Ok, nevermind. I guess you didn't specifically say it couldn't be aliens. But if Temperamental wants to believe it is, then what's the hurt? Why do you have to argue against him?

As to the scientific method: I'm not going to provide you a "list of the flaws." It's not so cut and dry as you're trying to make it seem. But the capability of science will ALWAYS be limited primarily by our ability to observe, and secondarily by our ability to deduce based on those observations.

Darwin theorized about the origins of mankind, and now we have the Theory of Evolution. But is it correct? Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Or maybe it's partly true. Unless we somehow develop a way to see into the past, no one will ever know with 100% certainty. I would even go so far as to argue that EVEN IF we develop a way to see into the past, we still won't know, because we'll have no way to know if the past we're seeing is the past that really happened.

You believe that the theory of evolution is true, do you not? You choose to believe based on the evidence other people have observed, recorded, and interpreted for you. Ultimately, unless you do all of the original research on a subject, you're believing in "eyewitness accounts" from the experts in the field. How do you know they're not interpreting the data incorrectly, just as you're so sure the "eyewitnesses" in Temperamental's case are? Following this logic, it's impossible to "prove" anything.

(note: please don't take this off track with the evolution example. I'm only using it as an example.)

Because it's a forum and it's a discussion?


Yes it is, you're just not understanding what I'm saying. Science isn't flawed. Humans are.


Congratulations! You finished first grade science class.


No, he theorized about how life changes over time. Darwin said nothing about the origins of mankind.


You can never know ANYTHING in science to 100% certainty. Everything is a theory, but that doesn't make it any less of a practical fact. Evolution is a fact. It is not "just a theory." The amount of evidence for evolution is staggering. If you really believe otherwise, you have either never looked or refuse to believe it. It's the entire basis of modern biology.


You don't need a time machine to show evolution happened.


Ultimately, I don't. At some point you need to be practical and take someone's word for it. But science has this wonderful thing called peer review: everyone can and does continually verify or reject previous evidence, both directly and indirectly. No one can ever go back to Roswell and reevaluate what happened.


Yes, it is an excellent example of how you don't understand science.

Also..

It's like in the case of the existence of God. Many people argue that God must not exist because there's no "proof". But, even if God walked up to them, slapped them in the face and said "I"m God. I exist," they would still interpret that "proof" to mean whatever was most comfortable for them to believe, whether that be that God exists and is an *******, or that aliens exist and like to play practical jokes, or that they must have been drugged, or it must have been some kind of illusion.

Bottom line: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANYTHING THAT WILL PROVE ANYTHING 100% UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND EVERY HUMAN BEING ON THIS EARTH CHOOSES TO BELIEVE BASED ON THEIR OWN PRECONCEPTIONS.

E.T. knows where the good ****'s at.

If you think its like parents, they are just watching us making sure we do not do anything stupid, otherwise, they intervene.

And who does science? Humans.

You're right sorry. I misspoke. I meant to say darwin theorized on the origins of species.

I didn't say whether I believed otherwise. (I've said years in the past, but I'm not the same person I was then.)

No one can ever go back through the millions of years that evolution happened and reevaluate what happened either. You don't think thousands of people saying they saw the same thing (or same sort of thing) qualifies as peer review?

No, it's an excellent example of how science falls short. Which is what you asked me for.

Sarn, God and aliens differ from scientific theories in one important respect: they don't explain anything. They take an unanswered question and attach a name to the unknown cause. But having a name doesn't tell me anything new about the mystery, whereas a scientific theory provides a model (which says: "here is how we think this cause is related to this effect") and suggests other relevant questions I might ask to search for more evidence.

That doesn't mean that God isn't the correct answer, just that it's a much less useful answer.

If I see some strange flying thing that seems to break the laws of physics, I'm understandably puzzled. But saying "that's an alien spacecraft" doesn't explain how it broke the laws of physics: it merely ties my observation to a story that I've heard often ("Aliens are more technologically advanced than humans and have mysterious law-defying devices"), which makes me more comfortable with the presence of the mystery. I suppose that's emotionally useful, but it isn't empirically very useful.

