UFO's

Re other life in the universe, Carl Sagan once postulated that, given billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars around billions of which orbited billions of planets, it was actually statistically unlikely that there isn't other life in the universe.  He further postulated that, based partly on the sheer numbers, and partly what we know of the "absolute laws" of matter and energy, it was also statistically likely that there was other intelligent life in the universe - though he would not go so far as to presume that it would necessarily either look or "think" like us.

Peter:

To my comment that “There have been many, many sightings witnessed by hundreds of people at a time, all over the world,” you replied “How do you know that to be a fact, Maani? Ah -- you weren't there, but read it somewhere, right?”

Actually, there are dozens of photos – published in mainstream publications in several countries throughout the world, including Russia, Greece, Italy, Turkey and elsewhere – of enormous crowds of people (sometimes in the many hundreds) pointing to something(s) in the sky, with articles accompanying the photos stating that the object(s) being looked at were “UFOs.”  As noted, the government and/or scientific communities may have offered rational explanations for the phenomena being observed, but in at least some cases, no such explanation was offered, or the one that was offered was roundly rejected by the overwhelming majority of those who were there.

To my comment that “Finally, re your tete-a-tete with BaldFriede, I have said it once, and I will say it again: the narrow, closed-minded view of rational scientific empiricists prima facie precludes the ability to accept the existence of anything outside of their limited belief system,” you replied “No -- just as I am an agnostic (don't think there is a God, but can't be 100% certain) I accept the possibility -- however remote -- of these things.”

Sorry, that does not make you “open-minded” or even “agnostic.”  Since you put God and UFOs in the same category as “singing purple polka-dotted elephants” and “Elvis flipping burgers” somewhere, you are actually being cavalier, dismissive and insulting.  It is not enough to “not be 100% certain.”  Being open-minded means you do not look solely for proof against, but you also do not dismiss out-of-hand evidence or support for.  Indeed, a true open-minded skeptic might even actively seek proof for something s/he does not believe in (something I and others I know often do).

To my quotation from Hamlet that “There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy,” you replied “A nice quote, but rather arrogant in its implication that Hamlet (you) fully knows what Horatio (Tony, myself, other "rationalists" who want more in the way of "proof" than "I read somewhere" or "someone -- who had to remain anonymous --said...") is thinking, or will accept as proof.”

Horsehockey.  Hamlet is not saying that he “knows” anything specific; he is simply expressing his belief that Horatio is too locked into a rational, empiric view of the world, and that there are things that that rational, empiric view does not explain.  Besides, I do know what you, Tony and other “rationalists” are thinking or “will accept as proof” because I have been having these types of discussions with both of you for well over two years and you have made your positions quite well known.

You continue, “Essentially, this argument comes down to ‘I know I am right.’ But you do NOT ‘know.’  You are operating in the realm of faith, and seeing/believing in what you wish to see or believe in.  (as, arguably, am I -- but we have differing criteria for establishing "proof" or "truth.")"

You then say, “There is no point in the rational (science) arguing with the inherently irrational (faith).”

I find this attitude enormously sad, especially as it has always been my feeling (as well as that of such notable scientists as Einstein, Sagan, Gould and Hawking) that science and faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  As I have noted in other threads, what I find interesting is that my belief system leaves far more room for your belief system than yours does for mine.  That is, my faith does not discount, dismiss or otherwise question the vast majority of established science and the scientific method.  Yet your scientific empiricism completely and totally discounts, dismisses and questions my faith-based belief system  - despite your claims that you “keep an open mind.”  This is why I call your worldview “limited”: because you have only the rational, scientific, empirical method/belief system – which has no room for the faith-based belief system – while my faith-based belief system has plenty of room for your rational, scientific, empirical belief system.

You conclude that, “It is so very convenient to always be able to fall back on the old ‘well, we don't know everything, do we?  Look how much we have learned in the last 100 years, etc.’ argument, thus effectively dispensing with science altogether…In the end, I guess there is no overall ‘truth’ -- just personal versions of it. Do we ‘know’ anything?

