N: Science is what works.
Oh, “Science: it works, bitches!” is pretty good criteria for assessing what is real. So, using your words, it means that I assert absolute hegemony of reality over any wishful fantasies out of there. And it happens that scientific method cannot probe God…

N: QM flat out contradicts relativity. Which one is true? I accept them both. I think they are both true and that they both contradict each other but that’s ok.
Bzzt. Error. Both theories are false. They are just less false than predecesors (like Newtonian mechanics). There will be new theory that will not be contradictory, at least not in this place. But this theory still WILL have shortcomings, so it will be replaced again with even better (read: less false) theory. Repeat ad infinitum.

N: I accept both/and.
Sorry, but I do not accept doublethinking. I know this is required talent for any believer that want to normally function in modern time and society – this does not make it less sad.

I grew up terrified and fully expecting we’d be dead now. That there would be a nuclear Holocaust caused by the Cold Wart going Hot & Total.

What, in Oz?

I went to school in Cheltenham, which is home to the UK’s GCHQ (Government Communication Headquarters), and would have been a rpimary target had nuclear war actually started. When there’s not much you can do about a threat, you tend to ignore it most of the time.

IMHON, Science isn’t about *proof* – it is about getting an ever more accurate understanding of the cosmos that gets ever closer to a complete understanding of reality.

In general, this is right, but never forget that once an hypothesis has been disproved by evidence, it has been disproved for all time.

Simply because we don’t detect radio signals doesn’t mean ET’s don’t exist, they could be using other ways to communicate. Consider this:

[UFO sighting references omitted]

There is more!!

So what?

Sure, people see (and detect on radar) thangs that they can’t identify. That in no way counts as evidence that these sightings are alien visitors.

. . . I think that the practice of science (what scientists do) gives us facts about the world. But I think it begins and ends there.

In this you are wrong.

Science gives us explanations.

What the typical New Atheist wants is to assert their absolute hegemony over all of culture. I call that scientism and it is where I part company with them.

First off, I think atheism and scientism are two distinct and separate things. I know from past experience that you tend to build strawmen when arguing about atheism and atheists. Before you go any further with this line of thought, please cite an example of someone who has stated that science disproves god.

Second, does this comment mean that you are happy for religion to retain its/their hegemony over all of our culture? Because, AFAICT, the most prominent atheists are those who challenge the hegemony of religion and all of its associated magical thinking. I’m not sure any of them has claimed that god’s existence is disproven.

Science is what works. People use a theory called relativity because it works, but when they do other things they use other theories that also work. But here’s the problem, some of them cannot be brought into agreement with each other. QM flat out contradicts relativity. Which one is true? I accept them both. I think they are both true and that they both contradict each other but that’s ok.

But the contradiction tells us that one or both is incomplete. I have a suspicion that both GR and QM will turn out to be special cases of a more general theory that does explain both gravity and the world of the very small. But that is merely my hunch, not a rational conclusion.

Here’s a thought experiment that brings us back on topic. Suppose we do someday meet a totally alien civilization. Now suppose further that their science is not our science but it works nonetheless. Worse, while parts of both our sciences can be translated into each other’s terms there remains other parts that cannot. Some of their terms do not translate to ours and vise versa. Which one is true?

Whichever one more accurately represents how the universe works, obviously.

They can’t both be true can they?

They could both be special cases of something more general. It is difficult to envisage how some alien science might not have arrived at something resembling quantum theory, and something resembling GR.

I think they can. I think we live in such a world right now.

Fortunately, when it comes to science, we have an ultimate arbiter of truth: reality. If there are two conflicting descriptions of the universe, we can compare them against reality and see which one gives the closer match.

None of that means that I believe in woo or things which can be shown to be false. I reject either/or. I accept both/and.

I think you are supposing a scenario that is implausible.

“In other words, science cannot detect God. Ergo, for all intents and purposes God does not exist.”

In order to reach that conclusion you have to assume that the metaphysical posits of empiricism are the only means of ultimate knowledge.

What’s the difference between knowledge and ultimate knowledge?

Surely, all knowledge is just knowledge, isn’t it?

Not everyone agrees. Science can’t prove that science is true so we are left with accepting scientific conclusions based on pragmatism and pragmatism has no concept of “truth” as such.

Well, this is true, but I think we can lend at least some weight to the fact that science laced with pragmatism is the only view of the world that has ever told us useful things about how the universe works (and what it is going to do next).

I think that science works but I don’t know what “truth” is beyond the trivial tautology of “All unmarried men are bachelors” and even that is doubtful. I just don’t know and I don’t think anyone knows.

I think this ventures into the realms of how one defines “truth” in the first place.

For some definitions of “truth”, science is the only way of learning non-trivial truths about the universe.

