3 ms·

There are basically two options: either ETs are visiting or not. Your take on the matter clearly implies only one of these? If you admit, you cannot really kno

There are basically two options: either ETs are visiting or not. Your take on the matter clearly implies only one of these? If you admit, you cannot really know whether or not they are (much less give a reasonable estimate for likelihood), you have to look at both options equally. Interestingly, given ET-visitation, just as posited by "UFOlogy" taking place since at least Roswell, fits remarkably well with observations mentioned here. At the very least, there doesn't seem to be any real contradiction? The leaks you mentioned weren't instigated by "the government", by the way. Rather, some group of relative insiders did that.

chatmasta 4y ago
Not really. I think there is a matrix: UFOs either are or are not visiting us, and the Government either is or is not lying to us. The varying skepticism comes down to what you believe is the conditional probability of one given the other. There is some famous quote which goes (roughly) "I don't know if aliens are visiting us, but if the government ever tells me they are, I'll know they are not." Also, just because you can segment something into true/false, absolutely does not mean you have to look at each case equally. You either have or do not have cancer. That doesn't mean there's a 50% chance you have cancer.
- Loquebantur 4y ago
  With cancer, you have enough statistical data to tell the likelihood. With ETs, you do not. Your matrix of course splits nicely with "ETs or no" and on the other hand is arbitrarily extendable in various dimensions. But in any case, just because yours has four entries shouldn't keep you from considering each option.
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    What does "consider" mean to you? I personally have spent an unhealthy amount of time consuming speculative media about UFOs. As I said, I would love nothing more than for it to be true that Aliens are visiting us. I also think that, if we really are seeing UAPs in the sky as described by the government, then we should be investigating them and destigmatizing reports about them from pilots and other government employees. But we should also be weary of the resultant cobra effect [0] such destigmatization can produce. Ultimately, I think there will never be any real resolution to this until an alien mothership hovers over some major city for multiple days. And even then, there would be people who refuse to believe it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...
    - Loquebantur 4y ago
      With "consider" I mean taking implications into proper consideration. Which you didn't do above. The recent behavior of the US government/military is not compatible with "no ETs anywhere". Confabulations to the contrary universally suffer from serious plotholes. But as you say, people's assumptions prevent them from considering options without irrational bias.

chatmasta 4y ago

Not really. I think there is a matrix: UFOs either are or are not visiting us, and the Government either is or is not lying to us. The varying skepticism comes down to what you believe is the conditional probability of one given the other. There is some famous quote which goes (roughly) "I don't know if aliens are visiting us, but if the government ever tells me they are, I'll know they are not." Also, just because you can segment something into true/false, absolutely does not mean you have to look at each case equally. You either have or do not have cancer. That doesn't mean there's a 50% chance you have cancer.

Loquebantur 4y ago
With cancer, you have enough statistical data to tell the likelihood. With ETs, you do not. Your matrix of course splits nicely with "ETs or no" and on the other hand is arbitrarily extendable in various dimensions. But in any case, just because yours has four entries shouldn't keep you from considering each option.
- chatmasta 4y ago
  What does "consider" mean to you? I personally have spent an unhealthy amount of time consuming speculative media about UFOs. As I said, I would love nothing more than for it to be true that Aliens are visiting us. I also think that, if we really are seeing UAPs in the sky as described by the government, then we should be investigating them and destigmatizing reports about them from pilots and other government employees. But we should also be weary of the resultant cobra effect [0] such destigmatization can produce. Ultimately, I think there will never be any real resolution to this until an alien mothership hovers over some major city for multiple days. And even then, there would be people who refuse to believe it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...
  - Loquebantur 4y ago
    With "consider" I mean taking implications into proper consideration. Which you didn't do above. The recent behavior of the US government/military is not compatible with "no ETs anywhere". Confabulations to the contrary universally suffer from serious plotholes. But as you say, people's assumptions prevent them from considering options without irrational bias.