Peter, you are smarter than this.  To claim that humankind has not learned everything it can possibly learn yet – and even to claim that there is a great deal that we still have to learn – is not the same as cavalierly and dismissively saying, “Well, we don’t know everything, do we?”  Nor do such statements “dispens[e] with science altogether.”  What it does is force the rational, scientific, empirical community to show a little humility, and admit that it does not know everything – and maybe even that there is a great, great deal that it still does not know.  Indeed, it is the scientific community that maintains a “we have explained everything in the known universe through the application of all of the natural laws of the universe (all of which we know already) and there is nothing more to learn” attitude much of the time.  And you think a faith-based belief system thinks it “knows everything?!”  We, at least, will often admit when we don’t know what we don’t know.  I have rarely ever heard that kind of humility from anyone in the rational, scientific, empiricist community.

Anyway, if you think these debates are pointless, why do you continue to engage in them?  You may do better enjoying other threads, where more mundane topics, and more “concrete” issues, are discussed.

Peace.

BaldFriede said :

"An elementary particle changes one of its properties, and accordingly another elementary particle that once was connected with it changes it at the same time, without any time passing, although it is far away? This is what quantum theory is about. How does the other particle "know" about the change of status, when nothing can move faster than light? Magic?"

No, that's not the essence of quantum theory, although it is one of many hypothetical consequences thereto. The kind of loose speculaton which the New Agers can fasten on to & run with......one has to distinguish between the mathematics which describe a model and the (very many) different interpretations, or physical translations, which can be placed upon that particular set of equations........

Tony:

Re why it is that aliens seem to “accidentally” be seen “only when there are very few witnesses,” this is simply not true.  There have been many, many sightings witnessed by hundreds of people at a time, all over the world.  And not all of them have been explained by natural phenomena.  True, the government and/or scientific community always “pooh-pooh” those sightings, claiming some natural phenomena.  And sometimes they are right. But sometimes they are not, and no one who “was there” is convinced of the government/scientific explanation.

Second, your belief that “it takes a certain type of individual” to believe in UFOs is specious.  You made a similar claim re believers in God, and you hold a similar belief about anyone who believes in anything that is not empirically “provable.”  But like those who believe in God – a group which includes men and women of every race, nationality, creed, economic level, educational level, psycho-emotional background, etc. – those who believe in UFOs run the gamut from A to Z, and do not fall into a “certain type of individual” category.  Indeed, unlike believers in God, in the case of UFOs there is the additional support of true professionals in relevant fields – commercial and military pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. – who know far more than any of us about angles of declination, air speeds, maneuverability, etc., and maintain a belief in UFOs based on their knowledge and experiences.  And although commercial airline pilots and air traffic controllers will sometimes make their views public, they know they risk ridicule (and possibly career) if they do.  And, of course, military pilots, radar and sonar specialists, etc. are sworn to secrecy, so they rarely if ever speak up.  Yet once these professionals leave their careers, either commercial or military, many of them do speak up, and their expertise adds enormous clout to the debate.

Finally, re your tete-a-tete with BaldFriede, I have said it once, and I will say it again: the narrow, closed-minded view of rational scientific empiricists prima facie precludes the ability to accept the existence of anything outside of their limited belief system – despite the fact that humankind still has things to learn, and that, as BaldFriede so perfectly put it, there may well be ways in which to do controlled experiments on “paranormal” and other non-scientific phenomena, but we simply do not know what parameters to use because our own knowledge has not gotten that far.  In that regard, you are essentially claiming that humankind has reached the highest possible level of  its knowledge, understanding and discernment.  That is not really hubris, it is simply an insupportable position.  Certainly humankind has made great strides in knowledge and technology, both scientific and otherwise, especially over the past century.  But do you really think we are at the “pinnacle” of all that we can know – or can learn?  You may want to rethink your position here.  And no “scientific body” has to “declare” this: it is a logical extrapolation from the position taken by the rational-empirical scientific community and those who agree with it.  And I agree with BaldFriede: though you like to fashion yourself a “skeptic,” you actually fall closer to “cynic” vis-à-vis truly “hot-button” issues such as God, UFOs, etc.

As Hamlet says: “There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Peace.