For other definitions of “truth”, you know nothing beyond the basic Cogito ergo sum.

In a pragmatic view, something is either true or it is not, with some allowance for shades of grey. In a more metaphysical view, some truths are “more true” than others (i.e. truth ceases to be a Boolean operator). But what does that actually mean?

Occams razor is an odd thing. It does not take into account our own ignorance (or perhaps it does but being no way to quantify ignorance it is discarded).

Occam’s razor works fine, provided you allow “we don’t know” to be a valid conclusion when you are faced with opposing scenarios that are both either plausible or implausible. Where Occam’s razor is most useful, however, is when the two scenarios include one that is far more plausible than the other (but that the available evidence does not allow one to rule out either scenario).

If we really want to get serious about radio astronomy, then we need to build a large dish array on the far-side of the moon. It’s entirely possible and doable, today. With a VLA-like array on the moon’s far side, we can entirely eliminate all terrestrial radio-frequency interference and even interference from all of our man-made satellites. The advancement of hard science would be incalculable.

Yes! This!

But let’s make it a properly BIG array. Forget the VLA, and the Square Kilometre Array. On the moon’s far side, you could use up a bit of real estate. How about a 10,000 square-kilometre array? That would be very useful.

In terrestrial based applications, we like higher frequency because it allows the antenna to be smaller. So we downsize the antenna, but lose the range because of the frequency dependence there.

It sounds to me as if you are conflating two different phenomena.

Sure, on Earth, shorter wavelengths give you shorter ranges, but this is not due to some fundamental law of nature. Otherwise, how the hell did the Apollo programme get a UHF TV signal from the Moon to the Earth without lugging an immense power supply and linear amplifier along?

VHF signals (30 MHz up to 300 MHz) tend to be shorter range than “short-wave” because short-wave signals (3 MHz to 30 MHz) are more commonly refracted in the ionosphere and hence returned to Earth “below” the horizon. Higher frequencies require denser ionisation for ionospheric refraction to occur, which is why you rarely see “over the horizon” propagation with VHF. However, during intense solar activity, the ionosphere is ionised all the way down to its “E”-layer, and this allows distant propagation of VHF signals (because this phenomenon is sporadic, the propagation is termed “Sporadic E”).

VHF signals can also be propagated on Earth via tropoducting (although this effect is more obvious on UHF signals, from 300 MHz to 3 GHz), meteor scatter (bouncing signals off the ionisation trails left by meteors) and E-M-E. There is nothing intrinsic in the radio signals themselves to prevent over-the-horizon propagation on Earth, and they can arrive at their destination with a signal strength that is comparable with the routine worldwide propagation of short-wave signals.

E-M-E is also known as “moonbounce”, because that’s exactly what it does. You point your antennas at the moon and use it as a massive great reflector. The E-M-E path loss is very large, but that’s because it’s a very long way. E-M-E works just as well for UHF as it does for VHF, which it should not if your proposal is correct.

VHF and UHF are used to communicate between Earth and various spacecraft, including the Voyager probes. If these wavelengths had some intrinsic property that limits their range as you claim, then NASA would use longer wavelengths to communicate with deep space probes.

Signals above about 1 GHz also tend to degrade rapidly on Earth because they get absorbed by water in the atmosphere (ever wondered how a microwave cooker works?). And this effect is frequency-dependent. Higher radio frequncies get absorbed far more by stuff in the air than do lower frequencies. But that does not apply out in space.

That sounds informed and properly skeptical speaking broadly, but I'd like to see one specific example of a major "UFO" case that was later explained by the declassification of some "black" aerospace project. The fact is that MOST projects were "black" only during R&D and were publicly displayed as soon as they became operational. So declassification explained which major "UFO" case? And exactly how many of the thousands of “UFO” REPORTS of ambiguous lights really could have been space-skirting spyplanes?

What's much more likely is that modern "UFO" REPORTS of "black triangles" are just as erroneous as historical "UFO" reports of "airships," "flying saucers" and every other shape implanted in the public mind by the "UFO" myth-promoting media.

No, there are no REAL "UFOs," there are only "UFO" REPORTS; the conceptual absurdity in the origin of the myth is that there are THINGS with the IDENTITY, "unidentified flying object." Even if only a statistical residue of cases are "unidentified," an abstract statistical residue is not a THING. That's the Reification fallacy.

Imagine there were unambiguous, present and persistent–the very opposite of typical "UFO" REPORTS–but still "unidentified" objects in our skies and the absurdity of the idea that "there ARE such things as 'UFOs'" becomes apparent. That's the practical example of the idea's real-world absurdity.

