Do you believe in aliens?

[boohbah]

 

[Everlong]

1) I can't see any fish where I'm stood in the ocean
2) Therefore, fish don't exist in the ocean

Is this deductive conclusion a fair conclusion? I've not studied the rest of the ocean, yet I've arrived at a conclusion just from the small area of the ocean that I am in.

Or how about this:

I have a 100 sided dice. The probability of rolling a 1 is 1 in 100, or 1% chance. After a few rolls I eventually roll a 1. I've now proved it's possible to roll a 1, despite only that 1% chance. If I roll the dice again I'm certain I could roll another 1.

Hey Everlong! I hope you don't take anything I say as my attempt at bashing, I mean it just for arguement's sake (and I realize I am butting in once again) -

At this moment, I am not trying to prove or disprove that aliens exist, but I do so love to argue.

Saying there aren't any fish in the ocean because you can't see them is absurd, I know. But claiming that there are fish in the ocean when you've never seen any is also absurd, because this theory has not been proven. This is the classic deductive vs inductive reasonings. Deductive reasoning claims there is a good chance and that it is reasonable to believe, and inductive reasoning says not to claim anything without a complete list of straight facts. So to claim there are fish in the ocean may make sence based on the sheer number of word of mouth people who have seen them, so it is reasonable to deduce that there are indeed fish in the ocean (though always the best way to find out is to search for them yourself, as the 'masses' often get things wrong too).

Likewise, saying aliens are a 1 in 100 chance may not be accurate. Keep in mind, though many believe in aliens, this does not mean they exist, nor does it mean they don't. There may even be a 0% chance that aliens exist (none), so a dice roll wouldn't even matter in this case!

I myself am surprised in the poll. I grew up where people would straight make fun of you for believing in aliens, though I guess we were just kids at the time. There is no reason to make fun of anyone for what they believe, just because it differs from what you believe.

Hope we can keep these arguements going, but civil! I'm getting good at this devil's advocate thing.

You took the dice analogy the wrong way. The dice roll landing on 1 was meaning that life as we know it began. That's proof that life in the universe exists, so there's that chance that a roll i.e. life, can be rolled again. The dice roll isn't saying that they exist either. It's the probability that life exists elsewhere. I've not stated anywhere in any of my arguments that aliens exist, but then it seems to be fine for seekermeister to straight up come out with saying they don't exist.

I don't see where I'm going wrong with my fish analogy, either. And you don't seem to be understanding that one, either.

 

[panais]

Ha,good one!

 

[DustSailor]

1) I can't see any fish where I'm stood in the ocean
2) Therefore, fish don't exist in the ocean

Is this deductive conclusion a fair conclusion? I've not studied the rest of the ocean, yet I've arrived at a conclusion just from the small area of the ocean that I am in.

Or how about this:

I have a 100 sided dice. The probability of rolling a 1 is 1 in 100, or 1% chance. After a few rolls I eventually roll a 1. I've now proved it's possible to roll a 1, despite only that 1% chance. If I roll the dice again I'm certain I could roll another 1.

Hey Everlong! I hope you don't take anything I say as my attempt at bashing, I mean it just for arguement's sake (and I realize I am butting in once again) -

At this moment, I am not trying to prove or disprove that aliens exist, but I do so love to argue.

Saying there aren't any fish in the ocean because you can't see them is absurd, I know. But claiming that there are fish in the ocean when you've never seen any is also absurd, because this theory has not been proven. This is the classic deductive vs inductive reasonings. Deductive reasoning claims there is a good chance and that it is reasonable to believe, and inductive reasoning says not to claim anything without a complete list of straight facts. So to claim there are fish in the ocean may make sence based on the sheer number of word of mouth people who have seen them, so it is reasonable to deduce that there are indeed fish in the ocean (though always the best way to find out is to search for them yourself, as the 'masses' often get things wrong too).

Likewise, saying aliens are a 1 in 100 chance may not be accurate. Keep in mind, though many believe in aliens, this does not mean they exist, nor does it mean they don't. There may even be a 0% chance that aliens exist (none), so a dice roll wouldn't even matter in this case!

