"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 16, 1:35 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 10, 9:31 pm, s...@pifft.spam (Bruce Hutchinson) wrote:

 "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have a question for any UFO skeptics that may be here. What is the
rationale for considering UFOs an "extraordinary claim"

First and foremost- the odds that there are, and have been, other
intelligent races in our galaxy are extremely good, if not certain.
Not a lot of civilizations, but they're out there... or at least have
been. The odds that any one of these races were/are smart enough to
have develped the capablity for interstellar travel are much longer,
but I think it safe to assume that some made it.  Remember we're still
a long, long way from that point.

There is no ONE reason for the "extraordinary claim"-

There are some 10 Billion stars in our galaxy alone, which means that
the odds of chance encounters with an alien race are very,very,very
small.

We (the the Sol system) are in a relatively sparcely populated part of
the Milky Way, so again the odds of chance encounters...

And... we (the human race) have been around for less than an eyeblink
of the Galaxy's history, so again the odds of chance encounters...

The nearest star is over 4 light years away.  Even if you assume that
an intelligent race has figured out how to travel at the speed of
light,  most stars are still a long, long, long way away, so again the
odds of chance encounters...

Finally, no demonstrable proof exists that "they" are, or ever have
been here.

...for which the
probability of being true is so nearly zero that it's best not to do
any serious and deep scientific investigations, anyway?

What "probability" are you referring to?

If it the probability that an alien civilization knows we are here-
and has visited us- you have to answer thisquestion; why should we
invest in Serious Research based on no evidence at all?

After all, astronomers are very busy scanning the universe with a wide
array of instruments almost 24/7.  There is SETI.  What more, based on
the "probability", can they do?

Serious scientific research is expensive, and if there is no rationale
to persue the subject, it is a waste of time, talent, and sometimes
scarce research dollars.  That being said, there is one serious
scientific project ongoing- SETI.  As this search is mostly privately
funded,  is largely an automated, computer-driven project and it does
not eat up too much time of the people involved, it continues.  So
far, no luck.

So then basically you think that people investigating UFOs are
wasting their time. You'd rather people stay in the mainstream.

I didn't say that-  unkind of you to imply that I did.

But based on the way you phrased your question, the answer is
"goodness no".  The amateur investigators that are currently working
the UFO field are doing so because they feel it is important, and are
convinced of the reality.  More power to them.  Maybe some day they
will come up with a tangible bit of eveidence that will spark Serious
Research.

Lastly, as you pointed out, String Theory has strong foundations in
Relativity and QM- two subjects that do have a reasonable body of
experimental proof.  That alone is a good reason to persue the
subject.

But regardless, that does not mean _string theory itself_ is right.
There could be other possibilities based on those theories
(relativity and QM) that might be right instead. Until someone can
test string theory it remains as unproven as ever.

Quite true.  If S/T is proven wrong, it will join hundreds of other
failed theories.  BUT... and this is very important... the proof that
S/T is wrong itself will lead us closer to the real solution.  That is
what has happened time and time again in science.  eg: Bohr's
desciption of how an atom is constructed was eventully proven wrong-
by Q/M.

When it comes to the alien/UFO subject, there is no demonstrable
reason to invest in serious research- no analogue to the math in
String Theory, and no previously proven theories as foundations.  But
I assure you, that if and when a good reason does comes along, you
*will* see MAJOR resources committed to the subject.

What would be a good reason, anyway? Of course there's going
to be nothing analogous to the math, since UFOs are a phenomenon,
not an attempt to describe a phenomenon (the latter is what String
Theory is.).

Slightly skewed analogy there.  S/T does not necessarly attempt to
explain a phenomenon.  It is more an attempt to explain some glaring -
and observed - gaps in both ToR and Q/M.   

If by a "good reason" you mean someone actually brings home a
crashed UFO, then all the "research" has been done. UFOs were
proven to exist right then and there. 

Good point.  But that recovery would be just the starting point.

The point of investigation is to
see they _do_ exist, so if you demand that someone must prove
it before it can be investigated, you are demanding that someone
must investigate it before it can be investigated. This logic is as
round as the very flying saucer it preports to debunk.

The "round logic" is not even logic.  As the UFO question stands now,
you're asking that Serious Research be based on no more than a
questionable assertion, not a fact in sight. That's not logic.

Your argument is the same one used to try and justify Serious Research
into all sorts of paranormal claims- ghosts, faeries, Bigfoot, Nessie,
ESP, psychics, astrology, dousing, etc, etc.  Some paranormal subjects
have been briefly studied by isolated individuals that you could
accurately describe as Serious Scientists, and they all came up with
zilch.  BUT... In those cases where research was done, note that the
subject was one where experimental evidence could be collected. That
is not the case in UFOs.

In addition to the above, I may add that UFOs is not about simply
asking "Whoa!!! Aliens might exist out there, so let's go and look
for their spaceships coming by" based on nothing but just an
urge to ask. In that case, then most of your criticisms about
chances being so low of a random encounter may work. But that
is not how UFOlogy works. Rather, there is a *reported
phenomenon*. The question is what it is. If it turns out to be aliens,
then the encounter happened, period. The odds were beat. If not,
then it is not. The thing though is that a phenomenon has been
reported, and, in some cases, videotaped and photographed.
What it is is the rub. Although a lot of sighting (around 95%) have
been explained as simple phenomena or as hoaxes, the remaining
5% are still a mystery. So _something_ is there to investigate.
Whether or not it's aliens, well there's no way to know unless one
goes and investigates starting from a NEUTRAL point of view.

All legitimate observations, but I can make an equally good case for
any number of other paranormal subjects, and your observations still
cannot make a good case for Serious Research.

One point is that because there is no way to predict when and where
the next sighting will occur, all your Serious Scientist would be able
to research is the same questionable material already being
investigated by the UFO community.  To date, the best anyone can come
up with is that maybe 5% of the reported sightings fall into the
"unexplained" category. Why are they "unexplained"? Because there is
not enough data to be able to put them in any other categories.  So
what is the Serious Scientist supposed to do with that kind of
sighting?

UFOlogy tries to investigate an observed phenomenon, not a
question just tossed out with a snowball's chance in hell of being
answered "yes". I think the real question of UFOlogy is not whether
or not the things are aliens, but whether at least some of them are
instances of a phenomenon hitherto unknown to mainstream
science. Whether that's aliens or not, who knows? But the
discovery of such a phenomenon would add to the overall
scientific knowledge of humanity, that's for sure. And I think that's
a good thing.

Discoveries such as you described happen fairly frequently.  The
recent observations and descriptions of "sprites" in the high reaches
of the troposphere is a good example.  But these discoverioes did not
need the impetus of UFO claims, although the first observations of the
sprites were attributed by some as UFOs.

Bottom line is that UFOs are a subject that has no interest to
mainstream science because it is not really a subject that CAN be
studied.  There is no verifiable reason to believe that UFOs exist,
the probability that "they" are here is far too remote, the
unpredictable nature of the subject makes it impossible to verify
experimentally, and what little "evidence" that is available contains
no information that can prove the existance of UFOs.


hutch


If you add up all known religions and cancel the contradictions,
you are left with only one invariant universal message: 
God needs *your* money.
  ----Uncle Al (Usenet)