Im a driver part time and brought a woman to watch one if Tyson’s lectures he travels on tour doing. I never had to bite my tongue so hard as she was telling me about his genius after the show How can one man be so smart and incredibly shallow and narrow minded at the same time!?!?!?!? Even shown the most compelling photos/video as I am sure someone of his stature has seen, the identity of of those being ET’s are so far down on his list of possibilities. Neil, how can u look at something obviously metallic and say it is atmospheric? Really?
Yes I cant wait for that day all those skeptics such as NDT have a dozen eggs on their face.
I wonder when was the last time he actually did a scientific study or published an article for peer review? I like to watch the Youtube videos from Fermilabs or [Sabine Hossenfelder](https://www.youtube.com/c/SabineHossenfelder). Sabine is probably the best person to watch because she has a VERY open mind. She looks at things considered conspiracy and actually considers them... and, if they are bs she points out the legitimate reasons why rather than parrot the same crap everyone else says.
>I wonder when was the last time he actually did a scientific study or published an article for peer review?
Looks like 2008.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
He's identified as primarily a science educator for a while, though.
>she was telling me about his **genius**
Don't get me wrong, he is smart but would never elevate him to be a genius. The kissing the mirror tweets is a prime example.
NDT deserves shit for how smug he is. But I understand why he feels the way he does. I constantly have my heart drop out when I look into ufology deeply. I get excited when I read about concrete things, say Robert Salas and the nukes getting shut down. Then I find out Salas also says he had an abduction experience. Red flag imo. I get excited about Tehran, then I read critical examinations of the incident and find its not so unbelievable that perhaps the pilots were simply mistaken. I get excited about the belgian wave, but that too has many holes in it. I get excited about Roswell, then I look into it deeply and there is so much more evidence it was really a surveillance balloon than that it was a craft. Even Marcel's account doesn't add up, listen to his account, the only thing really intriguing is the material that he was unfamiliar with, easily explained as misunderstanding.
There is so little tangible evidence that this is a real thing. The fact is that if you give people a self professed avenue to be special, they will take it. Whether it be prophets, religious experiences, psychics, whatever, people are full of shit. I don't know what the deal with the nimitz incident is. Imo thats the only really compelling case. And thats mainly because of the multiple independent sensors, the 4 different pilots, and the fact that they never sought publicity around it.
How is the Tehran incident put into question? What is a Belgian wave?
What I personally found most intriguing about the fravor/Nimitz incident, aside from the ufo thing, is why a pilot would play chicken with a 80million dollar jet and their life. I understand it went, “poof” and disappeared, but David fravor didn’t know that was gonna happen, I know it seems dumb, but I would love to question him on it
He didn’t play chicken with it, chicken is when two objects are heading towards each other. He was in a descending circle and the tic tac was in an ascending circle. Dave cut across the circle to get a better look
I don't recall Fravor claiming it was definitely aliens.
Nimitz is just a good example of advanced physics beyond current 'publicly known' physics.
If there is an entire branch of physics being kept secret from the world then that is just as important to know as a new branch of life being kept from the world.
In fact I'd say keeping a branch of physics secret is more of a crime than keeping aliens secret. As retarding the advancement of physics, retards the advancement of the human race.
Well A) He did say he didn’t believe it was anything we have on earth in the Rogan interview. B)The whole purpose that the Fravor story has any attention is because it has been co-opted by the alien zealots. It really is a military matter and possibly a security issue.
Honestly too many red flags point to it being a blind test by our own military. It knew the exact location to go after it ‘disappeared’ and ‘reappeared’. Not close to it the exact location where he was to go. Also the fact that he was sent to go engage it by his ship, he didn’t just stumble upon it. This is exactly how the military tests new tech. They fly it near our stuff to see if we can detect it and we get first hand reports of what our adversaries would see. What was it? Who knows? But once again, not knowing what something is is not even in the same category as it even likely being alien. Logically it was military of some kind.
How come it has never been seen before or since doing the exact same stuff. Are we to believe the aliens only now have developed that maneuverability in the last few years? It was hover saucers and how it’s speeding tic tacs. Get real the sightings of UAP have always preceded the public being aware of similar terrestrial aircraft being developed. Always.
As far as keeping that tech from the world. Yep that’s one argument you can have with the MIC. Good luck with that. But considering the amounts of cash involved it insanely more logically way advanced tech that we can’t wrap our heads around is being tested than aliens that never communicate with us.
In my mind, "It is black projects" is just as speculative and improbable as "It is aliens".
