There are many ways to be close minded.
Whose accepting someone's fantastical claim and what claim is that? Its mostly people speculating and acknowledging that its unexplained.
Magic/supernatural by definition is contrary to physical laws and scientific understanding.
But the existence of aliens would in no way contradict any physical laws or scientific consensus. It would be a shock, obviously, just like it was a shock when we discovered that other galaxies exist, or black holes, or that nuclear fission is possible.
If intelligent aliens do exist and are close enough to us to be detected (or to detect us), which is certainly possible and maybe even probable, then we’re likely going to find out about them someday. Is that what’s happening now with these UAP? It seems that we don’t know yet, but it’s as unscientific to throw out the aliens hypothesis a priori as to insist it’s definitely aliens and no other explanation is possible.
Aliens haven't yet been demonstrated to exist, so they're in the same domain as fantastic claims that haven't yet been demonstrated to work. Magic.
We humans have a long history of erroneously assuming that we’re the special case.
Magic implies we have no idea of how a phenomenon is possible, but we know perfectly well that the existence of aliens is possible. They’re like black holes or gravitational waves before we found physical evidence for them, not magic.
At a certain point, when you can't reconcile observed reality with your beautiful theory, you've got to question the theory. That's the essence of science, discarding theories that cannot be reconciled with observed reality. It may be the case that advanced life capable of sending radio signals or traveling the stars is so exceedingly unlikely to form that even life on earth was a freak fluke of luck. Remember that life on earth got stuck in the mono-cellular stage for billions of years. There was no assurance it would ever get past that stage. And the number of stars in the universe is a weak rebuttal to this line of thinking, since it only takes a handful of independent "one in a million" chances to create a a probability so stupidly small that it makes the number of stars in the entire observable universe seem mundane.
Yet something keeps showing up in our skies, year after year, decade after decade, and that something is widely and roundly ignored.
Because 'aliens might exist' is a theory and 'there is stuff that happens in the sky that has not been formally explained' is a fact, why should we connect the two as evidence of one another?
'Cockroaches taste like jellybeans' is a theory. 'Many people waking up in the middle of the night, having heard a rustling, without being able to see put something in their mouth that tastes like a jellybean, living near and employed at a jellybean factory' is not evidence of this theory.
Answer that question before moving on. If your answer is “no” then no further discussion is warranted. If yes then further investigation is needed.
The hypothesis, to fit the evidence is: "it's aliens, using technology advanced enough that it can do things nothing else on Earth can do, without generating the normally expected physical effects, and are also mostly but not entirely undetectable".
If you compare our current understanding of physics to what humans knew thousands of years ago, it’s logical that the technology of an interstellar civilization would be as far beyond our understanding as a nuclear reactor would have been to the ancient Romans.
This is the same basic error of reasoning where people say because the moon landing happened, faking the moon landing was also possible (it wasn't: video editing technology of sufficient capability did not exist - space flight and CGI are two entirely separate lines of technical problem solving).
It seems a touch hubristic to assume that an advanced civilization with technological capabilities far exceeding our own would have used our processes and techniques to get there.
Something CAN be real and beyond current scientific understanding.
I think you're reading that wrong. "Beyond scientific understanding" doesn't mean "beyond current scientific understanding", it actually means, "beyond any possible scientific understanding". So a supernatural phenomenon would defeat any possible attempt at characterizing it scientifically.
It is true hubris and actually kind of sad to think we know all laws of nature and nothing new could stump us and our cherished laws of nature.
Also, read my other comments. Science is about explaining the previously unexplainable. So nothing, no phenomena you sense with your senses, is beyond science.
This is all a semantic disagreement and not a question of hubris or overconfidence or of how advanced our knowledge really is.
LEDs were absolutely supernatural. As I said, go back in time with one and show it to Medieval surfs and see what they say. Supernatural is anything that you can't explain given your understanding of the universe.
> The Professor turned and looked down at him, dismissive as usual. "Oh, come now, Harry. Really, magic? I thought you'd know better than to take this seriously, son, even if you're only ten. Magic is just about the most unscientific thing there is!"
...
> "Mum," Harry said. "If you want to win this argument with Dad, look in chapter two of the first book of the Feynman Lectures on Physics. There's a quote there about how philosophers say a great deal about what science absolutely requires, and it is all wrong, because the only rule in science is that the final arbiter is observation - that you just have to look at the world and report what you see. Um... off the top of my head I can't think of where to find something about how it's an ideal of science to settle things by experiment instead of arguments -"
The existence of aliens, sure. But the presence of aliens on Earth pretty much does. There's no reason to think FTL travel is possible, and it's economically unreasonable to think some species is going to invest in interstellar generation ships to cross the great interstellar gulfs just so that they can fuck around with pilots and anally probe hayseeds.
