Advanced Life without "intelligence".

[jeremyjr]

To what end? The existence of the phenomenon is not in question; nobody has claimed there is nothing in the pictures. What is being requested is more precision and rigor, not more volume. Since you are so proudly outside of science, how do you determine that this is no different than many other established sciences? Especially in light of every person here with scientific training telling you otherwise? And you will be no closer to objectively determining what these marvelous things are, because you are repeating the same imprecise observations.

"To what end?" Well let me say simple curiosity, to "what end?" do you give a Wal-Mart telescope to a kid? To stimulate his/her curiosity, very likely that kid will not make immediate contributions to science with that telescope, but he/she will see wonderful things and at a personal level that feeling of discovery is not different than any other.

But do not dismiss what can be done with cheap equipment, today many active observers of anomalies around the world are witnessing extraordinary things with second hand equipment, things that are still denied by active scientists that have access to very expensive equipment. So belittling what can be done by these brave observers is really unproductive and unfair.

I haven't been following this discussion from the beginning, but anytime someone plays the "Mainstream science is trying to keep me from telling you this!" card, my bunk-o-meter immediately nudges into the "Suspicious" zone.

 

You realize that properly expanding or overturning a mainstream theoretical model with a better, more accurate model is one reason they hand out Nobel Prizes, right? Or that it would take a worldwide collusion of people who are, at the end of the day, in competition with each other for research funding to suppress a valid scientific idea?

 

Given the choice between "Science is suppressing my ideas to protect their monopoly on knowledge" and "I'm wrong.", can you guess which one sounds more likely?

Let me give you a very well documented case that since you had not followed all discussions you appear to had missed: Lavoisier denial of the reality of meteorites and that denial backed by the full force of the French Academy of Sciences that stubbornly denied the evidence for the fall of meteorites.

So your inference rule may have exceptions.

[swansont]

"The existence of the phenomenon is not in question".

Well that contradict many of your previous statements, but I definitely welcome it.

How so? I have never claimed the photos were blank. There is definitely something in them. What I and other reject is the notion that you have come anywhere close to showing that the photos show what you claim they show. You have not even ruled out simpler explanations.

So you are admitting the reality of anomalies, the existency of autonomous amorphous/polymorphic objects that behave like living beings, some of them responding unequivocally to direct light signals and some others making their response appear to be correlated to the signals sent to them.

Reality of anomalies, yes. Nothing after that has been conclusively demonstrated.

More independent active and prepared observers will bring more data, with that more quality on some of that data, since these efforts are done with individual funding and time, the way that many people with intrinsic scientific curiosity operate, some of these people will have better instrumentation for observations, new ideas, new insights.

More data helps if you have noisy data and the signal will be improved by averaging (i.e. you are dominated by white noise). But not all measurements improve with additional noisy data. These would not be more of observations of the same phenomenon, under the same conditions.

Precisely the fact that anomalies are being reported today only for people with no connections to Official Science shows that scientific curiosity is very much alive and not the exclusivity of "scientists", science is not the exclusivity of anybody or any group and the search for the truth and understanding is also going on outside academia or research laboratories.

It's also true that only non-paleontologists find rocks that they think are fossils. That's not a negative mark for paleontology. Or, if you like, non-geologists finding iron pyrite (fool's gold). That's not indicative of some special truth that paleontologists and geologists are ignoring.

So belittling what can be done by these brave observers is really unproductive and unfair.

I'm not "belittling" what they can do. I'm "belittling" what they are doing in place of that. (and I use quotes because being told that you are wrong is not, within scientific discussion, to be confused with being belittled.

[Greg H.]

Let me give you a very well documented case that since you had not followed all discussions you appear to had missed: Lavoisier denial of the reality of meteorites and that denial backed by the full force of the French Academy of Sciences that stubbornly denied the evidence for the fall of meteorites.

So your inference rule may have exceptions.

 

I'll agree that the inference may have exceptions. With a very few exceptions, the same could probably be said of every inference. (You see what I did there?). Fortunately for us, the French Academy aren't the only chaps doing science then, huh? Suppressing scientific knowledge is incredibly hard, because anything one person can discover, another person can discover as well - and it only takes one person to publish to spread that knowledge. It is exponentially more difficult in modern times when ideas can be spread so rapidly to a wide audience. That's the reason "I'm being suppressed" carries so little weight as an argument.