Still, let them keep SETIing on, they won’t find anything. But still, the spirit of the Drake equation is coming from a scientific place, at least it’s based on some scientific parameters.

I have always been wondering how, with so many radio sources in the universe (e.g. stars), how we are supposed to filter out a specific alien communication signal. Unless the signal is very strong and targetted directly at us in a very narrow beam, I would assume that any artificial signal like those used for communication on earth would simply dissipate in the general background noise within a few lightyears. No?

Since pretty nearly all all known natural sources of radio waves have quite broad bandwidths, any narrow-band signals observed are likely to be technologically-derived.

Signal degradation is a big issue, that can be overcome in one of two ways – either transmit in radio waves and use a big amplifier and a highly directional antenna, or use a very large visible-light laser.

Get this folks: WE ARE IT!! There are no other civilization building creatures out there, the entire universe is just WAITING FOR US!

This conclusion also is not supported by the (absence of) evidence. We just don’t know.

Pretty much everything follows a bell-shaped curve . . .

What about house prices? Or salaries? These are heavily skewed distributions. I’m sure there are hundreds of other common examples.

Well it’s pretty obvious that there is no doubts that there is or are advanced life on other planets in both this galaxy and the universe as a whole.

On the contrary, it is obvious that many poeople have doubts about the existence of advanced (by which I assume you mean technological) life elsewhere.

Such doubts are only rational, as we have no real evidence to suggest that there are other technological civilisations out there.

To think otherwise would be to live with blinders on and being deaf and dumb as well.

No, that’s the opposite. To assume that alien technological life exists without hard evidence is to blind oneself to reason.

To many UFI sightings all around the world for everyone to br wrong.

I’ll assume you meant “too many . . .”

So, how many fallacious or mistaken reports would be acceptable? 1? 10? 100? 250? 1000? And how come there exists a threshold number whereby suddenly the reports stop being wrong? What is this magic number? And why that number and not some other number?

We have been in the past and are now being visited,moniterd and watched and lsitened to by others out there.

This is fantasy (or, at best, highly speculative). There is no evidence to support such an assertion.

I would say they think that we just are not ready yet for them to make a formal appearance to us.

How convenient.

I for one am a total believer of both the UFO’s and other life forms which are no doubt highly advanced probobly by millions of years as compared to us which to them we are a primitive life form.

This is mere wishful thinking. Your belief in the existence of alien technological life does not make it so. And why should they be substantially more advanced than us? Why not just a little bit? Or about the same?

I agree that there may be alien technological life somewhere, but we simply don’t know. To draw any conclusions from the absence of any evidence, as you have done, is irrational.

The time will come however when they do make there presense known to us.We can only pray that they are a peacefull life form and not a violent one otherwise we will be toast

This is nothing but guessing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong

Science doesn’t prove we’re right once and for all, it says we have good reasons to believe hypothesis / idea ‘X’ because reasons Z, Y, A, B, C, until it is perhaps falsified which would happen if we found D, E, F, happening.

@81. Wzrd1 : January 8th, 2012 at 2:11 pm

First, we should remove some confusion out there. There ARE such things as UFO’s, they’re all over the globe, every day. That said, the vast majority stop being UFO’s when they’re identified (frequently being aircraft, flocks of birds, etc). NOT ONE was ever encountered that was accepted by rational people as extraterrestrial in origin. Frankly, I doubt one WILL ever be encountered here, for the same reasons others have posted here.

Yep. That’s why I try to use the term UFO’s for Unidentified Flying Objects – often later found to be mundane Identified Flying (or Astronomical or hoax) objects and Flying Saucers for the stereotypical little green men here to form crop circles, mutilate cow and abduct drunks idea.

Of course, the SR-71 was a UFO, as was the stealth fighter and stealth bomber and pretty much anything intelligence related and flying OR military aircraft/spacecraft related (no sci-fi spacecraft, just military programs, such as the recently tested US Air Force “shuttle” and assorted other vehicles.)

You mean the X-37b?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-37B

Then too there are the Stealth bombers and the secret black choppers used in the Bin Laden raid. So yeah, agreed entirely. Additionally, I guess Flying Saucer claims make good cover stories and disinfo for keeping the real earth-bound high tech under better wraps.

As for extraterrestrial intelligent life, I’m waiting for Earth to get some intelligent life. Creatures that kill for differing ideas, differing appearance, ram vehicles into occupied buildings and possess use nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, whilst poisoning their planet with great enthusiasm doesn’t strike me as particularly intelligent. Indeed, were I approaching a planet in search of intelligence, this planet is one that I’d avoid! It’s positively loaded with highly aggressive apes.

You forgot to add aggressive *naked* apes a la the title of Desmond Morrises’ famous book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape_(book)

Yes, I sometimes think Humanity may well not really qualify for classification as an intelligent species sometimes.

