More Believe In Space Aliens Than In God According To U.K. Survey

[Kidlicious]

So science is based on beliefs that are true based on "measurable evidence," but "measurable evidence" is whatever you say it is, because you don't have a definition for it.

No, I didn't say they are necessarily true. But if there is such a thing as a reasonable person, theoretically a reasonable person will believe something in which there is significant measurable evidence. Many assume that trained scientists are reasonable people.

[Zevico]

No, I didn't say they are necessarily true.

But still worth believing in. I mean really, again, you don't have an objective definition of "measurable evidence," so you define at as whatever seems "about right." That's odd. Almost like a...religious belief.

But if there is such a thing as a reasonable person, theoretically a reasonable person will believe something in which there is significant measurable evidence.

Translation: a reasonable person will believe in something in which you say is worth believing in. Adding the words "significant" to a "measurable evidence" doesn't make it any less nonsensical because you've already defined "measurable evidence" to be anything you think is worth believing in.

Many assume that trained scientists are reasonable people.

And that assumption is unmerited. Doctors were thought reasonable people but they killed many, many people before the introduction of the scientific method. A "consensus" of doctors thought bleeding people would align their humours and make them healthy again, and they laughed away any suggestion that germs existed.

Now, in that situation would you trust the consensus of "reasonable people" or the known and proven scientific facts?

Equally, many early scientists believed there was "no room for God" in the 19th Century. Does that disprove the existence of God?

The reason we value scientists is because they undertake the task of applying the scientific method. They are not a priesthood whose supposedly "reasonable" beliefs become our own.

[Kidlicious]

You would have us believe that you only believe in scientific facts, but I think that everyone know that that's not so. So if you believe in things that are not scientific facts, how do you come to those beliefs. And you already said not the scientific method.

[Zevico]

You would have us believe that you only believe in scientific facts,

I never said that and I don't believe it either.

My view is that the scientific method is the only reliable means of acquiring knowledge about the physical world. Anthropogenic global warming has never been proven by use of the scientific method. So it is a belief about a scientific proposition, without scientific certainty. That is a religious belief. Well, when it comes to the physical world only the scientific method tells you anything meaningful about nature.

Actually there's a fascinating interview here on a very related subject--

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/10/18/eco-fascists/

So if you believe in things that are not scientific facts, how do you come to those beliefs. And you already said not the scientific method

That's a very general question. Which beliefs?

[regexcellent]

There's pretty good evidence for anthropogenic global warming, zev. That said, there isn't good reason to believe we should cripple our GDPs over it and we have no idea what degree or effect it might take. Moreover, aspects of the global warming advocacy take on religious overtones of atoning to the Earth God for our transgressions against Him.

[Zevico]

There's pretty good evidence for anthropogenic global warming, zev. That said, there isn't good reason to believe we should cripple our GDPs over it and we have no idea what degree or effect it might take. Moreover, aspects of the global warming advocacy take on religious overtones of atoning to the Earth God for our transgressions against Him.

Possibly, but that evidence does not show that it is the only or the predominant factor. That we do not know. I should have qualified that statement.

[kentonio]

You are being sarcastic, aren't you?

Why would I be being sarcastic? The only way to not believe in alien life* is to carry a level of arrogance about our species that is absolutely mind blowing. It's certainly considerably more believable than god fairies.

*The survey was actually asking about UFO's though ofc, which is a bit gaga.

[Kidlicious]

My view is that the scientific method is the only reliable means of acquiring knowledge about the physical world.

But you only believe that the scientific method should be used to discover facts, not truths supported by measureable evidence even though that's what the accepted definition is.

[Kidlicious]

Why would I be being sarcastic? The only way to not believe in alien life* is to carry a level of arrogance about our species that is absolutely mind blowing. It's certainly considerably more believable than god fairies.

*The survey was actually asking about UFO's though ofc, which is a bit gaga.

Ok, that explains a lot (sarcastic)

If you were a true skeptic you wouldn't believe in things without evidence. Unless you consider the eye witness of some nuts out in the desert who insist that they were anally probed evidence. There's much better evidence of christianity but you are obviously driven by your desires, not reason.

