• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Alternative Explanations for Contactees


IMO real science doesn't make a determination based on something that doesn't fit any available data. So IMO giving Occam's razor more than a small percentage of thought is for people not interested in real science but are more interested in debunking.
 
DBTrek said:
CapNG will argue that it doesn't have to be godlike, but to defy the known, testable, laws of physics it actually does need to be god-like.

Damn right I will, because it's not. The laws of physics are not immutable concepts carved into stone, like all science they are links in a chain and subject to revision should newer, better, more accurate information come to light. Whenever you say such-and-such "defies the laws of physics" what you really mean to say is such-and-such "defies the laws of physics as we currently understand them to be".

DBTrek said:
We're talking about taking a known, testable, limitation of mass and simply discarding it. That's god-like.

Known to us, testable only by tests we designed, who's answers must lie within a certain range to be considered valid. There's a tremendous degree of human vanity invested in this, coupled with an odd inferiorty complex that anything we don't currently understand is "god-like" knowledge.

DBTrek said:
Isn't that an awful lot of speculation for something that can be explained much more easily?

It is indeed but that doesn't mean it's wrong or out of place. Speculation and hypothesis are the cornerstones of the scientific method. Designing an experiment to test them? Much more difficult.
 
The Hawk said:
IMO real science doesn't make a determination based on something that doesn't fit any available data. So IMO giving Occam's razor more than a small percentage of thought is for people not interested in real science but are more interested in debunking.

Occam's Razor is a tool of convenience, not a tool of science. It's more of a useful starting point for a discussion when dealing with a large number of unknowns. I've stated what I believe and why . . . part of the reason is because I find my explanations to be less fantastic and require less assumption/speculation than the alternative theories (aka Occam's Razor).

Is this debunking? I like to see it more as a discussion, since I can't prove that technologically advanced aliens aren't visiting us. I can only point out why I think it's extremely unlikely that they are.

CapnG said:
Known to us, testable only by tests we designed, who's answers must lie within a certain range to be considered valid. There's a tremendous degree of human vanity invested in this, coupled with an odd inferiorty complex that anything we don't currently understand is "god-like" knowledge.

I think when we're discussing a technology that bestows a godlike power . . . omniscience for example, we're talking about a god-like technology. If the aliens can traverse backward and forward in time, simply "know" that out of the entire multiverse our small planet is supporting life, and travel here without so much as leaving a scrap of hard evidence I'm comfortable calling their technology god-like. Such abilities are far beyond the grasp of man and almost solely reserved for our 'gods'.

This isn't similar to showing a laser pointer to medieval knights (since medieval knights had no tested scientific theories stating that the existence of laser pointers should be impossible), this is taking the limits of nature as we have tested and understand it and performing feats beyond those limitations. Two different things entirely.

The laws of physics are not immutable concepts carved into stone, like all science they are links in a chain and subject to revision should newer, better, more accurate information come to light. Whenever you say such-and-such "defies the laws of physics" what you really mean to say is such-and-such "defies the laws of physics as we currently understand them to be".

Quite right. Yet until we have a reason to disregard the limitations our science has found is why would we assume that these limitations can be overcome?

-DBTrek
 
DBTrek said:
I think when we're discussing a technology that bestows a godlike power . . . omniscience for example

Stop. Why is it omniscience? You're suggesting that if they know more than us they must know everything there is to know? That's a bit...much...

DBTrek said:
I'm comfortable calling their technology god-like.

Not I but that's probably my inner atheist talking.

DBTrek said:
This isn't similar to showing a laser pointer to medieval knights (since medieval knights had no tested scientific theories stating that the existence of laser pointers should be impossible), this is taking the limits of nature as we have tested and understand it and performing feats beyond those limitations.

Okay, change the scale. Showing a laser pointer to a caveman (a stone age but otherwise modern human). Is it magic yet? I'd tend to think so.

DBTrek said:
Yet until we have a reason to disregard the limitations our science has found is why would we assume that these limitations can be overcome?

Well, isn't that where science comes into it's own? I mean we managed to figure out we couldn't fly by strapping wings to our arms and flapping but we didn't give up on flight, did we?
 
I'm with CapnG on this one - creating *theoretical* absolute limits and then stating that's it's 'impossible' to exceed those limits takes arrogance to whole new level.
 
