5 ms·
"Not aliens" seems obvious but shouldn't be a basis for dismissing this either. I feel like sometimes we are so determined to dismiss aliens that we accept any
by causal 6mo ago
"Not aliens" seems obvious but shouldn't be a basis for dismissing this either. I feel like sometimes we are so determined to dismiss aliens that we accept any plausible alternative too quickly, when there might be something else more interesting that is neither obvious nor aliens.
- WalterBright 6mo agoAliens are not plausible.
- causal 6mo agoAgreed, and I don't think you understood my comment.
- WalterBright 6mo agoPerhaps you didn't write what you meant. I read it as we shouldn't think it is obvious that they aren't aliens.
- causal 6mo ago> there might be something else more interesting that is neither obvious nor aliens.
- kristerj 6mo agoI tend to think there is a really good chance all the "its aliens" phenomena are natural phenomena that we are hundreds of years away from even having the tools to study. Probably like early humans trying to guess what the sun is made of.
- WalterBright 6mo agohttps://www.history.com/articles/cottingley-fairies-altered-photos-hoax https://www.history.com/articles/cottingley-fairies-altered-... There aren't any wood fairies either.
- shepardrtc 6mo agoWhy not?
- WalterBright 6mo agoNobody has ever found the slightest smidgen of evidence of aliens, nor any plausible theory of what aliens would be like. It's about as likely as someone inventing a car that runs on water.
- LocalH 6mo agoWhile it's always good to elevate evidence-based knowledge above "woo" or "belief", it's not healthy to close your mind off completely against anything that isn't currently proven. We might know that we don't know a lot of things, but the most interesting thought experiments happen in the area that concerns the things we don't know that we don't know.
- WalterBright 6mo agoWhen an engineer tells me he built a car that runs on water, he'd better bring some pretty amazing evidence. And no, I'm not going to waste time reading his paper looking for the inevitable flaw, either. I've heard "evidence" of aliens my entire life. Guess how many panned out. Zero. But that never seems to discourage anyone from believing that an artifact on a photo must have the most implausible explanation ever - aliens! Where do you draw the line? Time travel? Teleportation? Astrology? Fortune tellers? Razor blade sharpening? Reincarnation?
- krapp 6mo agoOne can go to /r/UFOs and see plenty of "interesting thought experiments" happening in that area, and while that might be entertaining, it isn't compelling. I think closing one's mind off 99.999% to "it's aliens" is perfectly healthy and justified. When you remove the folklore, memes, psyops and apply Occaam's Razor to the "evidence" and sort out mistaken natural phenomena, misinterpreted data, classified but terrestrial technology and outright hoaxes, you aren't left with much of anything, and certainly nothing definite. There is no reason to assume the phenomenon mentioned in the linked paper demonstrates the presence of alien spacecraft but the UFO community is going to run with it anyway. Call me when David Grusch comes through with that "catastrophic disclosure" we were promised or when Lue Elizondo can tell the difference between a starship and a chandelier. This is just Bob Lazar and Majestic-12 all over again.
- WalterBright 6mo agoSorry to bring the bad news.
- kristerj 6mo agoI think you just did the thing, but with his comment