Such arguments cannot even be used in court, otherwise you'd be able to convict someone over something such as hearsay! |
|
Such arguments cannot even be used in court, otherwise you'd be able to convict someone over something such as hearsay! |
|
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
Why make assumptions on a lack of evidence? I just don't understand. I totally understand making assumptions based on known evidence, but just because there is a gap in evidence doesn't mean you can make an assumption about it. People didn't know about any evidence that the Earth was round a while ago, yet that is true. |
|
What gap of evidence? Where is this supposed gap? As for that last bit, people knew that the earth was round for a long time. The whole idea of being able to deduce your latitude from the position of the North Star in the sky was testament to that. It was only the church that promoted the idea of flat earth for a while. If anything, the better example to use was geocentricism. It was only until Copernicus and Galileo that such views were contested. |
|
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
My point is, there are things we don't know. Evidence that has not yet come to light. To make an assumption based on a lack of evidence is also assuming that evidence will never appear in favour of the counter-assumption; however evidence may very well appear at some point in the future as our knowledge increases. |
|
Well, the reason why scientists have a very healthy respect for cosmic objects like meteorites and micrometeorites is that they travel at huge speeds. We're not talking about speed of sound here, we are talking at velocities greater than the escape velocity required to be able to exit the Earth's gravitational field (speeds over 10km per second. That's right, per second). When something is travelling at those speeds, even a grain of sand has far more energy than a .50 cal armour piercing round. The double aluminium sheet hull for the Space shuttle and the ISS would prove to be as effective as stopping these objects has wet tissue paper trying to stop a bullet. Hell, even a simple bolt travelling at orbital speeds would be capable of taking the shuttle out. |
|
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
I asked for where these gaps in our knowledge are, not for the evidence to prove me wrong. What does science not currently know at this moment in time to suggest an open interpretation that could remotely lead to the possibility of "Aliens did it"? Perhaps if you'd care to explain, I might try to see if there is actually something already here to explain such gaps. |
|
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
If you don't know where these gaps are, then what is the point of all this speculation on "Aliens did it"? If you are going to argue on such things, you might as well have at least the proper basis to form such arguments, otherwise they carry absolutely no weight. |
|
Last edited by bluefinger; 06-17-2008 at 12:40 AM.
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
If it NASA thought this was fun, they would be the most hardcore of sadists. Also, it is why spacewalks are one of the most stressful jobs an astronaut can do. Lose a bolt, nut or FSM forbid, a whole spanner, that's an extra bit of debris in orbit that can take out a satellite. And if a satellite is destroyed, that's even MORE debris that can take out other shit. |
|
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
At Patrick; the point is this: you can claim virtually anything is possible and nobody can prove you wrong. But if there is absolutely no evidence for it then discussing it is as pointless as discussing why the flying spaghetti monster gave us ten toes. If there is no evidence for something then you must accept that it does not exist. That is the scientific method. |
|
I completely understand; I myself am a scientist in my first year of Neuroscience at university, but why say something doesn't exist when it's still possible, just because we lack evidence? The evidence just may not be apparent. |
|
First of all, entanglement has a finite speed, but as one of my friends who does physics at university explained, quantum entanglement is a very fragile state between two particles. It can't really be used for communication, as mere observations are enough to disturb and destroy the entangled state. Also, it can't be used for propulsion, so immediately it is pointless to speculate that entanglement would allow for faster-than-light travel. |
|
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
Wormholes, time travel? Bending the fabric of space and time. Perhaps there are advanced species who have mastered this.. |
|
Last edited by Wattage; 06-17-2008 at 10:13 AM.
LD's: ~35++
WILD's: 5
Oh dear again. Wormholes are at the moment only hypothetical features of spacetime, and not only have they yet to be observed, but whether it is even feasible to travel through them is disputed. Also, the issue of time travel is very hot ground, due to all the implications that time travel would incur. |
|
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
Bluefinger, thanks, I understand the science. I really do. The thing is, our knowledge is not infinite. There are things we don't know. We may be wrong in some aspects of our knowledge. You must accept that, at least! Therefore, there may be some knowledge we lack that, if known, would increase the probability of alien contact. |
|
Lack of evidence doesn't increase the probability of an already improbable proposition. Also, if we found aspects of our knowledge to be wrong, I think I'll let the scientific community correct what needs to be corrected rather than jump to the "Aliens did it" side of things. For something to be proven wrong, it has to be shown to be wrong through a solid hypothesis that meets the burden of proof with plenty of observational and experimental data, and also be consistent with all the other areas of science that the hypothesis relates to. Hell, if something makes it through peer-review, but fails to show conclusive results by third-parties and doesn't fit in with other related publications and research, it will eventually be disregarded anyway. The Scientific Method is a self-correcting system. |
|
Last edited by bluefinger; 06-17-2008 at 04:51 PM.
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dGYx_U16Cjk |
|
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
Bookmarks