Rick Deckard said:

Ah, you're talking about gravity being a curvature of space/time instead of a natural 'force'. Yes, Einstein did come up with a better theory. Perhaps, one day someone will come up with yet a better one.

Or . . . perhaps not. The problem comes in assuming that given enough time sentient beings "will" find a way to physically exceed the speed of light. This is not necessarily the case. Nor would solving this problem explain how alien beings knew they would find humans on Earth, assuming we existed in overlapping time periods.

CapnG said:
Stop. Why is it omniscience? You're suggesting that if they know more than us they must know everything there is to know? That's a bit...much...

It may be a bit much . . . yet if you can travel to any time period you like, traverse any distace you like, and also have a means of knowing where life exists throughout the cosmos there seems to be little you would not know. Anything you didn't know could be learned by travelling foward or back in time (depending on when/where the information was available).

Not true omniscience perhaps . . . since there remains the possibility that certain natural processes may never be fully understood . . . but pretty close to it.

-DBTrek
 
DBTrek said:
Ah, you're talking about gravity being a curvature of space/time instead of a natural 'force'. Yes, Einstein did come up with a better theory. Perhaps, one day someone will come up with yet a better one.

And perhaps they'll come up with a better theory tomorrow which shows that faster-than-light travel is possible after all.

DBTrek said:
The problem comes in assuming that given enough time sentient beings "will" find a way to physically exceed the speed of light.

Rather than assuming they won't?

You're also assuming that *linear* space is the only way to cross the galaxy.

Oh and let's totally disregard the idea of 'worm holes' which *theoretically* allow you to bridge the gap between any two points in space and *travel* between them across almost no distance at all - speed of light travel is not needed in this case. Even the 'high priests' of science are considering that possibility...
 
Rick Deckard said:
Oh and let's totally disregard the idea of 'worm holes' which *theoretically* allow you to bridge the gap between any two points in space and *travel* between them across almost no distance at all - speed of light travel is not needed in this case. Even the 'high priests' of science are considering that possibility...

The only thing being disregarded in this thread are the several, very real problems, that make the odds of human beings being contacted/abducted by aliens extremely remote.

So far the only answers provided by your side of the argument are:

"They have technology that is overcome all the problems you cite"

"How?"

"They're more advanced. You can not begin to conceive of their technology . . . but it miraculously conquers all problems unsolvable by us."

That's blatant disregarding of the tangible problems I've posed. It's no better than claiming they use "magic spells" to solve all the problems.

-DBTrek
 
DBTrek said:
The only thing being disregarded in this thread are the several, very real problems, that make the odds of human beings being contacted/abducted by aliens extremely remote.

So far the only answers provided by your side of the argument are:

"They have technology that is overcome all the problems you cite"

"How?"

"They're more advanced. You can not begin to conceive of their technology . . . but it miraculously conquers all problems unsolvable by us."

That's blatant disregarding of the tangible problems I've posed. It's no better than claiming they use "magic spells" to solve all the problems.

-DBTrek

This isn't funny - you're basically saying that unless I can demonstrate to you how to break the 'sacred laws of physics', I don't have an argument. Brilliant logic.
 
Rick Deckard said:
This isn't funny - you're basically saying that unless I can demonstrate to you how to break the 'sacred laws of physics', I don't have an argument. Brilliant logic.

You have an argument. The same kind of argument creationists have; A parapalegic one.

;)

-DBTrek
 
DBTrek said:
The only thing being disregarded in this thread are the several, very real problems, that make the odds of human beings being contacted/abducted by aliens extremely remote.

So far the only answers provided by your side of the argument are:

"They have technology that is overcome all the problems you cite"

"How?"

"They're more advanced. You can not begin to conceive of their technology . . . but it miraculously conquers all problems unsolvable by us."

That's blatant disregarding of the tangible problems I've posed. It's no better than claiming they use "magic spells" to solve all the problems.

-DBTrek

All your objections can be overcome by attributing unproven supernatural (or unproven technological powers) to unproven beings from unproven worlds making unproven visitations (or unproven appearances) for unproven purposes.

Gosh, DBTrek. Why all the negative vibes, man? :cool:
 
DBTrek said:
Not true omniscience perhaps . . . since there remains the possibility that certain natural processes may never be fully understood . . . but pretty close to it.

-DBTrek

Horseshoes and hand grenades...
 
Back
Top