I myself am surprised in the poll. I grew up where people would straight make fun of you for believing in aliens, though I guess we were just kids at the time. There is no reason to make fun of anyone for what they believe, just because it differs from what you believe.

Hope we can keep these arguements going, but civil! I'm getting good at this devil's advocate thing.

You took the dice analogy the wrong way. The dice roll landing on 1 was meaning that life as we know it began. That's proof that life in the universe exists, so there's that chance that a roll i.e. life, can be rolled again. The dice roll isn't saying that they exist either. It's the probability that life exists elsewhere. I've not stated anywhere in any of my arguments that aliens exist, but then it seems to be fine for seekermeister to straight up come out with saying they don't exist.

I don't see where I'm going wrong with my fish analogy, either. And you don't seem to be understanding that one, either.

Ah. While I still believe everything I've written, I do see more of what you mean.

Many believe in evolution and base their understanding and reasoning around that assumption. Still others believe in religion or many other different things as the reason for explaining the universe. Now keep in mind discussing such things any further are against forum rules, so I will only say that all of these things have not yet been 'proven', no matter how much you believe them. All of them take some amount of faith as we have no way to prove any of them at the moment. Every single belief is a theory, no matter how you look at it.

So it is reasonable, if you believe in evolution, to come to the conclusion that if you evolved here on earth, than there must be other creatures elsewhere who have also evolved. But keep in mind even with this belief, you cannot assume that because you evolved, there must be other creatures that have also evolved. Perhaps there is still a chance (in evolution) that there may be aliens, or that there will be aliens in the future. But there is also a chance that monkeys can type a whole sentance on a typewriter with correct spelling. It isn't impossible, but it would take an astronomically long time of that monkey just pounding keys on that typewriter.

But also don't discredit/denounce those who hold other beliefs, such as religion, nor those who are from the evolution persuasion. It takes an equal amount of faith to believe on either side. I'm not accusing anyone of berating a person for their beliefs, I'm just saying it shouldn't be done.

It would be interesting to me to find out why people believed in aliens based on their fundamental beliefs, ie:
*I believe in aliens and evolution
*I believe in aliens and (etc.)
*I do not believe in aliens but do in evolution
*I do not believe in aliens nor in (etc)...

That poll may violate forum rules AND take all day!

PS. Boohbah, that is halariously funny! :roflmao:

 

[smarteyeball]

Based on the poll results, Most SF Members believe in aliens, (reasonably).

Not so much 'aliens' per se (little green/greymen,spaceship flying tentacle monsters) - but more in the possibility that life in some way, shape or form exists elsewhere.

I certainly don't believe 100% there are aliens, just the possibility. The same logic applies to the concept of a Sky Parent. I don't claim 100% to deny the possible existence of one.

The staunch adherence to mans constructed concept on the other hand... that's a completely different story.

 

[DustSailor]

Based on the poll results, Most SF Members believe in aliens, (reasonably).

Not so much 'aliens' per se (little green/greymen,spaceship flying tentacle monsters) - but more in the possibility that life in some way, shape or form exists elsewhere.

I certainly don't believe 100% there are aliens, just the possibility. The same logic applies to the concept of a Sky Parent. I don't claim 100% to deny the possible existence of one.

The staunch adherence to mans constructed concept on the other hand... that's a completely different story.

Smartey, that opens a whole 'nother ball game. I personally believe other life forms exist (bacteria, etc.), but not in the sense of creatures, insects, animals, or people (or alien beings). You bring up a very good, valid point. The distinction of what an 'alien' is is important!

I feel little shame in dominating the conversation on this thread :devil:
But I think its time I stopped.

 

[Britton30]

Humorous, but a real possibility of a chance there. We are made up of "star stuff" and in the same proportions as the known universe. Does point to single creator.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

I got this by intergalactic mail this morning.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

I do believe in aliens, I do believe in aliens, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I do !