OTOH, maybe that’s too pessimistic a view – we are in some ways, perhaps, getting better or at leats not beyond hope :

.. possess use nuclear and thermonuclear weapons.,?i>

I grew up terrified and fully expecting we’d be dead now. That there would be a nuclear Holocaust caused by the Cold Wart going Hot & Total. It didn’t happen. We came perilously close to annhiliation – but then realised and pulled back from the brink. Nuclear weapons have been used only twice in anger – with those occassions being motivated or justified at least in part to end a World War and save lives. Maybe, just maybe, we’re learning?

Creatures that kill for differing ideas, differing appearance … whilst poisoning their planet with great enthusiasm

Yet never before have humans – those living inWestern socity anyhow – been so aware of respectingand tolerating and empathising withdifferent groups. Our culture and attitude and assumptions have shifted radically from what they were in the age of Divine Rights of Kings and Crusades. We live in a free, democratic, enlightened, rational globalised world by and large where feminism, environmentalism, scientific understanding and technology, has made life for a great number of people very much better, freer, more equal and given them more human rights and opportunities.

No we’re not there yet. Yeah, there’s a long way to go. But look at history and where we’re coming from! I hope, I really think, we may be on the right track? Possibly?

Not sure why this popped into my mind… An oldie but a goodie: They’re made out of meat!

Ah, classic! Good one.

Plus, who knows, it might really be the explanation for the Fermi paradox.

@62. noen : January 7th, 2012 at 10:50 am

There are no alien craft in our skies.

Agreed.

We will never be contacted by any intelligent life beyond our solar system. (emphasis added.)

Disagreed. Never is a ve-ery lo-oong time. I don’t think you can say that with any certainty because while it may be greater or lower the possibility always remains that one day we might be.

There’s no evidence to say “never” – just your assertion and opinion. There isn’t enough evidence to draw any conclusion on the SETI goal being met one way or the other.

Yes the SETI search has been running for a fairly long time. But there’s also a huge area of spacetime to cover yet. No nearby ET doesn’t mean no more *distant* ET exists. Just because something hasn’t happened *yet* doesn’t mean it never will.

Also one day we may venture outside of our our solar system ourselves – and then (re?)contact Earth from out in the Black. Which contradicts your statement there technically even if it’s not what you meaning.

We are effectively alone in the universe and will remain so for a very long time.

Is a restatement really of those first two statements. Yes, effectively we’re alone right now as far as we can tell in that we are not in contact with & can find no sign of alien sentiences that may or may not be out there.

However, there is always the possibility that this could change at any moment. This time we had a SETI false alarm. Tomorrow we may – just may – get the real thing. I wouldn’t say the odds were very high. 1,000 to one, a million to one even but not absolutely zero.

@80. MaDeR Says: January 8th, 2012 at 11:27 am

“you have to assume that the metaphysical posits of empiricism are the only means of ultimate knowledge.” (Quoting #79. noen – ed.)
You know that “science cannot explain it all” is common excuse of every crackpot out there, right? And don’t me get started on philosophy.

The mere fact that something is used by crackpots does NOT mean it is necesssarily false. Science being unable to explain certain things doesn’t make crackpots right – but it is arguably true.

“Science can’t prove that science is true”
First things first: if you can prove it is false, it is science (yes, this sentence is vulgar simplification of scientific method). So cited sentence is useless.

IMHON, Science isn’t about *proof* – it is about getting an ever more accurate understanding of the cosmos that gets ever closer to a complete understanding of reality. Think of Asimov’s essay – the relativity of wrong. The world isn’t flat – but it isn’t a perfect sphere. Scientific knowledge is always provisional and open to review if the eveidence demands it.

You might want to search this site for previous posts on aliens and UFOs. You will find that the majority of UFOs are simply unidentified (or later identified) mundane earthly phenomena. In the case of USAF pilots and astronauts, they too can be fooled by their own senses, not know or not be familiar with earthly phenomena, or be talking about classified but very human flying apparatus.

Your ‘cases’ are anecdotes, which do not prove anything. Most of them are from the 50s, a time when people had heightened senses for weird, unusual things in the sky because of the cold war. What did the aliens stop visiting after 1989?

Youtube and Google searches do not constitute proof. Wake me when you have an alien spaceship in your backyard that scientists from all over the world have tested and announced in peer-review literature that it is most definitely not from Earth. Until then, you might want to try reading Badastronomy.com or inputting ‘UFOs’ into the search box on this site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmSYXbgcozY

For real! ”

Just so long as it’s that and not this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwmghqyJ3Uk#t=2m17

Of course, Rama didn’t exactly announce itself when it showed up.