3 ms·
> "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 atmos
by 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 agoYou 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 agoBurden of proof is irrational now? Rubbish. Have a nice day.