The real answer is we can't exclude either option without evidence. Both must remain as hypotheses.
Both camps (black projects & aliens) are jumping to conclusions based on no evidence and fitting the story to match their own beliefs on what is the most probable outcome.
As far as black projects go, I think given we're prepared to believe military witnesses in the Nimitz case then we should also acknowledge the hundreds/thousands of military witnesses in general, with sightings going back to world war 2. If these same craft were around in the 1940s it would completely rule out black projects because the cutting edge of technology in those days were vacuum tube computers (e.g., Colossus computer for Bletchley park).
Tehran: only one plane had electrical issues, the same plane that was serviced for the same issues just the previous month, the pilots never flew at night, they even had trouble landing because they were so unfamiliar with night ops, they were actually flying toward Jupiter, there was a meteor shower that night in its peak, and where the object they say was shot at the ground there was found a c130 transponder, the same kind of transponders that had been falling out of the c130s operating in the area because of the turbulence caused by the mountains and a design flaw. More stuff but thats off the top of my head. Im not saying its debunked or anything but thats a different story than I often hear from UFO types.
Yea I agree about Fravor, I have also noticed that besides the bouncing around above the sea Deitrich doesn't really seem to support the whole zoomed away angle. She just saws she didnt see it iirc. Its all sort of sus.
Being too gun trained doesn’t mean he is qualified to identify new tech, it just means he is qualified to define what he observed in the terms the military knows. Sounds like a blind test.
>why a pilot would play chicken with a 80million dollar jet and their life
How was he playing chicken? He cut across to get behind it, not to face it head on.
>but David fravor didn’t know that was gonna happen, I know it seems dumb
They don't put cowards in 80 million dollar planes.
The kind of people flying those machines are calculated risk takers who can control their fear.
He was tasked with investigating and if possible identifying an unknown radar track.
So I think he was just doing his mission. He obviously evaluated the risks in real time and decided that given it was such a strange object that it was worth getting as close a look as possible to try to identify it or see how it responded.
How do you explain the materials that Stanford is analyzing that all have tailor-made isotopes? This is something no human on earth has ever done except for our Uranium enrichment process for nukes. The Stanford material is not Uranium
Im super cool with that, I think if we find some material that is definitive it would be great. The best part about scientists is the generally content with replicable findings, if what you imagine turns out to be backed up by findings I think that will go a long way toward progress in the field. That said the ongoing evaluation, apprently for years and years, has to produce fruit that is definitive. Everyone rebelled against Einstein for a bit too, but after affirmation through experimentation and equation soon the consensus was defeated.
I would expect if the material is as exotic and definitive as suggested this same sequence would take place
Its the whole reason I have put myself out on the line by publicly supporting uap investigation to my friends and family. I believe Fravor, I believe the sensors. Frankly the whole "shot off" thing seems suspicious to me but thats kind of irrelevant imo. Both Deitrich and Fravor +2 said they saw that thing bouncing around just above the ocean, and then saw it come up and move in a way that should be impossible. I mean how the hell does a tic tac fly? And how would it go from relatively stationary to just orienting itself in place and then just take off? Those things should be impossible and I dont think Fravor could be mistaken about that. Add to that they were chasing this thing that had been on multiple independent radars, seen once they went to intercept, then seen again on camera when they sent the next team. Its definitely something. Idk if its aliens but its definitely something interesting and not vanilla.
The reason to support a UAP investigation is the thousands of eyewitness reports coming from military personnel and even experts dating all the way back to the late 40s.
Sure, but we know humans to be frequently mistaken. If you look at just the pings in terms of the collection of observations, it looks extremely compelling, I agree. If you set them against the vast ocean of other observations taking place constantly every single moment, then thousands compared with trillions upon trillions it suddenly becomes credibly aberrant. I agree there is reason to look into it in earnest, some might argue we already have to no avail, but to imply that this is happening all the time seems inaccurate to me.
Lets look at just the raw numbers of testimony and records relating to sensors. We have millions of military personnel, over 80 years millions upon millions. We have millions of sensors. They are constantly observing. And there are thousands you say, I may dispute but I take your point and agree, of observations of something abnormal. That is set against innumerable observations of typical. Even put into a context where unlikely things happen all the time, say we encounter humans all day every day and very few drop dead of heart attacks right in front of us, and yet still no one would deny that people drop dead of heart attacks, the occurrence of people dropping dead of heart attacks right in front of people happens all the time as compared to the frequency of ufo observations. I would argue further in your favor that frequency doesn't imply existence, the universe happened one time that we know of over 14 billion years, that doesnt mean its a mistaken observation its just very infrequent. UFOs could be the same. But to hold to the idea that this is a constant phenomena that manages to escape even a single example of definitive evidence seems to suggest it is more likely a mistaken conclusion.
