where do you sit on ancient astronaut theory?

[mcnach]

The existence of intelligent life on other planets is certain.

Sometimes I would just be happy if I could find signs of intelligence in this planet...

 

[hrodbert696]

Wow this thread moves fast.

Without quoting everyone in detail:

Bassybill, I think we're pretty close together, but I feel like you keep eliding how experts in a field arrive at knowledge and how laypeople adopt that knowledge. Comparing how the experts in any given field arrive at their doctrines, and deciding that one set of experts had a sounder procedure than another set, is all very well. However, my point is that laypeople - rational laypeople, in all eras, who lack the time or resources to become experts in everything - tend to accept the doctrines of the experts on faith. I use the term "faith" in the sense of "intellectual trust" - they trust that the experts know what they are talking about. I consider this to be more or less a constant in all human societies where there are specialized fields of intellectual endeavor.

In my "invisible creatures" exercise, of course I could have said "microscopic organisms" and that would have cued the students in to what kinds of entities I had in mind. In a way, that just makes my point; laypeople don't evaluate critically but believe - and respond - as they have been taught to believe by the authorities they put faith in. But germs - or microbes, if you prefer - are still "invisible creatures," and the semantics make little difference to the larger point. You'll note that I avoid semantics that imply anything supernatural.

Someone made the point that a layperson could always go visit a scientific laboratory and have the evidence for microbes, etc., shown to them. This is all very well. But the whole point is that most laymen lack the time or motivation for such a field trip, and usually also lack the educational background to critically evaluate the evidence they would be shown. If they spent enough effort to acquire such a critical faculty, they would effectively enter the circle of "experts" themselves and no longer be acting as laymen.

Another poster suggested that medieval or ancient "expert" classes had no concept of intellectual honesty and had no set of rules that governed the generation of consensus doctrines. This is absolute nonsense. Anyone can read half a dozen medieval scholastic theologians and see quite clearly that these people had a VERY strict system of logic and authorities that governed what conclusions they could and couldn't draw. The same would be true if you were to read half a dozen ancient philosophers. And it doesn't just matter for religion and philosophy; the same procedures of Greek philosophical circles or medieval universities were also applied to the study of law, or medicine, or arithmetic, or any other established field of study.

Communities of experts in every era generate variant doctrines and rival schools of thought, of course. That's the nature of intellectual activity. But nevertheless, the existence of an intellectual community in the first place implies the existence of a more or less coherent understanding of the rules by which one works.

 

[rr5025]

-I do question math sometimes. Usually just by asking "Why?" However, 1+1 can sometimes equal three. 1 man + 1 woman can sometimes equal 1 man, 1 woman and 1 child.

each adult carries half of the genetic material for a child. Therefore man and woman =1.5, not 1.

Man + woman = child
1.5 + 1.5 = 3

 

[fdeck]

But germs - or microbes, if you prefer - are still "invisible creatures," and the semantics make little difference to the larger point. You'll note that I avoid semantics that imply anything supernatural.

At the risk of quibbling about semantics, the discovery of microbes involved rendering them visible. Your class might have interpreted the term "invisible" to mean supernatural.

 

[fdeck]

-I do question math sometimes. Usually just by asking "Why?" However, 1+1 can sometimes equal three. 1 man + 1 woman can sometimes equal 1 man, 1 woman and 1 child.

Because you are using the "+" symbol in two different ways. 1+1 implies arithmetic, but the activity of producing a child is anything but arithmetic.

 

[onosson]

Perhaps there is a distinction to be made between invisible and unvisible...

 

[Stinsok]

Proof of aliens on earth.

 

[12bass]

Unlikely that I'll go much further than this on this particular strand.... Scholastics may have had rigorous intellectual standards to uphold, but not in the same sense as modern scientists. They had a strict protocol to defend dogma. Science follows the evidence, not dogma, and often sees major paradigm shifts along the way. Thus, only one of the two groups promotes intellectual honesty.

