4 ms·
Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary funding, as Avi Loeb says. We aren't going to get definitive proof if we continue having a knee-jerk reaction to r
by david-gpu 4y ago
Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary funding, as Avi Loeb says. We aren't going to get definitive proof if we continue having a knee-jerk reaction to ridicule the subject.
If we don't know what an object is, then we don't know what it isn't either. This much is obvious. The people jumping to the conclusion that it _must_ be mundane are making the same mistake as the people who claim the opposite. We simply need better evidence.
- rambojohnson 4y agoit's best to look at the likelihood of what it is, occam's razor and all that...
- david-gpu 4y agoSure, our past experience will inform our priors. But if we stubbornly refuse to even consider the possibility that anomalous observations could have anomalous causes, we won't make progress in our understanding. That attitude is dogmatic and anti-scientific. Do I believe aliens are visiting Earth? Frankly, I do not. But I can't dismiss it outright either, because we don't know what we don't know.
- widowlark 4y agoIt's the least likely explanation, far, far down the list of much more real, plausible, and actionable facts - entertaining this particular one above the others in order to placate illogical fantasies is a grave mistake we should stop repeating
- widowlark 4y agoWay to flip the script on the real statement: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - in other words, this speculation can be dismissed without additional proof
- david-gpu 4y agoYou are quoting Carl Sagan. I am quoting another Harvard astronomer, Avi Loeb. What Loeb is pointing at is that in the real world you can't expect extraordinary scientific evidence while refusing to fund the research that could produce such evidence. I am not claiming that these observations are caused by aliens. I am merely pointing out the inherent contradiction behind statements like "we don't know what this is, but [we sure know] it is not aliens".
- widowlark 4y agoYes, I am aware of Dr. Loeb and I am a fan of his scientific work. However, his beliefs in aliens is disppointingly clouding his scientific judgement, and if you don't believe me, read one of his physics papers from a decade ago, and then read his popular science account of Oumuamua from 2021. A stark difference in scientific approach, very sad to see.
- JohnFen 4y agoAssuming that it isn't aliens, isn't really a mistake. It's playing the extremely excellent odds that it isn't a thing that that it's exceedingly unlikely to be. Could it be aliens? Technically, I guess. Just like it could technically be craft sent by advanced beings living in the center of a hollow Earth. It makes sense to start with hypotheses that are actually likely, or at least not terribly unlikely, before going on flights of fancy.
- uhtred 4y agoIt's a bit like God really. The burden of proof lies with the believers not the atheists.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago> Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary funding, as Avi Loeb says In this case it doesn't. the expensive part was tracking the objects and taking one down, after that it's just recovering and studying the debris. If it's alien, it should be easy to tell.
- drewcoo 4y ago> If we don't know what an object is, then we don't know what it isn't either. Logic doesn't work that way. We don't know all of the things it isn't. We can know many individual things it's not. I know that none of the UFOs in the news are my left shoe.