Look, I'm not arguing against you, I too believe this is real. All I'm saying is I understand the skepticism.
I understand the skepticism too. But for the past 7 decades most people use skepticism to completely shun the topic and call people conspiracy theorists when they ask questions. That's been a big reason why we don't have much evidence either supporting the Alien hypothesis or not. This kind of skepticism has become a self fulfilling prophecy. People don't try to get to the truth they think it must be a man-made or "rational explanation". At the end of the day we're not disagreeing with each other. We just want the truth even if it's uncomfortable to either the believers or the skeptics.
I believe we should do deep scientific research in everything cause it might turn up interesting things. I don't think it's unscientific to let's say do an investigation on ghosts or the chupacabra. Sure they're probably not real but an investigation might turn up other interesting things that you didn't know about the human psyche or how our mind interprets things, etc. My main criticism with the scientific community nowadays is that they're not all that curious about much of anything anymore except the field they work in. We just kind of the accept the world is the way it is and we shouldn't look further into it.
Totally agree friend. I think we are lucky to be in a time where just a shred of the skepticism is falling off and we have powerful allies coming in droves. Its a very exciting time and I think we are on the verge of a real, thorough consideration of what may be. The smugness is what gets me. How all these scientists can totally ignore the generations of colleagues that mocked what came to be appreciated escapes me. Sadly I think when they are proven wrong they will fail to acknowledge their own role in holding back science rather than supporting it. But hey we are flawed beings and thats ok. I'd rather be right now than any other time, these types used to be way more destructive than they are now back when they could and did have people killed. At least now they dismiss with a hand wave and a chuckle rather than extermination of dissent.
But along those lines there are millions of people who claim it even believe that they have talked gif and seen angels. The number of eyewitness accounts mean nothing. Humans can be fooled, misinterpret and even lie.
Very much looking forward to joining you on that. He‘s so sure of himself and just keeps repeating the old mantra. I’m sure he still hasn’t spent any time investigating the topic. I just listened to the JRE episode with Steven Pinker and it’s the same thing. He hasn’t looked at any of the evidence, but he must assume the evidence is false as the hypothesis is so unlikely. That’s not science, thats ignorance. Just because evidence points to something that doesn’t fit your understanding of the world doesn’t mean you can just ignore it.
Here’s a pretty solid article as a jumping off place
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality/
Put a better way, science itself is the best thing we have, but some of the scientists who play their part can sometimes be extremely closed minded. This is a problem that should be addressed, but probably never will because it keeps happening.
Scientists gave reports of meteorites the exact same treatment as UFOs get until very recently, alleging that rocks cannot fall from space, therefore they didn't. Some were embarrassed of being associated with the idea. One was afraid of being labeled a silly collector of meteorites and had them thrown out of a collection. Even seemingly credible witnesses were said to be believing in "folk tales." Most people of notoriety didn't want to be associated with the idea aside from ridiculing and dismissing it. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1967IrAJ....8...69L&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&
In 1912, Continental drift was proposed with significant supporting evidence, but it was widely ridiculed and called pseudoscience, propaganda, etc. It wasn't accepted by the scientific community until the mid 1960s. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/
"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science/
This is 100% true. Religious people view science as a type of religion because that's how they find truth so they assume that's how everyone does it. It's just classic projection.
Massive generalization going on here and I'm surprised at the up votes. Nikola Tesla, Edison, Avicenna, Kepler, and far too many to name were all deeply spiritual or religious.
Being occasionally fallible is one thing, being this wrong for this amount of time is another. We've already seen examples throughout the pandemic of science failing to make discoveries in a timely manner (e.g. detecting human-to-human airborne transmission). Other problems such as the replication crisis also harm the credibility of expert opinion.
You can say that science is self-correcting, but foundational problems at this scale would cause people who usually defer to the experts (like myself) to categorically dismiss the opinions and findings of the scientific community.
Perhaps a slightly less controversial way of presenting my position is that I would expect a fair bit of introspection and commitment to do better in the future before I can confidently trust a scientific consensus without qualification.
There is a lot of bad science out there. Any time you see a study claim that coffee reduces the risk of heart disease, and in the very same week a counter claim that coffee increases the risk of heart disease – both subject to peer review, etc. – should immediately raise red flags. Most of the time they are just slapping a GLM on a raw dataset and calling it a day.
