Quote from: redliox on 12/31/2017 03:36 pmQuote from: Star One on 12/31/2017 12:01 pmWhat is 'Zoo Theory'?Quote Aliens exist, but they are hiding and purposefully trying to avoid contact with humans, says the "Zoo Theory". The thesis is an attempt to explain why humans have yet to meet or interact with intelligent life outside the planet.I think there are 2 possibilities we can look too, with "Zoo Theory" being one of them. The other would be that space (or specifically interstellar) travel is extremely hard. Then again our instruments might be considered "short ranged" but neither are we blind.I will put my cards on the deck by saying I believe Zoo Theory is the answer to the seeming galactic silence. That we are observed from afar but deemed far too primitive to communicate with.You used the correct term there since supporting such a theory is no different than any other religions beliefe. The lack of evidence can support whatever crazy idea you can think of. You might as well belive that the aliens are shy or that they are tiny or godlike. Whatever .
Quote from: Star One on 12/31/2017 12:01 pmWhat is 'Zoo Theory'?Quote Aliens exist, but they are hiding and purposefully trying to avoid contact with humans, says the "Zoo Theory". The thesis is an attempt to explain why humans have yet to meet or interact with intelligent life outside the planet.I think there are 2 possibilities we can look too, with "Zoo Theory" being one of them. The other would be that space (or specifically interstellar) travel is extremely hard. Then again our instruments might be considered "short ranged" but neither are we blind.I will put my cards on the deck by saying I believe Zoo Theory is the answer to the seeming galactic silence. That we are observed from afar but deemed far too primitive to communicate with.
What is 'Zoo Theory'?Quote Aliens exist, but they are hiding and purposefully trying to avoid contact with humans, says the "Zoo Theory". The thesis is an attempt to explain why humans have yet to meet or interact with intelligent life outside the planet.I think there are 2 possibilities we can look too, with "Zoo Theory" being one of them. The other would be that space (or specifically interstellar) travel is extremely hard. Then again our instruments might be considered "short ranged" but neither are we blind.
Aliens exist, but they are hiding and purposefully trying to avoid contact with humans, says the "Zoo Theory". The thesis is an attempt to explain why humans have yet to meet or interact with intelligent life outside the planet.
Quote from: vapour_nudge on 12/31/2017 11:12 pmIt’s circular.Don’t you at least see the irony in what this theory is suggesting? Explain away the reason why there are no aliens by saying they are hiding from us. It seems like a means for perpetual funding & justification of the (non) science of SETIHNY to you nonethelessOf course it’s circular. Reality is often imperfect.HNY
It’s circular.Don’t you at least see the irony in what this theory is suggesting? Explain away the reason why there are no aliens by saying they are hiding from us. It seems like a means for perpetual funding & justification of the (non) science of SETIHNY to you nonetheless
Quote from: Star One on 01/01/2018 08:21 amQuote from: vapour_nudge on 12/31/2017 11:12 pmIt’s circular.Don’t you at least see the irony in what this theory is suggesting? Explain away the reason why there are no aliens by saying they are hiding from us. It seems like a means for perpetual funding & justification of the (non) science of SETIHNY to you nonethelessOf course it’s circular. Reality is often imperfect.HNYI'm not sure you understood what he meant. He was saying you are using a circular argument. It goes as follows:...#1: "We've looked! We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!"#2: "They must be hiding! Look harder!"#1: "We looked harder. We can't find them!" ...ad infinitum...THAT is circular logic. By definition, it cannot prove anything. All it can do is attempt the impossible task of proving a negative, which just gets you into a circular argument...The world being imperfect has nothing to do with applying circular logic. The person applying the circular logic is the imperfect portion of this calculation, I hate to say...
THAT is circular logic. By definition, it cannot prove anything. All it can do is attempt the impossible task of proving a negative, which just gets you into a circular argument...The world being imperfect has nothing to do with applying circular logic. The person applying the circular logic is the imperfect portion of this calculation, I hate to say...
