where do you sit on ancient astronaut theory?

[fdeck]

The point is on how the ordinary person believes what they believe. In most fields of knowledge, there is a dichotomy between the expert and the layperson. Among themselves, communities of experts determine a set of rules which establish what they will and will not accept as the truths of their field of knowledge. They then communicate these doctrines to the laypeople.

This depends on how you define a "field." If religion or politics are fields, then there is no community of experts, no rules, no coherent doctrine, just a bunch of people in hundreds or even thousands of irreconcilable belief systems.

If psychology is a field... my college roommate's psych textbook had a chapter on child development, which simply laid out a half dozen or so "theories," all assumed to be on equal footing with one another, and with no hope of choosing one over another.

Human society did not even have a means of reconciling disagreements about fundamental knowledge until the scientific revolution came along. There was no meaningful concept of intellectual honesty during Medieval times.

In science, nobody gets together and establishes rules or decides what the truths are. In fact the truths -- and even the rules -- change over time. All we can do is try to figure out what we can honestly say about nature.

 

[BassyBill]

The existence of intelligent life on other planets is certain.

As an Earthling, I might consider that assertion very reassuring, if only it were true.

By the way, the very long time scales you refer to for interstellar or intergalactic travel really only apply to any folks who stay back home. If a near light speed vessel could be developed (and I hear what you say about the energy requirements), any aliens who fancied emigrating could make such journeys relatively quickly (no pun intended), according to the passage of time in their own reference frame.

 

[12bass]

That's all logical and I do take your point. But the point I was trying to make is that "faith" in your 21st century doctor, for example, is not the same sort of thing at all as mediaeval faith in demons. The mechanisms by which the two types of faith operate and the processes by which authority is granted are very different in the two cases, so much so that the two phenomena are actually qualitatively different rather than just quantitatively different. We might call both "faith" but they're really not the same thing.

Or to out it another way, it's not just that there is more evidence for germs than demons. It's the fact that the evidence itself is of a totally different nature. And I think the major contribution to that has come from the scientific method. My apologies if I didn't make this sufficiently clear before - I think you will get what I was trying to say now.

The suggestion that assertions about germs and witches are both matters of "faith" appears to be an attempt at equivocation. The term 'faith' generally applies in non-naturalistic contexts and implies belief which is not evidentially justified.

Although most people have not directly observed bacteria and viruses, such notions are taught in schools around the world and part of everyday knowledge. It would be difficult to take a rudimentary grade school science course and not see illustrations and discussion which serve to support their existence.

The short of it is that solid confirming evidence of the existence of "germs" is never very far away for anyone who might seek it. Put another way, I do not have faith that bacteria and viruses exist; I know that they exist, because I have encountered a plethora of coherent justificatory evidence. Demons, witches, etc... have no similar evidential justification, apart from hearsay. Convictions in such entities would indeed be a matter of faith because they fit both criteria noted above (non-naturalistic, not evidentially justified).

 

[BassyBill]

I'm in general agreement with most of the above post. But I also understand what hrodbert means when he says that our knowledge of "germs" and the like COULD be called "faith" in some ways, depending on how one uses the term (and who you're using it about). But it's not the same thing as faith in the supernatural.

By the way, a big part of the power of science (which is so potent that it is usually grossly underestimated by many, many people) is the principle that nothing that we know about the physical world is ever 100% certain and everything is always open to question. I call it the Matrix scenario - you never know when you might wake up in a tank with tubes in your spinal column and find everything you thought you "knew" is actually wrong. This freedom from dogma, combined with a number of principles for generating, gathering and evaluating ideas and evidence, is what makes science what it is.

 

[12bass]

... However, it is not irrational to place some faith in the best-trained experts your society has to offer, when seeking information in a field outside your own experience or expertise. Doing so does not make people "irrational," and therefore it also follows (and fits observation) that in real life, all of us live and act on the basis of beliefs and assumptions that we cannot actually prove to be correct.