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Hum well I believe in the tooth fairy, Father Christmas, the Easter bunny, that you can turn lead into gold, that Topper is coming to see me (I have the Guinness ready Hoppy) that fairies also live at the bottom of the garden, Winnie the Poo was very smelly (hence the name) that what goes up doesn't necessarily have to come down, that my computer works better the harder I pedal, and last but not least (there are more things I believe in) me into a semi intelligent errrrr something anyway :shock:

 

[pincushion]

When I was born (end of WWII) the possibility of going to the moon must have looked impossible even if many science fiction writers might not have seen it that way and especially with the V2s pointing to such means. Our knowledge of our own solar system and the universe was pretty limited and so was our expectation of life elsewhere. Over the decades we saw humans getting to the moon and a greater understanding of exactly how big the universe is, how common are galaxies similar to ours and now how common are stars with multiple planets. If our understanding of how planets are created is correct then the vast number of planets should not be unexpected or how material travels between stellar bodies. The one aspect that is the killer it seems is the creation of life and how it evolves into much more sophisticated forms and unltimately into intelligent life but that understanding may not be that far away. I might have been sceptical about the possibility of alien life when I was young (although I did read a lot of SF) but with all the evidence we have now at our disposal it would seem to be irrational not to expect similar processes to occur elsewhere as they have on earth - even if what has happened on earth might be very rare indeed.

:huh: :shock:

 

[Golden]

So it is clear, I hope.

Life is nothing but permutation and combination of various elements. Elements are formed in the stars . Stars are almost evenly spread in the galaxies, and galaxies are almost evenly spread in the space. The possibility of life is mere, but it cannot be nullified, as it exists.

Nice use of the anthropic principle Arc

Its interesting to read the various posts that use the work belief, and then quote scientific observation or science in the same statement. Faith, or the belief in, doesn't require any evidence, or scientific observation to support a theory.

For example, to say "I believe in the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution" is a dichotomy : if you believe in evolution, then you don't require any scientific evidence. Instead, you might consider saying "I think the scientific evidence is sufficient to support the theory of evolution".

Its very subtle, but the language of science should never include the use of the work belief or believe. All science is based on pure observation : no belief is required. Conversely, all belief is based on faith, no scientific evidence is required.

Regards,
Golden

 

[seekermeister]

Arc,

So it is clear, I hope.

Life is nothing but permutation and combination of various elements. Elements are formed in the stars . Stars are almost evenly spread in the galaxies, and galaxies are almost evenly spread in the space. The possibility of life is mere, but it cannot be nullified, as it exists.

I'm sure that it is clear to you, but you look through a glass darkly.

 

[Everlong]

Hey Everlong! I hope you don't take anything I say as my attempt at bashing, I mean it just for arguement's sake (and I realize I am butting in once again) -

At this moment, I am not trying to prove or disprove that aliens exist, but I do so love to argue.

Saying there aren't any fish in the ocean because you can't see them is absurd, I know. But claiming that there are fish in the ocean when you've never seen any is also absurd, because this theory has not been proven. This is the classic deductive vs inductive reasonings. Deductive reasoning claims there is a good chance and that it is reasonable to believe, and inductive reasoning says not to claim anything without a complete list of straight facts. So to claim there are fish in the ocean may make sence based on the sheer number of word of mouth people who have seen them, so it is reasonable to deduce that there are indeed fish in the ocean (though always the best way to find out is to search for them yourself, as the 'masses' often get things wrong too).

Likewise, saying aliens are a 1 in 100 chance may not be accurate. Keep in mind, though many believe in aliens, this does not mean they exist, nor does it mean they don't. There may even be a 0% chance that aliens exist (none), so a dice roll wouldn't even matter in this case!

I myself am surprised in the poll. I grew up where people would straight make fun of you for believing in aliens, though I guess we were just kids at the time. There is no reason to make fun of anyone for what they believe, just because it differs from what you believe.

Hope we can keep these arguements going, but civil! I'm getting good at this devil's advocate thing.

You took the dice analogy the wrong way. The dice roll landing on 1 was meaning that life as we know it began. That's proof that life in the universe exists, so there's that chance that a roll i.e. life, can be rolled again. The dice roll isn't saying that they exist either. It's the probability that life exists elsewhere. I've not stated anywhere in any of my arguments that aliens exist, but then it seems to be fine for seekermeister to straight up come out with saying they don't exist.

I don't see where I'm going wrong with my fish analogy, either. And you don't seem to be understanding that one, either.