[Zevico]

But you only believe that the scientific method should be used to discover facts, not truths supported by measureable evidence even though that's what the accepted definition is.

Look, you're playing at semantics unless you offer a distinction, and you haven't.

[kentonio]

Ok, that explains a lot (sarcastic)

If you were a true skeptic you wouldn't believe in things without evidence. Unless you consider the eye witness of some nuts out in the desert who insist that they were anally probed evidence. There's much better evidence of christianity but you are obviously driven by your desires, not reason.

You'll notice I drew a line between believing UFO's have landed on earth (no evidence) and believing alien life exists (statistically so close to certain that you'd have to be wildly arrogant to think otherwise). There is no evidence of Christianity beyond 'A man called Jesus was probably alive a few thousand years ago'.

[Kidlicious]

That said, there isn't good reason to believe we should cripple our GDPs over it and we have no idea what degree or effect it might take.

Oh, global warming WILL have a significant effect on world GDP.

Moreover, aspects of the global warming advocacy take on religious overtones of atoning to the Earth God for our transgressions against Him.

And do you think that's good reason to be a global warming skeptic? Not very reasonable in my opinion.

[Kidlicious]

Look, you're playing at semantics unless you offer a distinction, and you haven't.

You're the one playing semantics. There is no need for a definition.

[Kidlicious]

You'll notice I drew a line between believing UFO's have landed on earth (no evidence) and believing alien life exists (statistically so close to certain that you'd have to be wildly arrogant to think otherwise).

Statistics? That's your evidence? There are so many stars there MUST be life out there, right? No, that's not evidence. The evidence is that we have looked at a lot of star systems and not found any ETs.

There is no evidence of Christianity beyond 'A man called Jesus was probably alive a few thousand years ago'.

This statement only displays your ignorance and/or lack of seriousness.

Astrophysicists apply new logic to downplay the probability of extraterrestrial life July 27, 2011 by Bob Yirka David Spiegel and Edwin Turner of Princeton University have submitted a paper to arXiv that turns the Drake equation on its head. Instead of assuming that life would naturally evolve if conditions were similar to that found here on Earth, the two use Bayesian reasoning to show that just because we evolved in such conditions, doesn’t mean that the same occurrence would necessarily happen elsewhere; using evidence of our own existence doesn’t show anything they argue, other than that we are here. The Drake equation, developed in 1960 by Frank Drake uses probability and statistics to derive the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe. The data for it comes from observations of the known universe, i.e. the number of stars and solar systems that can be seen, the number that are thought likely to have conditions similar to our own, etc. It’s this equation and its results that drive much of the belief that there surely must be life out there; hopefully, intelligent life. The problem with all this though, is that so much of it is based on assumptions that have no real basis in reality. As Spiegel and Turner point out, basing our expectations of life existing on other planets, for no better reason that it exists here, is really only proof that were are more than capable of deceiving ourselves into thinking that things are much more likely than they really are. The two argue that just because intelligent life occurred rather quickly here on Earth, once conditions were ripe, giving rise to the people we are today, that doesn’t mean it naturally would on another planet just like ours in another place in the universe. There are other factors after all, that could have contributed to us being here that we don’t yet understand. So, it might be surmised, (though the authors themselves don’t actually mention the Drake equation) deriving numbers from an equation such as that put forth by Drake, only serves to bump up our belief in the existence of other alien life forms, not the actual chances of it being so. When taken at face value, some might conclude that such arguments hold no more logic than arguments for the existence of God, i.e. it’s more about faith, than science. At any rate, most would agree that the only concrete way to prove whether there is life out there or not is to prove it, by finding it. © 2010 PhysOrg.com

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-07-astroph...trial.html#jCp

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-astroph...rrestrial.html

[kentonio]

Statistics? That's your evidence? There are so many stars there MUST be life out there, right? No, that's not evidence. The evidence is that we have looked at a lot of star systems and not found any ETs.

We have no idea if there is every bacterial life on Mars, how exactly would we know if there was life in other star systems?

This statement only displays your ignorance and/or lack of seriousness.

Nope, you just apply very different standards of proof to things you already ferverently believe in.

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-astroph...rrestrial.html

What a ridiculous peice of reasoning.