4 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoWith "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.