Some testimony is more credible than others. Some sources of knowledge are more credible than others. And some "experts" are more credible than others.

If a quick googling isn't sufficient, anyone in a major city could visit their local university biology department and observe first hand all sorts of evidence of the existence of various microorganisms. Confirmation is extremely easy to come by. Thus the degree of uncertainty about the veracity of such claims is extremely low. No one needs to trust only the testimony of experts on such matters, as they can easily verify such claims first hand with minimal effort. Therefore, there is no need for faith whatsoever.

Without getting too much into epistemology and the philosophy of science, there are a number of criteria which are met by scientific knowledge claims which are seldom, if ever, met by non-naturalistic claims... things like empirical testing, peer review, failure to falsify, publication of experimental method & data, the ability of any third party to replicate the results, fit/coherence with already existing theories, etc....

There may also be "experts" regarding non-naturalistic entities, "ancient astronauts" etc... However, such "experts" are of a completely different class in terms of epistemic practice, as such fields fail to meet any reasonable scientific standard. When claims are made in these domains, seldom is there anything approaching an equivalent effort to gather evidence, attempt to falsify it, submit to peer review, etc.... So, yes, faith is the appropriate description for belief in this context, because the normal justificatory process for belief has not been employed.

 

[12bass]

I'm in general agreement with most of the above post. But I also understand what hrodbert means when he says that our knowledge of "germs" and the like COULD be called "faith" in some ways, depending on how one uses the term (and who you're using it about). But it's not the same thing as faith in the supernatural.

Although I take it that knowledge admits to varying degrees of uncertainty, I almost never use the term 'faith' when describing any of my commitments (perhaps because they invariably do not fit the definition suggested above). I might say that I have a certain amount of confidence or skepticism regarding a given claim. And if there is insufficient evidence to adjudicate, then I withhold judgment.... "It might be true... or it might not. I don't know".

By the way, a big part of the power of science (which is so potent that it is usually grossly underestimated by many, many people) is the principle that nothing that we know about the physical world is ever 100% certain and everything is always open to question. I call it the Matrix scenario - you never know when you might wake up in a tank with tubes in your spinal column and find everything you thought you "knew" is actually wrong. This freedom from dogma, combined with a number of principles for generating, gathering and evaluating ideas and evidence, is what makes science what it is.

Yep... scientific knowledge is provisional. And that's a good thing, because that means falsified claims are tossed aside as a matter of process, serving to continually aim the enterprise toward the truth. Better to have well-justified, but fallible, knowledge than unjustified infallible knowledge....

 

[fdeck]

By the way, a big part of the power of science (which is so potent that it is usually grossly underestimated by many, many people) is the principle that nothing that we know about the physical world is ever 100% certain and everything is always open to question.

The irony can't be overlooked, that our self imposed rule of humility about human knowledge, has resulted in a state of knowledge whose precision and breadth would have been unimaginable to scholars of the past.

 

[Papa Dangerous]

Put another way, I do not have faith that bacteria and viruses exist; I know that they exist, because I have encountered a plethora of coherent justificatory evidence. Demons, witches, etc... have no similar evidential justification, apart from hearsay. Convictions in such entities would indeed be a matter of faith because they fit both criteria noted above (non-naturalistic, not evidentially justified).

Umm, are you denying the existence of witches? Witches are people who follow a spiritual belief system. They are in fact real. The "magic" they practice can be interpreted many different ways. Some work with herbs in an almost aroma-therapeutic fashion. They are not always conjuring spirits to do the deeds of the will, but rather relying on the "supernatural" properties of a plant that seem to exist. Certain herbs seem to aid sleep and have in fact helped people with sleeping. You may say this is a placebo effect or some other type of psychological situation where a person may attribute the concept that just believing the herbs help sleep, will in turn produce better sleep. Either way, you are dealing with something here. Either the herbs have a certain characteristic that really does help in sleep or the belief in something aids in something coming true. If faith in something alone does have the potential to yield desired results, than that can be broken down a bit further. We may know that these herbs can have beneficial results and thus we trust them to produce said results or the power of belief is far more powerful than the average person may realize. To visualize something and work towards it can produce a certain type of energy in a whole other spectrum. This can some how work things in a way I cannot even try to explain. Either outlook can be considered magic of its own sort.

