Do U Believe in Aliens?

[Grave_n_idle]

That is assuming the accumulation of knowledge and technology is linear,

No, actually, it isn't.

It's assuming that if you can split the atom, you can split the atom. I'm not suggesting linear technology.

...that since they have one thing they must have another. With alien life we can't make that assumption.

I'm not.

Now you're fathoming their motives.

Not at all. Creatures that can dwell in the hearts of stars are not likely to be seeking liquid water.

What you may assume is a waste may be plentiful to them.

In which case they don't need to go star-hopping looking for resources.

Your attempt at pragmatism is trying to understand or guess their motives.

It's really not.

Splitting hairs that since we haven't met alien life that no one's theories are qualified. Stephen Hawking is a slightly more credible source for advice on this situation than anyone on NSG, I'm afraid.

No, you're not 'afraid', you're just wrong.

There are no experts on aliens, because - as far as we know - we've not yet encountered them.

[Southern Patriots]

No, actually, it isn't.

It's assuming that if you can split the atom, you can split the atom. I'm not suggesting linear technology.

Whatever makes you feel better. But you are assuming since you said "if they can do this, they should be able to do that." That's assuming.

I'm not.

Oh, ok.

Not at all. Creatures that can dwell in the hearts of stars are not likely to be seeking liquid water.

Another assumption of the motives of alien beings.

In which case they don't need to go star-hopping looking for resources.

Another assumption.

It's really not.

I've just pointed out it is.

No, you're not 'afraid', you're just wrong.

There are no experts on aliens, because - as far as we know - we've not yet encountered them.

And I didn't say there were, I pointed out that as far as theories go there are more credible individuals to make them than you. Does that upset you?

[Aethrys]

Space, is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

Douglas Adams, is that you?

[Flameswroth]

I don't believe in aliens. I get the whole 'practically guaranteed by the sheer space in the universe' concept, but the things that are real to me are the things that impact the world around me. Observed, certifiable things with real consequences and bearings on how I live my life. Aliens, while a lot of fun to talk about, aren't real in that sense.

For what it's worth though, I lurv that Ancient Aliens TV show on History Channel...even though it's not history.

[Eirian Mick]

Do you guys have to be SO damn critically literal!? Dearest Jesus in Heaven! Anyway, it's my own PERSONAL OPINION that, because of the fighting and pollution alone, no aliens would want to come to Earth. BUT my point is that, yes, I do think they exist! I think they came here to help us out with a few things but didn't return because WE would be so scared of the improbable that we would try to destroy them, hostile or not. AND NO I DO NOT RENOUNCE MY HUMANITY. I just worded it wrong. Jeez...

[Ifreann]

Do you guys have to be SO damn critically literal!?

Don't have to, but it's fun.

Dearest Jesus in Heaven! Anyway, it's my own PERSONAL OPINION that, because of the fighting and pollution alone, no aliens would want to come to Earth.

And I don't see what your basis for thinking that is. Why would aliens care about fighting and pollution?

BUT my point is that, yes, I do think they exist! I think they came here to help us out with a few things but didn't return because WE would be so scared of the improbable that we would try to destroy them, hostile or not.

Again, I don't see why you would think that.

AND NO I DO NOT RENOUNCE MY HUMANITY. I just worded it wrong. Jeez...

Take a chill pill.

[Grave_n_idle]

But you are assuming since you said "if they can do this, they should be able to do that." That's assuming.

There's nothing wrong with assumption. I'm not making assumptions about motives or biology, or whatever. I'm making assumptions like 'if you have the science to split the atom, you have the science to split the atom'. That's not an unreasonable assumption.

Another assumption of the motives of alien beings.

Nothing to do with motives. Not quite sure why you keep doing that.

The assumption here would be that aliens that evolved inside stars are going to have evolved in an environment in which liquid water would be beyond rare. It's not going to be an evolutionary necessity as it is for us, because otherwise they wouldn't have evolved at all, given their environment.

See?

Another assumption.

Again, nothing wrong with making assumptions. They just aren't the assumptions you seem to wish they were.

In this case, though - this isn't an assumption.

If they are looking for resources that are rare for them, then they can't also be common for them.

And I didn't say there were, I pointed out that as far as theories go there are more credible individuals to make them than you.

There aren't.

Does that upset you?

No.

And I get the feeling that response will disappoint you, which makes me wonder why you're trying to troll me.

[New Lusitaniagrad]

No, I do not.

[Grave_n_idle]

And I don't see what your basis for thinking that is. Why would aliens care about fighting and pollution?