This thread should be abducted by aliens and replaced by a clone. LIEK ALL THOSE COWS!!

I just ****ing said this!


No. Peer review means not just reviewing the data, but repeating the experiment. You cannot repeat and reanalyze a specific UFO encounter.


No, I asked you to point out the flaws with the scientific method, which you have not done. Probably because you don't know what it is.

I'm going to assume you mean your average atheist, including people like me. In which case no, we do not argue that at all. We argue that, given the lack of evidence, we can't be certain. And because there's no good reason to think so, on a daily basis we're going to assume no. Why? For the same reason we assume there aren't invisible pink elephants walking around on Mars. We have no reason to believe it. It could be possible, but until otherwise, assuming they're not there is pretty reasonable.


Most rational people wouldn't assume it to be god, because they'd still have no evidence. Personal experiences are not good enough, even if they are your own.


No one ever said this. You probably think I did, which probably means you still don't know what I've been arguing this entire time.

No, I know that you agreed with me on that last statement. And really we're not so in disagreement as you think...

I think the only difference between you and I is you say "there's no evidence that can prove this true, so I'll assume it false" and I say "there's no evidence that can prove this true, so I'll make no opinion if it's unimportant, or I'll go with my gut instinct if it is important."

Secondly, are you talking about "THE" scientific method? If so, read this: http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm#Overview (I only read the overview so I don't know if the rest of the article gets whacky... But at least read the overview and come back at me with your opinion.)

And for the record, yes I do know what the scientific method is. If you may recall I do have a 2 year college degree. You have to pass science classes to get it.

And this is where I'm trying to demonstrate to you that science falls short. First, it cannot solve anything that's not repeatable, which means anything that happened under conditions we cannot reproduce and/or anything that happened over a time frame that's unreasonable for us to reproduce cannot be proven, using a strict definition of scientific method. (This, btw, is why I'm distrustful of the theory of evolution). Second, it cannot solve anything that we cannot observe or comprehend (and it's my opinion that there's a lot going on we can't observe or comprehend). Third, it cannot guarantee any future results (ie. even if you *do* repeat an experiment 100 times, there's no guarantee that the 101st time will produce the same results. Yes you can reasonably assume that it will, but you cannot know for sure.)

Further:
Vornskr, you're right. I agree with your latest post. I just think there's a lot of things that cannot be explained by science. If that's the case, I think it's ok to say "This is something we cannot understand, so I'm going to choose to go with my gut instinct. If it turns out I'm wrong later, then so be it." I don't think you necessarily have to try and cram everything into a box that fits our understanding. (Like you said, God might be the right answer, even if He's scientifically a somewhat useless answer.)

You're saying that science cannot explain everything, and that's certainly always going to be true. If a "gut feeling" is expressed, it is thus explainable and subject to scientific scrutiny. Saying God or Aliens did anything is a claim that can be dismissed for lacking reference to anything we do understand. Essentially you're saying "We cannot understand it, but I might."

Wow... what have I started?

Anyway, I don't really have an outspoken opinion on UFOs or their origins.. I just think it's intriguing when high placed, otherwise recommendable people speak of witnessing these things. Of course it's no proof, but it's intriguing nonetheless.

My friend's dad is an airliner pilot, he has seen the craziest things in his career. Apart from seeing lights alongside the plane, most often it's unknown objects on the radar that move at impossible speeds only to come to a full stop in a split second. He has no theories, but he says these events leave you with a strong sense that 'there is a lot out there'.

I said assume on a day to day, practical basis. I do NOT jump to the conclusion of it being false, and that is an important distinction.


No, I am talking about general tools for the systematic development of explanations and the processes used to verify them.


hahahahahahaha


See, this is why you don't know what science is. Repeatability comes in more forms than "do an experiment." It's also about inference, which is why the fossil support for evolution is so strong. Never mind all the genetic evidence.


Science doesn't cover the supernatural, which means this cannot be a flaw of science.


...and you know of something that does? Science is the BEST tool for predicting how things work.