Sometimes the most necessary thing to do is take a step away from science. To pretend that anything is possible and not question why it is possible or how it is possible. Just think that anything is possible. I do not mean go join some cult because of what they say. I say do this for complete personal enjoyment of trying to break the barriers of things HAVING to HAVE a scientific reason behind them. Science, as sort of described above, are man-made ideas that we accept as facts. Not everything that goes up, must come down... yet we are all installed with that idea.

I will take an extreme step here for the sake of it. Does anyone wonder if the moon is actually real??? I mean... we ALWAYS see the same side of it; regardless of the location, day or time of year. We can accept that it is in perfect equilibrium with the rotation/revolutions of Earth, gravity, and what not... But doesn't all that seem TOO PERFECT? That those numbers remain exactly the same that we will always see just one side of the moon. Maybe, there was a civilization thousands of years ago that was much much much more advanced that we are today. Perhaps they are or were once visited by aliens. They decided to make up this moon thing, as well as the entire universe. They did this by enclosing our "planet" within a dome that allows one to think we can see into space, it is really just an illusion - or something like that. I mean, I doubt any bass player as traveled into space - so what do WE really know as an individual? I doubt we know anyone who knew someone who traveled into space. That means we are in complete trust of NASA, which is a government program. Who is the government again? (Not a ploy to get into conspiracy theory... just saying folks!) Anything we know about space was told to us by someone, or something.

-I really do not believe this, so hold your horses cowboy! I am just saying to think about it. If you blow of this idea just at the whim of it sounding ridiculous, you completely missed the boat on what I was getting at here.

 

[12bass]

While it may be true that people called witches have existed, what is highly dubious is the claim that such people possessed magic powers. I would suggest that a witch without magic powers is not actually a witch in a meaningful way, at least not as it pertains to this discussion.

 

[Papa Dangerous]

Understood. I see that you mean the idea of Merlin or Madam Mim are dubious, and not as I described above. However, there still stands the concept of the herbs having certain characteristics, or belief in something aiding in something becoming true. I know that aspect may seem like hearsay, but it is something that has worked for countless people, of any belief system. Some people write it off as coincidence but that does not always seem the case to me. I believe there has to more to things that are easily dismissed. I mean, we cannot see all those different different types of UV, X-Ray, and infrared light, but they exist. I am sure there are sounds that are more or less than 20,000 - 20 cps, but we do not hear them. We cannot see oxygen, but I am pretty sure it is there! We may not be able to summon dragons, but we may be able to summon certain energies that do exist around us and those energies can be used in a way that does sort of pertain to this discussion.

 

[onosson]

Sometimes the most necessary thing to do is take a step away from science. To pretend that anything is possible and not question why it is possible or how it is possible. Just think that anything is possible.

I can't seem to recall any part of the scientific method dictating what is possible. It's a way of looking at things that exist, things which therefore ARE possible. It doesn't say what those things are.

I say do this for complete personal enjoyment of trying to break the barriers of things HAVING to HAVE a scientific reason behind them. Science, as sort of described above, are man-made ideas that we accept as facts. Not everything that goes up, must come down... yet we are all installed with that idea.

I suspect people knew that (most) things that go up come down long before any type of science existed. You don't even need to be human to know this - it's the reason most non-flying animals don't go walking off of cliffs.

I will take an extreme step here for the sake of it. Does anyone wonder if the moon is actually real??? I mean... we ALWAYS see the same side of it; regardless of the location, day or time of year. We can accept that it is in perfect equilibrium with the rotation/revolutions of Earth, gravity, and what not... But doesn't all that seem TOO PERFECT?

