2 ms·

> There's a real problem with people being close-minded towards anything that seems fantastical. Two things: 1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evi

by jmyeet 4y ago

> There's a real problem with people being close-minded towards anything that seems fantastical. Two things: 1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; and 2. The burden of proof belongs to the one making the claim, not on the other side to refute the claim. Anything in the realm of "new physics" (eg claims such objects defy inertia and accelerate at a rate that would kill any person) or extraterrestial origin is certainly an extraodinary claim. Extraterrestial origin is the easiest to dismiss because of just how extraorindary such claims are. An awful lot of hand-waving happens when you point out the fundamental problems and timelines with interstellar travel just because people want it to be true. Claims like "we once thought it impossible to go to the Moon" are no argument at all. I've seen nothing that comes close to the standard of extraordinary evidence.

thefaux 4y ago
I am not making any claims about whether or not these phenomena are extraterrestrial, I truly have no idea. But suppose that there is a civilization that is dramatically more advanced than ours. Perhaps they have uncovered deeper laws of physics that allows them to develop technologies orders of magnitude more powerful than our own. To such a civilization, our technology might seem as rudimentary as stone age tools seem to us. We could say less about their technology than our distant ancestors could have said about ours. This civilization could be so advanced that they have the means to communicate with us without our being able to measure it with our present technologies, but they could nevertheless influence people's thoughts much as the gravitational pull of the moon creates the tides. If this were true, their influence would likely be felt long before we had the technology to detect it. But once we did detect it, we would realize we have been under their influence for a long time (perhaps predating the formation of our civilization). We would also immediately feel silly for having hubristically assumed that we are the peak of intelligence. We have these fantasies of colonizing mars and beyond and yet we fail to have the imagination to consider that perhaps it's all already been colonized. We could be the children of our interstellar ancestors. Perhaps much like we fantasize about sending some kind of seed of humanity to a terraformable planet, our ancestors already figured this out and we are the fruit of the seeds they sent out from their home eons ago. I am not claiming that this is the truth (in fact I am sure what I wrote is wrong in some important ways that are beyond me) but it is just as extraordinary to me to assume that there isn't anything out there wildly more intelligent than us (or the most powerful ai we can dream up) as it is to assume that there isn't.
roeles 4y ago
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I see this quote often in this thread. It is stated as a fact, with attribution to Carl Sagan. Yet I see no supporting reasoning for this conclusion. I find it ironic that - in a thread with so much emphasis on evidence - this statement is repeated as if it was gospel. I ask: why? What is an extraordinary claim? What constitutes extraordinary evidence?

by jmyeet 4y ago

thefaux 4y ago

I am not making any claims about whether or not these phenomena are extraterrestrial, I truly have no idea. But suppose that there is a civilization that is dramatically more advanced than ours. Perhaps they have uncovered deeper laws of physics that allows them to develop technologies orders of magnitude more powerful than our own. To such a civilization, our technology might seem as rudimentary as stone age tools seem to us. We could say less about their technology than our distant ancestors could have said about ours. This civilization could be so advanced that they have the means to communicate with us without our being able to measure it with our present technologies, but they could nevertheless influence people's thoughts much as the gravitational pull of the moon creates the tides. If this were true, their influence would likely be felt long before we had the technology to detect it. But once we did detect it, we would realize we have been under their influence for a long time (perhaps predating the formation of our civilization). We would also immediately feel silly for having hubristically assumed that we are the peak of intelligence. We have these fantasies of colonizing mars and beyond and yet we fail to have the imagination to consider that perhaps it's all already been colonized. We could be the children of our interstellar ancestors. Perhaps much like we fantasize about sending some kind of seed of humanity to a terraformable planet, our ancestors already figured this out and we are the fruit of the seeds they sent out from their home eons ago. I am not claiming that this is the truth (in fact I am sure what I wrote is wrong in some important ways that are beyond me) but it is just as extraordinary to me to assume that there isn't anything out there wildly more intelligent than us (or the most powerful ai we can dream up) as it is to assume that there isn't.

roeles 4y ago

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I see this quote often in this thread. It is stated as a fact, with attribution to Carl Sagan. Yet I see no supporting reasoning for this conclusion. I find it ironic that - in a thread with so much emphasis on evidence - this statement is repeated as if it was gospel. I ask: why? What is an extraordinary claim? What constitutes extraordinary evidence?