 

Has it happened in the past? Sure, and it wasn't always the scientific community doing the suppressing.

Could it happen now? If we're dealing in absolute probabilities, then yes, it is possible. Is it likely? No, not really.

 

Further, reading about the incident you mentioned seems more a combination of either misunderstanding or misapplying the science and significant group think on the part of the scientific community, rather than the outright suppression of an idea. Indeed, the scientific community of the time, investigated the claim using the methods available to them, and published results based on those investigations. That is called doing science. When later investigation and experimentation overturned the previous findings, this wasn't a case of throwing off the yoke of suppression, but a case of the scientific method doing what it does - finding the truth based on the available evidence, and adapting to match updated evidence.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Greg H.

[jeremyjr]

I'll agree that the inference may have exceptions. With a very few exceptions, the same could probably be said of every inference. (You see what I did there?). Fortunately for us, the French Academy aren't the only chaps doing science then, huh? Suppressing scientific knowledge is incredibly hard, because anything one person can discover, another person can discover as well - and it only takes one person to publish to spread that knowledge. It is exponentially more difficult in modern times when ideas can be spread so rapidly to a wide audience. That's the reason "I'm being suppressed" carries so little weight as an argument.

 

Has it happened in the past? Sure, and it wasn't always the scientific community doing the suppressing.

Could it happen now? If we're dealing in absolute probabilities, then yes, it is possible. Is it likely? No, not really.

 

Further, reading about the incident you mentioned seems more a combination of either misunderstanding or misapplying the science and significant group think on the part of the scientific community, rather than the outright suppression of an idea. Indeed, the scientific community of the time, investigated the claim using the methods available to them, and published results based on those investigations. That is called doing science. When later investigation and experimentation overturned the previous findings, this wasn't a case of throwing off the yoke of suppression, but a case of the scientific method doing what it does - finding the truth based on the available evidence, and adapting to match updated evidence.

If you had followed the whole set of discussions you will had realized by now that your assumptions about the un-likelihood of "suppression" of new ideas by the scientific community is really an assumption that is not supported at all by the history of science, sadly the Lavoisier's case is not uncommon and your initial statement points exactly to that direction: when in doubt you will "side" with the "official" position.

 

But any independent thinking person, and true scientists are supposed to be independent thinkers, will "evaluate" a given claim on their own. If somebody needs to look for a "parental figure or authority" to form an opinion can we even say that that given person have any real opinion?

 

And the reactions in this forum at any presentation of the reality of anomalies have always encountered almost absolute dismissal/denial/belittling.

But we have seen, for example with the case of the scanning tunneling microscope, that this type of reaction is really pervasive in science, and even more is a common social reaction in any group when presented with "facts" that place questions marks in their belief system.

Edited July 10, 2015 by jeremyjr

[Phi for All]

And the reactions in this forum at any presentation of the reality of anomalies have always encountered almost absolute dismissal/denial/belittling.

 

!

Moderator Note

Some day, not today, you may eventually see that it's not the concept that has been dismissed. You were asked in multiple threads on your anomalies to show where you ruled out more mundane explanations, and when you refused to offer that, it was explained why it's important. You still kept insisting what we were seeing were either aliens or an undiscovered terrestrial species.

 

Now you've just sunk to persecution claims, and it's just not true. We were asking for more rigor in your methodology, not telling you there was nothing to see in your videos.

 

In any case, it's obvious you're just phoning it in now, not even bothering to read replies, just responding with "Help, I'm being repressed!" So we're left with just this: your blurry UFO videos are all you seem to want to talk about, and nobody really wants to hear you make claims you're unwilling to support, so you can pick a different subject, or be more rigorous in your science, or even stop making claims and just discuss your UFOs, ask questions instead of make assertions you have no evidence for.

 

If you can't do any of these, I think you should move on from here. It's not productive to come here, where we ask for evidence, and refuse to give us more than blurry videos as proof of plasma beings in the atmosphere.

 

This thread's closed.