College science classes for the scientific method? Christ, I learned that back in what, sixth grade?

Thanks to this thread, I get it now. It all suddenly seems so clear.

Since science can't explain supernatural events (well, science says there are no such thing as supernatural events, but we all know that's wrong) science can't be depended on to explain anything in this world. Instead, we can just rest assured that God is responsible for how everything works.

That helps out with that big bang theory, too. Gravity doesn't even exist, so how could it pull everything together? God just makes things fall, because what the hell would all of his children do if their bibles floated off all the time. If he allowed that to happen, he'd have some explaining to do, but we wouldn't want that, now would we?

oh yep Antony, that's exactly what I'm saying.

CM, I did too. I'm not saying the classes I took in science were new material.

Nope, I never said there was a better solution. Just that this was not the perfect solution by which to live your life, like you seem to think it is.

No kidding. what's that have to do with what I'm saying? All evolution is, is the best understanding we can come up with, based on the CONCLUSIONS we make based on our OBSERVANCES. Similarly, belief in aliens is the best understanding Temperamental (and many others) can come up with, based on the conclusions they've made based on their observances.

Saying that science is not perfect because it can't explain things we made up, is an absurd catch-22.

and saying we made things up because we cannot personally explain them with science is an irresponsible, conceited thing to do.

There is no rational reason to believe these things exist. See, some people use rationality and logic to determine what is and is not real. It's not a difficult thing to grasp. The irresponsible thing to do is to believe in fairy tales as a grown man, and pass these things on to another generation.

EDIT: Things like God are perfect ways for people who are either too stupid or too lazy to explain things they don't understand. Or people who have simply been misinformed. Your basic early education is obviously filled with tons of misinformation, which you have come to understand as basic principles of science. And considering you look at a scientific text under the pretense that some of it is right and some of it is wrong really is sad. Do you just decide which of those things you don't believe because it doesn't make sense to you, as opposed to trying to actually think and understand it? Or do you just say "this doesn't make sense to me, so it's wrong. God did it."

Like I said, if you know of a better way, I'm all ears. Using faith to try to understand the world is a terrible idea.


No, it's more than a "best guess" as you seem to think. It's a fact beyond any reasonable doubt.


Except that their evidence is not nearly as strong, and not at all repeatable in any fashion, which means there's a leap of faith.

You're equating evolution with alien encounters, saying that people arrived at conclusions about them through the same manner. This is all kinds of misguided and absurd.

Temperamental is Fox Mulder in disguise.
The Truth is Out There.

.

Ok, so some guy in the air force acquires sensory perception that he can't interpret easily. He then provides an explanation for this perception, which will be biased by the fact that he will unconsciously fill in details of the experience to match a class of events that he has decided that it falls into. (in this case alien space ship encounters) His experience cannot be analyzed by anyone else. We only have his analysis of the events to go off of. His story gets him media attention which gives him publicity for his book.

This alone doesn't make his story untrue, but it does severely limit the weight that we should put on this particular piece of evidence.

On the other hand, his story would mean that the theory of relativity as it is currently understood is false. However, relativity has been studied very closely by a great deal of people over a fairly long period of time. All observed data strongly supports this theory, and a very large amount of data has been gathered and analyzed. This data can be gathered and analyzed as many times and by as many people as is necessary.

This does not mean that relativity as it is currently understood is certainly true, but the evidence that supports it is very strong. A lot of weight should be given to it.

It is not possible to say for sure whether intelligent life visits earth, but evidence that we have available to us shows us that it is far more likely that it does not. To adopt the far less likely position that they do is willfully irrational.

If we had the technology to visit other planets though, we'd probably just move in and trash the place.

Ohh, you humans!

For the record, it was not "some guy in the air force." It was hundreds of people in the air force, the British police, and others.

It's still strongly susceptible to confirmation bias.

When did Obi_Kwiet get so smart

It was about a year ago, although his English became good earlier than that. That's a wild guess though, I can't remember the exact month or even year that he somehow stopped being dumb and became intelligent.

Zib zub zap

I'm a aliens