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 01/01/2018 03:15 pmTHAT is circular logic. By definition, it cannot prove anything. All it can do is attempt the impossible task of proving a negative, which just gets you into a circular argument...The world being imperfect has nothing to do with applying circular logic. The person applying the circular logic is the imperfect portion of this calculation, I hate to say...We don't have a circular logic problem. We have a seemingly reasonable assertion, and missing evidence - much like the dark days of Exoplanetology (the Sun is one of countless stars in the universe, therefor there must be countless planets - but we haven't found any). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but we still haven't seen any aliens. There are two forks in the road to resolving this conundrum: One, we're not looking hard enough, because barring exceptionalism, the Earth is one of countless planets in the universe, and it has life on it; therefor, we can't be alone out there. Two, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and thus, through logical fallacy, we are clearly alone in the universe.
I tell you what rather than sneering at my honesty in at least declaring a position on this. Why don’t some of you be less cowardly and actually declare a position. Shouting from the sidelines has always been a lot easier than actually taking part.No wonder people from SETI don’t stick their heads above the parapet when the people in the peanut galleries are too busy throwing peanuts.
Quote from: Star One on 01/01/2018 03:59 pmI tell you what rather than sneering at my honesty in at least declaring a position on this. Why don’t some of you be less cowardly and actually declare a position. Shouting from the sidelines has always been a lot easier than actually taking part.No wonder people from SETI don’t stick their heads above the parapet when the people in the peanut galleries are too busy throwing peanuts.I will tell you my position, as I have in the past.Belief is nothing. Proof is everything.It sounds to me like you don't believe that is taking a position. If you can't tell what position I am taking, that's your problem, not mine.
"Belief is nothing. Proof is everything" That is as succinctly as I could phrase the basis of the scientific method.The fact that you keep claiming the scientific method is "facile" just because it requires proof before acceptance weakens your position incredibly. As much as there is a lot of room for rational discussion in this area, it simply becomes absurd when the scientific method is seen as the wrong way of looking at the issue.
Man alive I am terrible at inductive reasoning in the morning It remains inconceivable to many people that humans could be alone in the universe. Our searches, to date, have investigated a tiny fraction of all the possible places to look.We'll find them, or we won't. In the grand scheme of things, we haven't looked very hard at all yet!
Further to the above there’s no need for faith in believing in a reasonable chance for other intelligent life you only have to rely on the maths of probability and the sheer number of galaxies, stars, planets and probably moons out there.
Quote from: Star One on 01/07/2018 08:13 pmFurther to the above there’s no need for faith in believing in a reasonable chance for other intelligent life you only have to rely on the maths of probability and the sheer number of galaxies, stars, planets and probably moons out there.Isn't that just the Drake equation paraphrased without the detail? And since the probabilities of a number of the variables in the Drake equation are frankly unknown to us at this point, it is not that difficult to get a result of "1" intelligent civilization, by just playing with one or two of the numbers.I happen to believe in a version of the Rare Earth Hypothesis. I think Earth is far more special than the adherents of the mediocrity principle would like to accept. Whether it is rare enough to result in an answer of "1" to the Drake equation, that I can't say. But an answer of 1 per galaxy, or 1 every hundred or thousand or million galaxies, is certainly not impossible.In which case the closest intelligent civilization might be millions of light years away, in a galaxy far, far away.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/07/2018 05:13 pmQuote from: hop on 01/06/2018 04:32 amQuote from: Star One on 01/05/2018 10:17 pmThe hubris is strong with the anti-ETI crowd again I see.If thinking the universe can do weird, unexpected stuff without aliens is hubris... guilty In seriousness though, I'm not "anti-ET". I'm firmly in the camp that says we aren't special, they are probably out there and we should keep our eyes and minds open. However, in the history of astronomy a lot more stuff that started out as weird and unexplained turned out to be dust than aliens. Absent specific data pointing to ET, I'll continue to expect most astronomical puzzles to have natural explanations. (edit for emphasis: This doesn't mean we shouldn't look, it just means we shouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be natural)For this star, I've never seen anything that specifically favors of ET. It's weird and unexplained, sure, but nothing about the weirdness favors an artificial origin. If the light curve matched simple geometric shapes or blinked out prime numbers or something like that it would be different story, but in reality it looks like the kind of chaotic noisy stuff nature does all the time.IMO the whole perception that it might be aliens mostly stemmed from misunderstanding. Wright's original mega-structure paper that kicked the hype off basically asked "Does this unexplained light curve fit ideas about what advanced aliens could build?" and concluded didn't fit particularly well, though limited data and the flexibility of "aliens" prevents ruling them out. Unfortunately in the press and popular opinion "astronomer examines whether it could be aliens" turned into "astronomers think it could be aliens!"No need to be"anti ET"... Just need to require specific evidence.Current ET arguments are "by elimination". They say that since there isn't a simple conclusive natural explanation yet, and if we tailor a sufficiently advanced alien capability around the observation, then we have a credible case for ET.This kind of logic can be used to "explain" anything in the universe, and can be equally "successful" in arguing for all sorts of gods as well. "It's too complex to have occured naturally".I personally would want extraordinary evidence for the existence of specific aliens, not just an observation that's hard to explain.Why would you require extraordinary evidence?I’d thought you’d need the same level of evidence as any other natural phenomena, unless somehow you don’t think other intelligent life is a natural development in the universe.You can’t just move around the goalposts to suit yourself.
