3 ms·

> I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. > I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology

> I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. > I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion. Could also be angels. Or IMHO, what I want it to be is visitors from a parallel Earth where the dinosaurs never died out and instead developed a hyper-advanced civilisation. They're now crossing the multiverse (temporarily, that's why they vanish again) and looking at us in complete bemusement, much as we would look at a world where humanity dies out in a nuclear war, and rats evolve and civilise roughly to the level of ancient Egypt or Sumer. The problem with "you cant rule it out", and "the facts fit the conclusion" thinking about such nebulous phenomena is that there are a vast or infinite number of things that "you can't rule out" and also "fit". It's true but it's a far weaker claim than it seems. What "I want" is just wishful: Your chosen scenario is vanishingly unlikely among them, and assembled out of scraps of pop culture anyway. That's why previous generations say witches, demons, angel's etc. Apophenia describes the person's inner world, as much as the external one. Isn't it convenient that its still such a such a nebulous phenomena? This is why the burden of proof falls squarely on ruling it _in_.

ALittleLight 5y ago
It could be angels or alternate reality Earths or whatever. Your prior belief in those things matters and the extent to which you think the observations reported in the DNI report match what you would expect to see were any of those the source of the phenomenon. I think there is good reason to believe that aliens exist (size of the universe, number of planets) and traveling between star systems is consistent with what we know of physics. I also think observing advanced technology in the form of objects flying in our atmosphere is consistent with the "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation. A surprising observation that is consistent with a theory should add confidence to that theory. "Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here. I am not saying "It was aliens." I am saying "There is no reason to think the report rules out aliens which the headline suggests, and, actually, the report is consistent with aliens and that's surprising."
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > "Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here. I disagree entirely. It is key. You are discarding rationality here. The "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation is basically ruled out by how it's always liminal observations, never progressing to solid evidence, always a good fit to the limits of the sensors.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    You are failing to think rationally about probabilities in part because you attach to an idea like "burden of proof" which reduces to the discussion to something like "You can't prove to my satisfaction that it is aliens so I'll assume it's not." That's just ignoring the argument I've made above. It's also not correct to say that there's never solid evidence. The DNI report suggests there is compelling evidence. I've not seen anything to suggest that the observed phenomenon are at the limits of our sensors.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      Burden of proof is irrational now? Rubbish. Have a nice day.

ALittleLight 5y ago

It could be angels or alternate reality Earths or whatever. Your prior belief in those things matters and the extent to which you think the observations reported in the DNI report match what you would expect to see were any of those the source of the phenomenon. I think there is good reason to believe that aliens exist (size of the universe, number of planets) and traveling between star systems is consistent with what we know of physics. I also think observing advanced technology in the form of objects flying in our atmosphere is consistent with the "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation. A surprising observation that is consistent with a theory should add confidence to that theory. "Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here. I am not saying "It was aliens." I am saying "There is no reason to think the report rules out aliens which the headline suggests, and, actually, the report is consistent with aliens and that's surprising."

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> "Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here. I disagree entirely. It is key. You are discarding rationality here. The "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation is basically ruled out by how it's always liminal observations, never progressing to solid evidence, always a good fit to the limits of the sensors.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  You are failing to think rationally about probabilities in part because you attach to an idea like "burden of proof" which reduces to the discussion to something like "You can't prove to my satisfaction that it is aliens so I'll assume it's not." That's just ignoring the argument I've made above. It's also not correct to say that there's never solid evidence. The DNI report suggests there is compelling evidence. I've not seen anything to suggest that the observed phenomenon are at the limits of our sensors.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    Burden of proof is irrational now? Rubbish. Have a nice day.