|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A quasar, too heavy to be true
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:19:09 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
In article , Gary Harnagel writes: It is quite unreasonable to assume that in all the universe we are the first. In fact, it is unreasonable to assume that a civilization like ours didn't develop billions of years ago. How does this in any way contradict any worldview? The existence of a benevolent civilization billions of years older than ours wouldn't change YOUR worldview? Come ON! Not in the least. Why should it? I wouldn't be surprised. The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, the universe about three times as old. Civilization developed here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did elsewhere, but I don't know how likely it is; perhaps there is some difficult bottlenect. It would be an interesting event, yes, but it wouldn't change my basic worldview. It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an advanced civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around Tabby's star. The odds of spontaneous life could be arbitrarily close to zero. That we are here (necessary for this discussion to take place) has zero commentary on the odds of spontaneous life anywhere else. That's likely to be quite irrelevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia Panspermia is a hypothesis, by no means proven. I think it's pretty solid given evidence for extra-solar comets and asteroid impact. It seems to me that we should be arguing intelligent life developed long ago in the universe until refuted by evidence to the contrary. Why should we assume anything? Because we're human. It's what we DO. Also, there is no way to disprove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But there IS a way to confirm it, which was the mission of Kepler and will be the mission of the Webb telescope. Yes, the universe is older than the Earth, but since civilization developed only recently on Earth, it in no way follows that it must have developed earlier elsewhere. "Must" implies 100% probability. I prefer a strong "may" :-) At only 0.1% the speed of light, generation ships could cross the entire galaxy in a mere 0.1 billion years. There is no evidence that this has happened. Perhaps WE are the evidence :-) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A quasar, too heavy to be true
In article , Gary
Harnagel writes: The existence of a benevolent civilization billions of years older than ours wouldn't change YOUR worldview? Come ON! Not in the least. Why should it? I wouldn't be surprised. The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, the universe about three times as old. Civilization developed here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did elsewhere, but I don't know how likely it is; perhaps there is some difficult bottlenect. It would be an interesting event, yes, but it wouldn't change my basic worldview. It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an advanced civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around Tabby's star. Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial civilization? The odds of spontaneous life could be arbitrarily close to zero. That we are here (necessary for this discussion to take place) has zero commentary on the odds of spontaneous life anywhere else. That's likely to be quite irrelevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia Panspermia is a hypothesis, by no means proven. I think it's pretty solid given evidence for extra-solar comets and asteroid impact. No life has been found there. Organic molecules, yes. But it is a huge leap from there to panspermia. Suffice it to say that the most scientists in the field are not convinced that panspermia is responsible for life on Earth. It seems to me that we should be arguing intelligent life developed long ago in the universe until refuted by evidence to the contrary. Why should we assume anything? Because we're human. It's what we DO. Humans do many things; not all of them are correct. Also, there is no way to disprove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But there IS a way to confirm it, which was the mission of Kepler and will be the mission of the Webb telescope. Right (and contrary to what you wrote before): if you can find evidence of extraterrestrial civilization, then you confirm it. The reverse is not true: while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it mean that one should assume that extraterrestrial civilization until proven otherwise, since one can never prove it otherwise. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A quasar, too heavy to be true
On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 1:05:25 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress
to reply) wrote: In article , Gary Harnagel writes: The existence of a benevolent civilization billions of years older than ours wouldn't change YOUR worldview? Come ON! Not in the least. Why should it? I wouldn't be surprised. The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, the universe about three times as old. Civilization developed here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did elsewhere, but I don't know how likely it is; perhaps there is some difficult bottlenect. It would be an interesting event, yes, but it wouldn't change my basic worldview. It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an advanced civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around Tabby's star. Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial civilization? I was mostly thinking of born-again Christians. Their belief system seems to be very geocentric, but there are many more Christians that share that worldview. And then their are Muslims ... well, they (as well as some Christians) might denounce the evidence. And then there are those that would start new religions based upon the aliens .... Panspermia is a hypothesis, by no means proven. I think it's pretty solid given evidence for extra-solar comets and asteroid impact. No life has been found there. Organic molecules, yes. But it is a huge leap from there to panspermia. Suffice it to say that the most scientists in the field are not convinced that panspermia is responsible for life on Earth. Okay, I don't particularly vote for that one either :-) It seems to me that we should be arguing intelligent life developed long ago in the universe until refuted by evidence to the contrary. Why should we assume anything? Because we're human. It's what we DO. Humans do many things; not all of them are correct. But we still do them :-) Also, there is no way to disprove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But there IS a way to confirm it, which was the mission of Kepler and will be the mission of the Webb telescope. Right (and contrary to what you wrote before): if you can find evidence of extraterrestrial civilization, then you confirm it. The reverse is not true: while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it mean that one should assume that extraterrestrial civilization until proven otherwise, since one can never prove it otherwise. Well, that depends upon your psychology. A scientist is trained to be skeptical, and skepticism argues for your viewpoint. But ... is skepticism the "right" position in all areas of inquiry? It has led to hidebound resistance in the past. Each of us has developed a model of the universe over our lifetimes that's hard for us to modify because it's based upon what we have seen and experienced. I'm not sure why, but mine has been undergoing some major revisions in, um, vision over the last few years. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A quasar, too heavy to be true
In article , Gary
