. But you were so sure. But there's no evidence....But there is. You sensed something was wrong. You saw the thing yesterday, and now can't see it. Because you have some Wikipedia page and fancy scary name for some thing that's a normal part of human thinking (and science -- where are all those particles? Let's search in other energy levels and collisions ...) then any thing that looks like that is "little green men" and "bunk"? Come on. By that logic the housemate's lost package, the smell in the living room and the bug you hunt down in your program is bunk. You're sure there's a bug (might it not just be how you're measuring it?), and you employ a process of elimination. That you employ that process does not make you crazy...but it seems you would look yourself in the mirror and think, "I'm crazy for doing god in the gaps thinking about this bug." Or is that just what you say about others but not yourself? I just think it's not the type of erroneous thinking you think. It's actually logical. We have a big search space, we have some signals, now go find where they originate. It's a big space, and you don't have access to any of it. If you want to sit there and say, there's nothing there. That's completely illogical. It's not even "unlikely" that there's nothing there. You have signals on Earth, and by your logic of the impossibility of intergalactic travel, the signals are more likely to originate locally. So... just because you didn't find it on Venus or Mars (so far, but have you been there?), doesn't mean they're not here. There's a lot of places we haven't looked, and they could be there. You may deny it but that doesn't change one iota of the reality. It's just your belief about it. "God of the gaps" cuts both ways. Every time you see a gap, "You can say, see this is more support to what I'm saying." I can say that. SO can you. It doesn't disprove what you think is unlikely. It doesn't make it more likely. People used to say Marilyn Monroe made a man more of what he was. Cocky men became more cocky in her presence. Timid men more timid. Maybe the gaps show us what we really think, not what's really there? It doesn't show you anything. It's not "god of the gaps" it's unknown in the gaps. Only thing it shows is we're both willing to fill in the gaps with certainty. You're certain they're not in the solar system. Another idea that supports the notion that aliens visiting Earth is more likely than without them being in the solar system? You deny it. To support your pre-existing belief? Of course not. Simple because the evidence guides you toward that in your unbiased appraisal of it. Come on... You're blind to the interpretive nature of your conclusions, and still hide that in the perception that the "sensible majority consensus" aligns with your view. But that very conservatism makes you an unreliable speaker about these mysteries. What value can you add if you're not willing to engage with the gaps? "Ah, it's a big black unknown. Leave it alone. Nothing to see there." You're saying it's all bunk, is the bunk. Because you don't know. Have you searched every crevice of the solar system to prove there's no life there? That someone had a story that was a wrong interpretation of the data, but if true supports a 'they're here' hypothesis, does not disprove that hypothesis if their interpretation is wrong. I'd say we don't have nearly enough data to rule it out. 'Much less likely' compared to a strawman? Still can be very likely. You've kept the little green men out of your garden because it doesn't make sense to you that they're here. Or you felt in the past it's just too much fun for you to argue with those that believe. And you think the time is still here when denying evidence of this stuff still looks rational. But that time has passed. It now looks crazy to say the evidence leads you to stretch denials into invoking a certainty of impossibility in the face of ambiguity and lots of signal.
suifbwish 5y ago
You are making up a magical unicorn extreme example. Yes technically you cannot use deductive reasoning to prove there are no angels or gods or supernatural entities we cannot see. For our purposes an extraterrestrial intergalactic species that could reach our planet would be exactly what you just described. We cannot prove these entities are not out there. Just remember science and reason do not allow us say anything with certainty that cannot be calculated or measured, it’s just as much a fallacious religion to claim they don’t exist as they do, one real risk is what happens if either side is correct. If you are correct and aliens do not exist, it doesn’t matter at all however if you are wrong and they do, there are entire classes of possible dystopian and utopian realities that become actual possibilities. Moderate Preparation and risk minimization is really all anyone can do to address the unknown.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> There is a BIG difference between Bigfoot which would be limited to the forested areas of the earth and UFOs which would have the entire universe to inhabit and hide in. No. Bigfoot, as with UFOs, could exist on other planets. That's not the assertion being made with these recent videos, though. Just like Bigfoot, they're alleged to be here, on Earth.