Ah. While I still believe everything I've written, I do see more of what you mean.

Many believe in evolution and base their understanding and reasoning around that assumption. Still others believe in religion or many other different things as the reason for explaining the universe. Now keep in mind discussing such things any further are against forum rules, so I will only say that all of these things have not yet been 'proven', no matter how much you believe them. All of them take some amount of faith as we have no way to prove any of them at the moment. Every single belief is a theory, no matter how you look at it.

So it is reasonable, if you believe in evolution, to come to the conclusion that if you evolved here on earth, than there must be other creatures elsewhere who have also evolved. But keep in mind even with this belief, you cannot assume that because you evolved, there must be other creatures that have also evolved. Perhaps there is still a chance (in evolution) that there may be aliens, or that there will be aliens in the future. But there is also a chance that monkeys can type a whole sentance on a typewriter with correct spelling. It isn't impossible, but it would take an astronomically long time of that monkey just pounding keys on that typewriter.

But also don't discredit/denounce those who hold other beliefs, such as religion, nor those who are from the evolution persuasion. It takes an equal amount of faith to believe on either side. I'm not accusing anyone of berating a person for their beliefs, I'm just saying it shouldn't be done.

It would be interesting to me to find out why people believed in aliens based on their fundamental beliefs, ie:
*I believe in aliens and evolution
*I believe in aliens and (etc.)
*I do not believe in aliens but do in evolution
*I do not believe in aliens nor in (etc)...

That poll may violate forum rules AND take all day!

PS. Boohbah, that is halariously funny! :roflmao:

I understand what you mean. My arguments aren't that there's another civilisation somewhere out there like us, or some technologically advanced race out there. I'm purely going on life in any form. A planet full of plants would indicate life to an extent, or just bacteria.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

When I was born (end of WWII) the possibility of going to the moon must have looked impossible even if many science fiction writers might not have seen it that way and especially with the V2s pointing to such means. Our knowledge of our own solar system and the universe was pretty limited and so was our expectation of life elsewhere. Over the decades we saw humans getting to the moon and a greater understanding of exactly how big the universe is, how common are galaxies similar to ours and now how common are stars with multiple planets. If our understanding of how planets are created is correct then the vast number of planets should not be unexpected or how material travels between stellar bodies. The one aspect that is the killer it seems is the creation of life and how it evolves into much more sophisticated forms and unltimately into intelligent life but that understanding may not be that far away. I might have been sceptical about the possibility of alien life when I was young (although I did read a lot of SF) but with all the evidence we have now at our disposal it would seem to be irrational not to expect similar processes to occur elsewhere as they have on earth - even if what has happened on earth might be very rare indeed.

:huh: :shock:

Well seems like you and I are of much the same vintage and reasoning pin my friend my family lived in "bomb alley" during WW2 and perhaps a bit unlike you I did a lot of meditating while fishing when I was young and was convinced that given the size of the universe - however large that may be that it would be rather naive to think that life in some form has not come into being somewhere. I mean we are only a concoction of elements that are bound together in such a way that it forms what we call "life".
I sometimes wonder if there could be a life form somewhere that does not rely on H2O or O2 to sustain a reaction that could equal to what we accept as normal "life". After all there are life forms on this planet that defy the existence of life as we accept it for example those found living in extreme temperatures and in the absence of sunlight in habitats that would appear to be to all intents and purposes to defy any form of us maintaining a life form - who knows?

 

[Arc]

So it is clear, I hope.

Life is nothing but permutation and combination of various elements. Elements are formed in the stars . Stars are almost evenly spread in the galaxies, and galaxies are almost evenly spread in the space. The possibility of life is mere, but it cannot be nullified, as it exists.

Nice use of the anthropic principle Arc

Its interesting to read the various posts that use the work belief, and then quote scientific observation or science in the same statement. Faith, or the belief in, doesn't require any evidence, or scientific observation to support a theory.

For example, to say "I believe in the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution" is a dichotomy : if you believe in evolution, then you don't require any scientific evidence. Instead, you might consider saying "I think the scientific evidence is sufficient to support the theory of evolution".