Harnagel writes: It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an advanced civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around Tabby's star. Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial civilization? I was mostly thinking of born-again Christians. Their belief system seems to be very geocentric, but there are many more Christians that share that worldview. And then their are Muslims ... well, they (as well as some Christians) might denounce the evidence. And then there are those that would start new religions based upon the aliens .... Has evolution shattered their worldview? Modern cosmology? Geology? By definition, faith can't be perturbed by knowledge. On the other hand, while of course many religions are geocentric (in more than one sense), they don't necessarily exclude extraterrestrial life. It is also not necessary that Jesus be crucified on every world. Not all beings need salvation. Think of the angels. Perhaps angels are extraterrestrial beings. I've heard born-again creatures say that UFOs are manned by demons. So even here, I don't think that the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence would shatter any worldviews. Right (and contrary to what you wrote before): if you can find evidence of extraterrestrial civilization, then you confirm it. The reverse is not true: while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it mean that one should assume that extraterrestrial civilization until proven otherwise, since one can never prove it otherwise. Well, that depends upon your psychology. It depends on logic. A scientist is trained to be skeptical, and skepticism argues for your viewpoint. Skepticism argues that one should not believe anything without good evidence. But ... is skepticism the "right" position in all areas of inquiry? It has led to hidebound resistance in the past. Each of us has developed a model of the universe over our lifetimes that's hard for us to modify because it's based upon what we have seen and experienced. I'm not sure why, but mine has been undergoing some major revisions in, um, vision over the last few years. Any skepticism which leads to hidebound resistance is not what is normally understood under skepticism. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A quasar, too heavy to be true
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 2:51:47 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig
(undress to reply) wrote: In article , Gary Harnagel writes: It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an advanced civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around Tabby's star. Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial civilization? I was mostly thinking of born-again Christians. Their belief system seems to be very geocentric, but there are many more Christians that share that worldview. And then their are Muslims ... well, they (as well as some Christians) might denounce the evidence. And then there are those that would start new religions based upon the aliens .... Has evolution shattered their worldview? No. They just don't believe it. Modern cosmology? Geology? No, they just don't believe them. By definition, faith can't be perturbed by knowledge. On the other hand, while of course many religions are geocentric (in more than one sense), they don't necessarily exclude extraterrestrial life. It is also not necessary that Jesus be crucified on every world. Not all beings need salvation. Think of the angels. Perhaps angels are extraterrestrial beings. I've heard born-again creatures say that UFOs are manned by demons. So even here, I don't think that the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence would shatter any worldviews. I guess I underestimated the ability of some people to fool themselves :-( Right (and contrary to what you wrote before): if you can find evidence of extraterrestrial civilization, then you confirm it. The reverse is not true: while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it mean that one should assume that extraterrestrial civilization until proven otherwise, since one can never prove it otherwise. Well, that depends upon your psychology. It depends on logic. A scientist is trained to be skeptical, and skepticism argues for your viewpoint. Skepticism argues that one should not believe anything without good evidence. So why believe that God doesn't exist without good evidence? But ... is skepticism the "right" position in all areas of inquiry? It has led to hidebound resistance in the past. Each of us has developed a model of the universe over our lifetimes that's hard for us to modify because it's based upon what we have seen and experienced. I'm not sure why, but mine has been undergoing some major revisions in, um, vision over the last few years. Any skepticism which leads to hidebound resistance is not what is normally understood under skepticism. But it has happened in the scientific community many times. [Moderator's note: Followups should address astronomy, or at least science. -P.H.] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A quasar, too heavy to be true
In article , Gary
Harnagel writes: A scientist is trained to be skeptical, and skepticism argues for your viewpoint. Skepticism argues that one should not believe anything without good evidence. So why believe that God doesn't exist without good evidence? Because, as a matter of principle, one can only prove the existence of something, not its lack of existence. For the same reason, we don't assume "guilty until proven innocent". This is a basic principle of science. One can say "why not believe X unless there is evidence to the contrary" but another can say "why not believe the absence of X without evidence to the contrary". If both statements are valid, no progress can be made. For the same reason that "innocent until proven guilty" is the rule, the burden of proof is on someone who believes something, not on someone who doesn't believe something. This is a basic principle of science. Why not believe that there are 157 elements unless there is evidence to the contrary? Why not believe that there are 30 planets in the Solar System? Science just doesn't work that way. [Moderator's note: Followups should address astronomy, or at least science. -P.H.] Indeed. :-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A quasar, too heavy to be true
On 1/3/18 3:41 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 1:05:25 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote: In article , Gary Harnagel writes: Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial civilization? I was mostly thinking of born-again Christians. Their belief system seems to be very geocentric, but there are many more Christians that share that worldview. And then their are Muslims ... well, they (as well as some Christians) might denounce the evidence. And then there are those that would start new religions based upon the aliens .... Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ. the Pope's astronomer will baptize an alien which inherently suggests a willingness to accept that they exist. http://religionnews.com/2014/12/03/m...-given-chance/ Richard D Saam |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A quasar, too heavy to be true | jacobnavia | Research | 43 | January 25th 18 04:34 PM |
Could Delta IV Heavy use the same technique as Falcon Heavy | Alan Erskine[_3_] | Space Shuttle | 1 | May 20th 11 07:56 AM |
Whoa, it can't be true, it can't be true, William Shatner knows,he'll protect us | LIBERATOR[_3_] | History | 2 | March 24th 09 05:28 PM |
Heavy H = Lots of Heavy Compounds | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 3 | November 12th 05 06:12 PM |
Delta IV Heavy: Heavy Enough for Mars | Damon Hill | Policy | 1 | December 22nd 04 07:39 PM |