Quote from: hop on 01/06/2018 04:32 amQuote from: Star One on 01/05/2018 10:17 pmThe hubris is strong with the anti-ETI crowd again I see.If thinking the universe can do weird, unexpected stuff without aliens is hubris... guilty In seriousness though, I'm not "anti-ET". I'm firmly in the camp that says we aren't special, they are probably out there and we should keep our eyes and minds open. However, in the history of astronomy a lot more stuff that started out as weird and unexplained turned out to be dust than aliens. Absent specific data pointing to ET, I'll continue to expect most astronomical puzzles to have natural explanations. (edit for emphasis: This doesn't mean we shouldn't look, it just means we shouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be natural)For this star, I've never seen anything that specifically favors of ET. It's weird and unexplained, sure, but nothing about the weirdness favors an artificial origin. If the light curve matched simple geometric shapes or blinked out prime numbers or something like that it would be different story, but in reality it looks like the kind of chaotic noisy stuff nature does all the time.IMO the whole perception that it might be aliens mostly stemmed from misunderstanding. Wright's original mega-structure paper that kicked the hype off basically asked "Does this unexplained light curve fit ideas about what advanced aliens could build?" and concluded didn't fit particularly well, though limited data and the flexibility of "aliens" prevents ruling them out. Unfortunately in the press and popular opinion "astronomer examines whether it could be aliens" turned into "astronomers think it could be aliens!"No need to be"anti ET"... Just need to require specific evidence.Current ET arguments are "by elimination". They say that since there isn't a simple conclusive natural explanation yet, and if we tailor a sufficiently advanced alien capability around the observation, then we have a credible case for ET.This kind of logic can be used to "explain" anything in the universe, and can be equally "successful" in arguing for all sorts of gods as well. "It's too complex to have occured naturally".I personally would want extraordinary evidence for the existence of specific aliens, not just an observation that's hard to explain.
Quote from: Star One on 01/05/2018 10:17 pmThe hubris is strong with the anti-ETI crowd again I see.If thinking the universe can do weird, unexpected stuff without aliens is hubris... guilty In seriousness though, I'm not "anti-ET". I'm firmly in the camp that says we aren't special, they are probably out there and we should keep our eyes and minds open. However, in the history of astronomy a lot more stuff that started out as weird and unexplained turned out to be dust than aliens. Absent specific data pointing to ET, I'll continue to expect most astronomical puzzles to have natural explanations. (edit for emphasis: This doesn't mean we shouldn't look, it just means we shouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be natural)For this star, I've never seen anything that specifically favors of ET. It's weird and unexplained, sure, but nothing about the weirdness favors an artificial origin. If the light curve matched simple geometric shapes or blinked out prime numbers or something like that it would be different story, but in reality it looks like the kind of chaotic noisy stuff nature does all the time.IMO the whole perception that it might be aliens mostly stemmed from misunderstanding. Wright's original mega-structure paper that kicked the hype off basically asked "Does this unexplained light curve fit ideas about what advanced aliens could build?" and concluded didn't fit particularly well, though limited data and the flexibility of "aliens" prevents ruling them out. Unfortunately in the press and popular opinion "astronomer examines whether it could be aliens" turned into "astronomers think it could be aliens!"
The hubris is strong with the anti-ETI crowd again I see.
Based on our own experience, we expect that civilizations much older than ours will be scientifically savvy and hence technologically advanced. But it is also possible that a simpler lifestyle rather than scientific prosperity has dominated the political landscape on other planets, leading to old civilizations that are nevertheless technologically primitive.