For us, it's just another 5 years old.
There is no similar chain of logical deduction based on empirically observed facts that can lead you to the existence of gods or ghosts or demons.
Aliens are not like 'gods', they are like black holes after we realized they probably exist but before we found physical evidence for them.
A process strikingly similar to what religious people do with gods, angels, etc. There's also no real data on where the universe comes from, so they can imagine that it is due to god(s). God used to be on a high mountain, or just above the sky. But like the Martians, He has had to up sticks and move to loftier realms.
I'll also note that some of the alien-imaginers use exactly your reasoning to derive gods. Statistically, aliens must exist, and they must have existed long before us, and they must therefore be so technologically advanced that UFOs are real and we can't prove it just because they are so superior. Or, alternatively, that those aliens caused us in one way or another, from shaping our evolution to seeding our planet to creating the universe.
You can doubt the existence of intelligent aliens. But they obviously aren’t in the same category as religious beliefs. On the other hand, assuming we are somehow special and must be the only intelligent life is quite in line with religious thinking.
We do have data on life in the universe: earth. Very few natural phenomena occur a single time and never again. Apart from early universe events like the big bang and expansion, I can’t think of an example.
Nah. All of those were things that there were specific reason to believe based on theory and evidence. But it can be a fine line. Look at how quickly quantum mechanics went from abstruse high theory to being used to support absolute woo. [1] Or look at how black holes went from interesting mathematical concept to magic plot device. [2]
Do I grant the theoretical possibility of intelligent life somewhere? Sure, and I never said otherwise. Do I believe it's a lock? Not at all. If we somehow survey the universe and discover we are alone, then our theories will adjust just fine. There is no evidence to the contrary to be overcome.
So yes, in terms of an explanatory device for phenomena observed on earth, aliens and gods are in exactly the same category of "unevidenced anthropomorphic agents that people have been inappropriately using as explanations for millennia". Because people are like that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
[2] e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_(1979_film)
Sorry, you’re just wrong. The possibility of intelligent aliens is on firm scientific ground, which is why we have projects like SETI running. Aliens aren’t like gods or angels, regardless of how many times you repeat it. Certain people might treat them that way, just like people abuse all kinds of scientific concepts. That doesn’t merit a categorical dismissal.
I never said the possibility of aliens somewhere in the universe and somewhere in time was scientifically impossible. Indeed, I've said the opposite, something you seem dedicated to missing if you're still acting otherwise.
I am specifically saying that there's no scientific justification for using aliens as an explanatory device for things that are happening right here on earth. That's just fantasy.
I obviously don't think quantum mechanics is like religion when it's in the hands of Paul Dirac. But I do think it's effectively religion in the hands of Deepak Chopra. Similarly, I don't think the SETI folks are religious kooks, but I do think UFO cultists are.
We know intelligent aliens might exist. We know that if they did visit earth, it would mean that they have technology that far exceeds our own. We have extensive documentation of events that, naively, look like some kind of extremely advanced technology that is far beyond human capabilities. So far, we have found no natural explanation, no explanation involving instrument malfunction, and no explanation involving human actors. That doesn’t mean it’s aliens, but it does mean it could be. If you think they should be crossed off the list, you’ll have to do better than making assertions.
But my point is that there is exactly the same level of evidence for gods and aliens being behind these. I'm not saying either one's inconceivable. I'm just saying that I'm going to treat them both with the same level of seriousness. That is, approximately none.
I'm going to treat unexplained, poorly documented phenomena as unexplained, poorly documented phenomena. Does that mean I'm missing out on the Virgin Mary or aliens or ghosts or whatever? Possibly. But as a practical matter, a century's worth of paranormal hoohah shows I could waste my entire life on this stuff and never get anywhere. I am content that there are enough devoted skeptics out there that if any of the paranormal brigade comes up with some clear and repeatable evidence, I'll hear about it. Until then it goes in the bucket with dowsing and spirit guides and whatnot.
You can rule it out because we've never found evidence of gods existing in the universe, and there's never been a scientific theory put forward for how they could exist that is consistent with our understanding of biology, astronomy, and physics. This obviously doesn't apply to intelligent life, but something tells me you aren't going to concede that. Thanks for the discussion.