 

[BioDriver]

 

[96tbird]

Unlikely that I'll go much further than this on this particular strand.... Scholastics may have had rigorous intellectual standards to uphold, but not in the same sense as modern scientists. They had a strict protocol to defend dogma. Science follows the evidence, not dogma, and often sees major paradigm shifts along the way. Thus, only one of the two groups promotes intellectual honesty.

So, scientists of the relativity school that deny string theory a listen are not dogmatic, hmmm? Science and the method itself are unquestionably 100% objective, but you're fooling yourself to believe scientists are.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I literally LOL'd!

 

[HaMMerHeD]

I don't know how I feel about it exactly. I think the idea of alien visitors is more likely than that of some nebulous god.

But regardless, this guy is my favorite History channel guy:

 

[onosson]

But regardless, this guy is my favorite History channel guy:

Wait .... you're telling me that is a real person?

 

[96tbird]

Man every time I see that guy, I picture him in the morning grooming himself in the mirror. That must be a sight. You'd think it would occur to him that if he wanted to be taken seriously, he would not have clown hair.

Maybe he's really a barber from a small town that has only two barbers and he's the good barber, the other is terrible.

 

[12bass]

So, scientists of the relativity school that deny string theory a listen are not dogmatic, hmmm? Science and the method itself are unquestionably 100% objective, but you're fooling yourself to believe scientists are.

Straw man. I made no claim that science is completely objective, nor that all scientists are completely objective. I would go as far as to say that no human endeavor ever could be. Knowledge which is a posteriori comes with a degree of uncertainty. But that does not invalidate the epistemic integrity of science.

While it may be the case that some scientists are dogmatic, the scientific endeavor as a whole is not. Scientific theories are open to challenge if anyone can provide compelling reasons and evidence to adopt a superior alternative. Based upon empirical findings, old theories are constantly superseded by new ones. This provisional nature is the hallmark of intellectually honest knowledge production systems. Put another way, the principle of intellectual honesty requires one to give up commitments when they are falsified. Science does this. Other domains do not; in the face of clear falsification they merely offer apologetics rather than abandon their dogma.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

Wait .... you're telling me that is a real person?

Link Removed

 

[96tbird]

Ah, but I do believe science is entirely objective. I don't hold the same view of it's proprietors is all. I am not discounting their value or veracity in any way. I do see divides as I stated that points to their being entirely human and prone to bias. The rest of your argument is without reserve, true on all counts; eventually they must acquiesce to empirical evidence.

 

[Munjibunga]

So, scientists of the relativity school that deny string theory a listen are not dogmatic, hmmm? Science and the method itself are unquestionably 100% objective, but you're fooling yourself to believe scientists are.

These days, many, many scientists are giving string theory "a listen." The problem with string theory is that there is currently no way to investigate it experimentally. Since there is no objective way to prove it, it is philosophy, not science. Another problem is that there are at least five different versions of it, each with its own set of implications. This presents a need for unification of the five versions of the theory before it can be used in the grand unification. Further, even if they were to iron out those problems, the lack of experimental evidence will seriously limit its usefulness in that endeavor.

On a side note, the possesive of "it" is "its." "It's" is a contraction of "it is."

 

[12bass]

Is science objective even in principle? For one it employs methodological naturalism, which implies that it can only evaluate phenomena within a certain scope. Not that I endorse this view, but what if there are entities out there which are not naturalistic? If there were, science would be unable to study them. Plus there is the matter than science does not have unhindered access to all aspects of reality. That appears to challenge the notion that science is objective. Then there is the practical aspect, that science done by humans comes packaged with human biases. Increasingly, science is becoming a corporate matter which is focused upon applied technology for profit rather than basic research. So what often happens is that scientific findings are framed within the goals of those who are funding the research, which violates the requirement for disinterestedness. Thus, although this is an oversimplification, it appears that science cannot be objective in practice, nor even in theory (unless metaphysical naturalism is true and science has access to all possible aspects of reality). Still, none of this shows that science is not a trustworthy source of knowledge... just that it is not completely objective.

 

[96tbird]

Exactly, but I do think the scientific method in itself is objective.