Indeed. If aliens were looking for us because they like something exotic on the table, for example, the fact that we are doing so much to kill ourselves off is actually an incentive to come here. We're making it easy.

[The perfect place]

Of course! You'd be stupid not to believe!

[Corusant Sphere]

Heh, I want to see aliens..

I believe they exist.

[Farnhamia]

And I don't see what your basis for thinking that is. Why would aliens care about fighting and pollution?

Indeed. If aliens were looking for us because they like something exotic on the table, for example, the fact that we are doing so much to kill ourselves off is actually an incentive to come here. We're making it easy.

Ahem ...

[Southern Patriots]

There aren't.

I'm sorry, but unless you're secretly some NASA scholar who frequents NSG, you're either trolling ME or incredibly egotistical to assume you're more qualified than esteemed scientists and can read the minds and intentions of alien lifeforms we've never encountered.

[Farnhamia]

No, I do not.

Would you care to elaborate?

[Flameswroth]

Of course! You'd be stupid not to believe!

Why?

It is stupid to believe that you can fly like Superman, because we have a firm understanding what actually generates flight in our atmosphere, and the human body cannot on its own. It's stupid to believe that maggots spawn out of nothing (abiogenesis), because we understand via observation that maggots are the larvae of flies, and are born from eggs delivered by their parents.

In general, it is stupid to not believe things that can be quantitatively shown to be true. How, then, is it stupid to not believe in aliens who, aside from comments on statistical inevitability, have no such quantitative proof of existence?

[Flameswroth]

There aren't.

I'm sorry, but unless you're secretly some NASA scholar who frequents NSG, you're either trolling ME or incredibly egotistical to assume you're more qualified than esteemed scientists and can read the minds and intentions of alien lifeforms we've never encountered.

Are these esteemed scientists the same ambiguous 'top men' from Raiders of the Lost Ark? Or do they have names?

I think it's all too common to hear on TV, or from a friend, that researchers/scientists have said something, and then take it for face value. I do it all the time, myself. But, I don't delude myself into believing that this uninformed knowledge is in any way concrete enough to form a stance with.

A link to a scientist of the esteem you are talking could help, or perhaps a paper on the issue. Although I would probably venture that people would go to lengths to find the articles discrediting that scientist (if any).

I'm not saying your 'esteemed scientists' don't exist. I'm just saying that without substantiation, it's about as comforting to us as 'top men' was to Indiana Jones with regard to the handling of the Ark of the Covenant...which is to say not much.

[Keronians]

This is exactly what NASA's been working on for the last two decades, in fact; they're just being extremely conservative and are confirming every last detail before they make any sort of noise on the subject, whether positive or negative. First they sent missions to determine whether or not Mars had water in the past; that was confirmed. Then they sent missions to see whether Mars still has water on its surface today; that was also confirmed, along with the existence of several different Earth-like rocks (See the discoveries of the Spirit and Opportunity rovers). Now, they're sending the Mars Science Laboratory (AKA Curiosity) to look for either organic molecules in the surface soil layers or evidence of past organic molecules, and potentially look for signs of life itself via the chemical signatures it leaves. In the next five or ten years, ESA, in concert with NASA, is planning to send the ExoMars probe to drill 2m into the Martian soil to study its chemistry and look for water and the signs of life. Finally, NASA plans to, in the future, send a craft called the Mars Sample Return Mission to pick up samples of the Martian soil and bring it back to Earth as a final test to see if life exists in the soil there.

The evidence has been piling up, slowly but surely. It's too early to say yet, but in my mind the odds are good.

Excellent. So what?

Seriously, what are we going to do or become if it turns out that there are microbes on Mars? We can't live there, we can't afford to even go there in person, and we really can't afford to do what we're proposing, given the economy.

I've got no beef with exploration, but how's about we try something practical and worthwhile? Unless you're one of those Omni magazine believers of terraforming or something ludicrous like that.

That's false. There are multiple ways by which we can make Mars habitable.

[Ifreann]

Excellent. So what?

Seriously, what are we going to do or become if it turns out that there are microbes on Mars? We can't live there, we can't afford to even go there in person, and we really can't afford to do what we're proposing, given the economy.

I've got no beef with exploration, but how's about we try something practical and worthwhile? Unless you're one of those Omni magazine believers of terraforming or something ludicrous like that.

That's false. There are multiple ways by which we can make Mars habitable.

Magic being the foremost of them.

[Keronians]

That's false. There are multiple ways by which we can make Mars habitable.

Magic being the foremost of them.

This is one of the methods to do so.