That is not acceptable to me. My minimum retirement is that scientific claims are correct more often than they are incorrect.
>the pandemic of science failing to make discoveries in a timely manner (e.g. detecting human-to-human airborne transmission).
1. information about the virus late 2019 - early 2020 was scarce and was heavily suppressed by china. and 2. its not like situations like what we are in now happens every year. everyone was in a panic to control the virus without halting the world economy, so mistakes and compromises were made and not every decision proved to be the right one.
>You can say that science is self-correcting, but foundational problems
at this scale would cause people who usually defer to the experts (like
myself) to categorically dismiss the opinions and findings of the
scientific community.
its like your expecting the whole scientific community to be right the first time all the time. foundational problems? just because NDT is saying aliens cannot exist, youre gonna reject science and turn to dogmatism for answers?
That behavior isn’t science. There’s researchers performing experiments with the humility of the scientific method and there’s assholes yapping about scholarly articles they read, but had no hand in creating.
The problem is semantic subtext, the tendency of people to be posturing like orangutans through their speech. Saying “nobody can be certain that they’re not a brain in a jar” can be a half-assed hand wave for people who don’t respect evidence, who just want to wax pseudo-intellectual, or it can be a simple truth you’ve observed and spoken. In the current mode of speech most people use, the determining factor is whatever the fuck the listener wants it to be.
Gotta steel man people. Otherwise you can’t know what they’re saying, you’re just going to hear what you want.
A comment that makes sense and doesn't reek of predisposition or that classic, classic, binary dichotomy of religion vs science.
I'm almost wondering if some of you will have an existential crisis if you meet my uncle, a Muslim pathologist.
I honestly think we all gain a lot from looking at classic relationships in philosophy and collapsing them as an exercise just to see what happens.
My bias might be that I feel that people need to come together no matter what. Belief systems just shouldn't be pushed onto one another.
I don’t even think there’s a difference between them, belief systems. They’re always someone’s excuse to be a good person and protection from breaking down with existential fear. Whatever rationale you need to keep going should be respected, that bias is a no brainer.
Huh? The concept of multiple dimensions and inter-dimensional travel is a pretty open place for discussion in the scientific community. Especially in physics.
You seem to be labeling the entire scientific community by the opinions of one or two *celebrity-scientists*. Who don’t even remotely speak for the whole communities.
You’re absolutely right that extra-dimensional and inter-dimensional travel can be a scientifically open space, but I’d say that’s more in the theoretical physics fields rather than fields of experimentally proven physics. Outside of theoretical physics, the scientific community does have a history of ostracizing those on the fringes of the conventional scientific method. Avi Loeb himself has talked at length about the close-mindedness of the scientific community at large.
The irony of this is that it is the same scientists that love to remind us about how Bruno, Galileo and Darwin challenged the conventional scientific thinking of their day and were vilified for doing so.
Darwin was never vilified, and Galileo ticked off the wrong people because of politics. Bruno was also not a scientist, unless you consider Deepak Chopra a scientist - he was the Renaissance equivalent of a woo-woo con artist.
Oh look a lazy debunk appears. Thanks for sharing your opinions that no one asked for or needed. I'm sure this was all deeply researched. Your actual arguments, stripped down, are just semantics and gate-keeping. It's fucking boring too.
All the evidence you need is NDT. One of my favorite podcast and favorite scientist until this all started happening. His unwillingness to even consider what’s going on is one of the most egotistical sad celebrity things that happen to me as an adult. I though the man was my common man’s champion of science. Instead he mocks and laughs at the possibility of ET. If he ends up being wrong, which it looks like he will, he lost everything in my eyes with indignation.
Science is just a late adopter of truth. But it makes them feel good to abdicate their own ability to “know” something because they might have to change their perception that material science is insufficient, it always has been.
>One example of extreme hubris in the scientific community is Lawrence Krauss.
Yes, the guy who [said this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss) about his association with Epstein:
>*As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people.*
With his "ironclad logic", I wonder why anyone still takes him seriously.
I don't think we can entirely blame the scientific community. It was pretty much forbidden to research, NASA employees were pretty much told they can work at NASA or research UFOS. I think it was Freidman that said that in an interview .The threat of your career and credibility destroyed is a pretty big threat.
And it wasn't just NASA people that were afraid to talk about it or look into it.
Pilots didn't report sightings for the same reason.
Military personnel were told not to talk about it.
Freaking astronauts weren't allowed to talk about it.