Its very subtle, but the language of science should never include the use of the work belief or believe. All science is based on pure observation : no belief is required. Conversely, all belief is based on faith, no scientific evidence is required.

Regards,
Golden

Extremely well said Golden
The theories , when not proved, are hypothesis. The situation under discussion is in such a state that we dont have enough information to accept the alternative and reject the null thereby. So no theory is formed on it till date, other than the weak or strong anthropic principles etc. But we have the null hypothesis formed, and it is our belief that leads us to further study and experiments on it. One day, we may gather enough knowledge that we will be able to conclude with certainty ... but if we dont have belief on something, no study on a controversial problem will be done .
Am I right ?
We studied on Fermat's last theorem over centuries .... having the belief that there is a full proof . If we have though that it's all bogus, some serious studies on number theory would not take place.
We knock on the moonlit door of the haunted house and ask for is there anybody there ... it's our nature. When nobody response, we say that tell them I came, but nobody responded . Our belief fetch us to the closed doors .... to try to know the unknown.

Hey Golden, please forgive me if I said too much ... but that's what I believe

 

[Arc]

Arc,

So it is clear, I hope.

Life is nothing but permutation and combination of various elements. Elements are formed in the stars . Stars are almost evenly spread in the galaxies, and galaxies are almost evenly spread in the space. The possibility of life is mere, but it cannot be nullified, as it exists.

I'm sure that it is clear to you, but you look through a glass darkly.

It was clear to me even earlier ... still I tried.

 

[Hopalong X]

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures, while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.

Hypotheses- Life exists in the universe.

1) IF life forms exist on this planet we call Earth then it is possible they exist in some form elsewhere in the universe.

2) If life forms do NOT exist on this planet Earth that does not preclude the possibility elsewhere in the universe.

 

[pincushion]

When I was born (end of WWII) the possibility of going to the moon must have looked impossible even if many science fiction writers might not have seen it that way and especially with the V2s pointing to such means. Our knowledge of our own solar system and the universe was pretty limited and so was our expectation of life elsewhere. Over the decades we saw humans getting to the moon and a greater understanding of exactly how big the universe is, how common are galaxies similar to ours and now how common are stars with multiple planets. If our understanding of how planets are created is correct then the vast number of planets should not be unexpected or how material travels between stellar bodies. The one aspect that is the killer it seems is the creation of life and how it evolves into much more sophisticated forms and unltimately into intelligent life but that understanding may not be that far away. I might have been sceptical about the possibility of alien life when I was young (although I did read a lot of SF) but with all the evidence we have now at our disposal it would seem to be irrational not to expect similar processes to occur elsewhere as they have on earth - even if what has happened on earth might be very rare indeed.

:huh: :shock:

Well seems like you and I are of much the same vintage and reasoning pin my friend my family lived in "bomb alley" during WW2 and perhaps a bit unlike you I did a lot of meditating while fishing when I was young and was convinced that given the size of the universe - however large that may be that it would be rather naive to think that life in some form has not come into being somewhere. I mean we are only a concoction of elements that are bound together in such a way that it forms what we call "life".
I sometimes wonder if there could be a life form somewhere that does not rely on H2O or O2 to sustain a reaction that could equal to what we accept as normal "life". After all there are life forms on this planet that defy the existence of life as we accept it for example those found living in extreme temperatures and in the absence of sunlight in habitats that would appear to be to all intents and purposes to defy any form of us maintaining a life form - who knows?

Well my post was really about how things change, often quite rapidly and alter our perceptions of the world. In my grandfather's life there weren't even any flying machines when he was born, now although we generally accept a limit for the speed of light (current anomalies probably being wrong), there are numerous theories as to how this might be overcome so that vast distances might not be such an obstacle. I agree about the different ways that life might also differ from what predominates on earth too. Although I tend to believe that life does exist elsewhere I am still skeptical as to the claims of the UFO sighters.

:huh:

 

[Imperfect1]

I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right?

from one of my favourite movies, Contact.

if you're a bit of a geek, i reckon you'll enjoy the movie too...

Contact was an OUTSTANDING movie!!!! And I think they're correct --- There's gotta be someone else out there somewhere. . .