When I express deep skepticism regarding extraterrestrial claims, it isn't because I'm foolish, arrogant, or reject the possibility out of dogmatism, as the cosmos seems likely to support other forms of life (see the Drake Equation and other scientific attempts to quantify likelihood). Rather, the phrase "I don't want to
believe; I want to
know." comes to mind, in the sense I want solid intersubjectively verifiable evidence before I take a firm epistemic stand. And given the constraints placed by the laws of physics, that evidence will need to be extraordinary, meaning that personal testimonies alone are insufficient in this particular case, though fascinating.
I'm a physicist by trade. But if the laws of physics are up in the air, then I'm no more qualified than anybody else to speculate, and I don't even know why physics needs to be involved. There are plenty of disciplines that study the truth without recourse to the laws of physics, including philosophy, theology, and poetry.
A poetry reading may very well provide significant insight into the phenomenon... if we want a metaphorical understanding rather than a scientific one.
From a scientific perspective, the laws of physics are necessarily involved, placing strict limits on the possibility of interstellar travel. Would be nice to get a physicist's explanation of the practical limits of interstellar travel.
What I see above, and elsewhere, is a relative to the god-of-the-gaps argument used against evolutionary theory, except in this case it is extraterrestrials-of-the-gaps. Basically, people using such an argument claim that there is a reasonable basis to believe a certain questionable proposition to be true because science is unable to provide an absolutely complete explanation of the phenomenon, with the gaps in understanding supposedly acting as supporting evidence. However, gaps in understanding are not evidence per se, but merely point to gaps in the evidence, leaving certain possibilities open, but not confirmed, and often highly improbable. This specious form of argument is also used to attempt to bring mysticism into the study of consciousness via the "mysteries" of quantum mechanics. It is important to recognize that this form of argument is not logically sound, so it should not be convincing to, nor made by, a reasonable individual.
This is why I would like to see a thorough explanation of how the laws of physics as presently understood constrain the possibility of extraterrestrial travel, as well as some explanation of how and why we know these laws to be reliable and accurate descriptions of physical reality. Also interesting would be to know about gaps in our current scientific understanding and which of these gaps might facilitate interstellar travel, as well as theoretically qualified speculation on the possibility that any such notions could hold true in reality.
Finally, my view on this topic is based on my desire to have a set of beliefs that are evidentially supported and consistent with our best current scientific understanding of reality. I aim to fit my beliefs to the best current understanding of reality and that requires solid evidence. I rely greatly on science for this because I, like all humans, am personally limited and fallible in terms of ascertaining information about reality. My skepticism goes so deep that if I were to witness a UFO personally, I would want scientists and medical professionals to check me out to ensure that my experience was not due to some sensory or cognitive issue. That said, I see unknown moving objects pretty much every time I use my telescope, assuming that most are probably satellites, with perhaps the odd meteor.
