the words extraordinary claims needs to be banished when talking extraterrestrials page: 1 link i was reading an article that talked about extraterrestrials the other day and of course at the end of the article the tired line about extraordinary measures....blah, blah, blah came out towards the end of the article. this needs to stop when talking about extraterrestrials. it may have been an extraordinary claim 60 years ago but it's not today. with the scientific evidence we have today, many people including one of the top scientist of our time has reached the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the evidence. hawking said,"aliens almost certainly exist." these are conclusions reached based on the evidence not extraordinary claims. the article was on a possible signal that could be of extraterrestrial origin. this signal matches a prediction made in 2012 and it's just science. this is what was said at the end of the article and it's this type of thinking that needs to stop. with things like water found on other planets, exoplanets in habitable zones, extremophiles in places we thought life couldn't exist, building blocks of life found on comets and more, saying extraterrestrials exist isn't an extraordinary claim but a possible explanation based on the evidence. here's what was said. <u+201c>the one in 10,000 objects with unusual spectra seen by borra and trottier are certainly worthy of additional study,<u+201d> the team said in a statement. <u+201c>however, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. <u+201c>it is too early to unequivocally attribute these purported signals to the activities of extraterrestrial civilizations. internationally agreed-upon protocols for searches for evidence of advanced life beyond earth (seti) require candidates to be confirmed by independent groups using their own telescopes, and for all natural explanations to be exhausted before invoking extraterrestrial agents as an explanation. www.independent.co.uk... first, the scientist who are behind this study never said unequivocally. this is an old tactic that's used by some people on this board from time to time. they can't debate the evidence presented so they try to make it seem as you made a blanket sstatement. the scientist say "probably" right there on the updated comments on their published paper. here's what they said: but they make clear that further work will need to be done to confirm or deny that hypothesis. that will need to be done by watching for the same signals on different equipment so that all other explanations can be discarded. again, nobody said unequivocally. i hate it when people do that. this is why i always ask people to quote me where i said this or that because when people can't debate the evidence they try to debate against things that were never said. they also said this: all natural explanations need to be exhausted before extraterrestrials are invoked as a possible explanation. what!!! that makes no sense. this standard would make it almost impossible to find an extraterrestrial signal. in most cases all natural explanations will never be exhausted so we will have to talk about these things in terms of probability and what's most likely and least likely at least at first. look, it's easy to cherry pick after the fact. like i said, an earlier study about the search for extraterrestrials predicted that we would see these signals and that would be evidence to support the hypothesis. that's just science. if you look at the sentence, it says before you can even invoke extraterrestrials as a possible explanation. again, that's absurd. extraterrestrial existence needs to be looked at as a possible explanation based on the observed evidence not an extraordinary claim. edit on 26-10-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)
the words extraordinary claims needs to be banished when talking extraterrestrials
neoholographic