Do you ever wonder if math is really real? 1 + 1 always equals 2 ... But doesn't all that seem TOO PERFECT?

I doubt any bass player as traveled into space - so what do WE really know as an individual? I doubt we know anyone who knew someone who traveled into space. That means we are in complete trust of NASA, which is a government program. Who is the government again? (Not a ploy to get into conspiracy theory... just saying folks!) Anything we know about space was told to us by someone, or something.

I would worry about this if I trusted the findings of bass players above (literally!) rocket scientists.

 

[Papa Dangerous]

-I did not mean the scientific method dictated that things were possible. I just meant, assume nothing is impossible.

-Exactly. Most things, but not all. I am sure it has been assumed that all things that go up must always come down at one point or another.

-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.

-Right, but I am just saying, none of us have actually experienced traveling out of space, it is all based on hearsay and those who we trust that are telling us the truth of happens beyond the scope of the horizon.

 

[BassyBill]

The irony can't be overlooked, that our self imposed rule of humility about human knowledge, has resulted in a state of knowledge whose precision and breadth would have been unimaginable to scholars of the past.

Yep. That's the (intellectual) freedom from dogma that I was talking about. Empowering in an almost unimaginable way, when you think about it. Who would have thought that just saying "I don't know" could change the world so?

 

[onosson]

-I did not mean the scientific method dictated that things were possible. I just meant, assume nothing is impossible.

I think that is the viewpoint of a scientist!

-Exactly. Most things, but not all. I am sure it has been assumed that all things that go up must always come down at one point or another.

That assumption wouldn't come from the scientific method, or perhaps through a very limited set of observations. Assumptions like this can be made without any scientific basis whatsoever - which means they don't have anything to say about the pros or cons of a scientific viewpoint.

-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.

Sex, pregnancy, and birth are not equivalent to either of these symbols: + =

-Right, but I am just saying, none of us have actually experienced traveling out of space, it is all based on hearsay and those who we trust that are telling us the truth of happens beyond the scope of the horizon.

As is true of almost everything I know. I guess I could worry a lot more about that than I do - but I'm not sure where that would get me.

 

[Papa Dangerous]

Touche. I am not trying to negate science by any means. I actually enjoy the topic a lot. I guess my main point was for a person to try and be less critical of things and more open to the things that are typically more obscure.

As for the mathematical thing, I was just playing on semantics there.

 

[J. Crawford]

This thread is intense.

 

[Munjibunga]

The existence of intelligent life on other planets is certain.

Please cite evidence of this.

 

[fdeck]

Please cite evidence of this.

Murphy's Law.

 

[onosson]

Touche. I am not trying to negate science by any means. I actually enjoy the topic a lot. I guess my main point was for a person to try and be less critical of things and more open to the things that are typically more obscure.

Absolutely. Anyone who has read anything about quantum mechanics should realize that the ideas that have come out of intensive scientific study are at least as crazy, if not more so, than what the world's religions and "pseudu-sciences" have been able to come up with. But they are none the less true despite being crazy!

As for the mathematical thing, I was just playing on semantics there.

Of course - but I tried to make the point earlier that a lot of the disagreements in discussions like these stem from not agreeing to the meanings of basic terms in the first place. "Belief", "faith", "theory", and even "science" can be used with radically different meanings - and if two people are doing so while trying to have a discussion, they might as well be speaking another language.

 

[fdeck]

While it may be true that people called witches have existed, what is highly dubious is the claim that such people possessed magic powers. I would suggest that a witch without magic powers is not actually a witch in a meaningful way, at least not as it pertains to this discussion.

Amusingly, this was the position of the authorities during most of the Dark Ages. Witchcraft was a civil crime because it was held to be a form of fraud, not heresy. It wasn't until around the 16th century that the religious authorities started to take a more serious position against witches.