[Salandriagado]

Why?

It is stupid to believe that you can fly like Superman, because we have a firm understanding what actually generates flight in our atmosphere, and the human body cannot on its own. It's stupid to believe that maggots spawn out of nothing (abiogenesis), because we understand via observation that maggots are the larvae of flies, and are born from eggs delivered by their parents.

In general, it is stupid to not believe things that can be quantitatively shown to be true. How, then, is it stupid to not believe in aliens who, aside from comments on statistical inevitability, have no such quantitative proof of existence?

The Drake equation, using the most up to date estimates available ( R* = 7/year, fp = 0.5, ne = 2, fl = 0.33, fi = 0.01, fc = 0.01, and L = 10000 years) gives N = 2.31. I.e., our galaxy alone should contain 2.31 contactable civilisations within the Milky Way. Taking the lowest value here for the number of galaxies available, this gives 231 billion elsewhere in the universe. Removing the requirement for the to communicate gives 23.1 trillion intelligent alien species. Removing the requirement of intelligence gives 2.31 quadrillion planets bearing alien life. If that is modelled with a Poisson distribution (I'll assume that the variance is similar to the mean, to make it possible to model it), gives a probability that there are no alien species of e^(-2.31x10^15), which is as near to zero as makes no difference.

[Flameswroth]

The Drake equation, using the most up to date estimates available ( R* = 7/year, fp = 0.5, ne = 2, fl = 0.33, fi = 0.01, fc = 0.01, and L = 10000 years) gives N = 2.31. I.e., our galaxy alone should contain 2.31 contactable civilisations within the Milky Way. Taking the lowest value here for the number of galaxies available, this gives 231 billion elsewhere in the universe. Removing the requirement for the to communicate gives 23.1 trillion intelligent alien species. Removing the requirement of intelligence gives 2.31 quadrillion planets bearing alien life. If that is modelled with a Poisson distribution (I'll assume that the variance is similar to the mean, to make it possible to model it), gives a probability that there are no alien species of e^(-2.31x10^15), which is as near to zero as makes no difference.

But let's be frank here, the Drake equation is just fun with units in the end. It's all based on estimations of statistical distributions and averages, which is something I already made an exception for. It's kind of like XKCD's 'fermiroticism' equation that predicts a radius from your location within which a couple is statistically suggested to be having sex.

Make no mistake, I don't want to be that, "Well we can never know, so it doesn't matter" sort of guys. I'm just surprised that someone would be considered stupid if they did not believe there are aliens just because an equation with a good number of estimated variables suggests that it is a statistical impossibility that aliens do not exist.

[Luciratus]

The Drake equation, using the most up to date estimates available ( R* = 7/year, fp = 0.5, ne = 2, fl = 0.33, fi = 0.01, fc = 0.01, and L = 10000 years) gives N = 2.31. I.e., our galaxy alone should contain 2.31 contactable civilisations within the Milky Way. Taking the lowest value here for the number of galaxies available, this gives 231 billion elsewhere in the universe. Removing the requirement for the to communicate gives 23.1 trillion intelligent alien species. Removing the requirement of intelligence gives 2.31 quadrillion planets bearing alien life. If that is modelled with a Poisson distribution (I'll assume that the variance is similar to the mean, to make it possible to model it), gives a probability that there are no alien species of e^(-2.31x10^15), which is as near to zero as makes no difference.

But let's be frank here, the Drake equation is just fun with units in the end. It's all based on estimations of statistical distributions and averages, which is something I already made an exception for. It's kind of like XKCD's 'fermiroticism' equation that predicts a radius from your location within which a couple is statistically suggested to be having sex.

Make no mistake, I don't want to be that, "Well we can never know, so it doesn't matter" sort of guys. I'm just surprised that someone would be considered stupid if they did not believe there are aliens just because an equation with a good number of estimated variables suggests that it is a statistical impossibility that aliens do not exist.

I wouldn't consider either side of the debate necessarily ignorant. In fact, I would probably resume an agnostic position on the issue (essentially claiming that I do not possess enough information to discern the truth), while also electing to believe in extraterrestrial exists due to statistical assessments. Of course, all are free to disagree so long as they have a sound reason for doing so.

[Mike the Progressive]

No, but I believe in miracles (since you came along, you sexy thing).

[Luciratus]

No, but I believe in miracles (since you came along, you sexy thing).

Ah... thank you?

[Mike the Progressive]

No, but I believe in miracles (since you came along, you sexy thing).

Ah... thank you?

Yeah, I said sexy, not ugly. NEXT.