Indeed, the god-believers have a lot more "evidence" than the alien-believers do, even if I think it's all pretty specious. And I'll note that the god-believers don't have to prove consistency with biology, etc, in that in their view, that's god-created. Plus, there are things that the god hypothesis explains that the alien hypothesis doesn't, like why we have universe at all.
Again, I think it's all claptrap. I get that you're mad that I see them as the same. Most religious people would be insulted in the opposite direction. But from my perspective, religious people are like that. So yes, you're very welcome for the discussion, and I hope you find it helpful down the road.
This seems like fairly closed thinking. We’ve observed strange behavior at the quantum level. We have plausible theories of wormholes and multiverses. It’s conceivable that some civilization has assembled FTL travel from these and other natural phenomena yet unknown.
> it's economically unreasonable to think some species is going to invest in generation ships
We’re working on AI and we can sequence DNA. A sufficiently advanced civilization could send a ship that can synthesize its crew upon arrival.
We have observed quantum entanglement. Perhaps information can travel faster than light and all you need to send physically is the equivalent of a quantum modem attached to a Star Trek replicator.
I too consume a lot of science fiction, but it's important to remember that it's just writers making shit up. Perhaps FTL is possible. Perhaps angel are real. Both are things people want to believe in, and both have facially plausible literary explanations, but they have equally good scientific evidence at the moment.
Take gods. Even most theists don't believe in most gods. An atheist, as the saying goes, is just a person who disbelieves in one more god than average.
In theory, everybody has to admit that all gods are possible. Does Zeus exist? No idea. Does Bast exist? No idea. Does Yahweh exist? No idea. It's not like we can prove that they aren't out there somewhere.
But what we do know is that a lot humans have made up a lot of gods. We know that people make up and believe in all sorts of things with no evidence at all. So if something fits the same pattern, then we actually have reasonable evidence that it's just another one of those things.
So in a world of people who will take "no idea" as permission to rant more about their theory of chemtrails or ZOG or how the true Messiah lives in a heavily fortified compound outside of Waco, TX, I think an honest and accurate "no idea" isn't enough. Would that it were.
However, I doubt you're going to spend much time on that, and I'm not going to spend much time on other things that are merely conceivable.
In order to get here, aliens have to have traveled here, and while traveling, and alive, they'll give off heat -- glowing brightly if they have to turn or accelerate to avoid crashing really hard into the earth.
An alien arriving before they traveled breaks a lot of things, and makes them much closer to magic than some single cell equivalents on a distant moon
Many of the "UFO" observations fall into that. As is "under known physics it is impossible explanation"
My point is if we’re looking for an explanation, it’s either some natural phenomenon or illusion that we don’t understand, human technology, or alien technology.
In either of the latter two options, we are either talking about new physics or very advanced spoofing tech that looks like new physics but isn’t really.
For human tech, we’ve never seen anything resembling a leap like that being accomplished by a government in total secrecy. It’s hard to imagine. I think this holds even if it’s just crazy advanced spoofing, given the details of the various encounters.
But for alien tech: if intelligent aliens do exist and they did visit us, it would follow that their technology and scientific understanding are far beyond our own. It’s basically impossible that they wouldn’t have knowledge of new physics that we have no current inkling of, just as a scientist from a thousand years ago could have no inkling of relativity or black holes. In this sense, strange inexplicable phenomena that break the laws of physics (as we currently understand them) are consistent with aliens.
So to me, the real question is whether we can figure out a natural phenomenon to explain this. If it is something natural, it seems like it has to be something pretty weird. If it’s not, aliens seem like a valid candidate, pending further evidence.
You're basically saying "alien tech is un-understandable however we can still easily tell it is alien and not measurement error"
If there really are aliens, eventually we should have enough evidence that we can build specific, falsifiable theories about particular, well-defined entities with at least rough bounds on capabilities. But we’re not close to that point yet.
Let videos of whatever weird phenomenona be released and studied. Add more sensors or whatever is needed to explain what pilots see. Maybe send a scientist or two up there to figure out what’s going on.
But that's not what's being done per the article. The evidence isn't even being looked at because of the aforementioned closed mindedness which you've gone on to redefine.
The open-minded approach is to say: maybe we don't know everything, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, rather we should wait for more evidence so that we understand the situation better.
It doesn't matter whether it's aliens, magic, or new scientific discoveries.