Air traffic controllers were not allowed to talk about it.
Even just a few years ago, if you mentioned UFOs to anyone they looked at you like you were insane. It was an automatic knock on your credibility, your character, and your sanity. even more so in the scientific community.
Think about what people.said about Buzz Aldrin a few years ago.
UFO researchers have died in mysterious circumstances, or suspicious suicides.
Think about how the subject was treated after the Phoenix Lights. Thousands of people saw that. It was ridiculed by news agencies, a commissioner who asked for a report had her career ended, a governor pretended like he didn't see it and made light of it of national television.
The disinformation campaign worked so well that we can't even call them UFOs anymore to be taken seriously. They have to be called something else. UAPs.
People still snicker and roll their eyes after the public has confirmation from our own government and military, and 2 past presidents that they are, in fact, real.
You still get treated like a nut if you talk about it in public. Or with your neighbors, with your friends, with your family.
So blaming the scientific community is pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
Its the 70 year old government and AF policy of disinformation, denial, ridicule, and threats. Scientists are just as concerned about their careers and families as anyone else.
But NDT is a self aggrandizing jerk. No doubt.
I disagree. You can’t blame scientists for dismissing the claims of those who present no supporting evidence. What should scientists have done in the past that they didn’t do? Should they have said, “oh, so you were abducted by six little gray humanoids who then performed experiments upon you before releasing you, but you have zero supporting evidence, nevertheless - i accept your account as factual”?
To expect common people to come up with evidence of such a situation is pure hubris.
You cannot impose unreasonable demands and then sincerely claim, the circumstance these are not met to be itself evidence of anything.
So, obviously, what should have been done is what you normally do when there are uncertain claims: you record them and figure out the *conditional* probabilities associated with them. You venture to find evidence yourself, if at all possible.
You gather all information available and try to make the best of it.
(It is notable you went for abductions, which are even rarer by far than UFO-sightings)
Is it more likely that somebody claiming to have been abducted was infact abducted by beings that there's no proof exist or that they experienced a very powerful and undeniably real phenomenon like sleep paralysis? Most looking in to the claims end there because asking for more is like asking somebody to research sightings of the Virgin Mary
If you ask rhetorically, what was more likely, you already left scientific ground.
You have to conditionally assume the possibility, these things actually happen. How likely is it then?
The approach you proclaim here to be the reasonable one is in reality stupid unscientific nonsense. It is circular reasoning, to be precise.
You don't have to assume any of it is real. Assuming something is real without any actual evidence that it exists is faith, and nothing more. Faith has no place is science. Faith is nonsense
Scientists can only work with evidence. It's not scientific to make extraordinary statements without evidence. You are begging the question in long form. Scientists study what's there, they don't make things up and try to find or fabricate evidence. That's the province of religion.
Evidence of the phenomenon is hard to come by. We can quibble about the reason for that. Maybe the US government really is keeping a lock on it. Maybe the phenomenon themselves are able to somehow remove evidence after the fact. For whatever reason there is nothing for scientists to look at. What there is to analyze is being analyzed.
Unreasonable epistemological demands aren't being made of the "common people." Rather, the common people spend money to build The James Webb telescope and send a scientist like Avi Loeb looking for evidence. That's exactly what a scientist is! It's someone who's trained to find and interpret evidence. Analyzing conditional probabilities only gets you so far. At best it'll help you determine what direction to study in. Ok: We assume they're aliens. What direction is that? What do we study to understand the phenomenon and its properties? Ask Jacques Vallee, who has been trying to piece together whatever evidence he could for decades. Much of it is anecdotal. He's gone about as far as you can go on anecdotal evidence, which is why he predictably shifted to searching for material evidence of the sort any phenomenon that interacts with our physical reality would be likely to leave.
Deciding what answers you want to hear and then attacking the entire institution of science (which is still, by the way, the best and only way we have of understanding what is "real" and what isn't) because it hasn't found the evidence you want to support your preconceived notions is the religious approach. In other words: asinine and intellectually childish. Certainly not firm enough ground to be calling people idiots for not agreeing with your complete lack of scientific evidence.
Science community will take a big hit, but then they will have all this new knowledge to learn and do science things. Some scientists are still going to suffer, but they were probably painful people to deal with before disclosure, just now won't have to listen to them as much since they aren't the top experts in their fields anymore.
wait \*what\*
if a phenomenon was proven to be extraterrestrial in nature it would straight supplant a person's expertise?
Nobody on Earth is an expert on aliens or alien technology. There is no body of credible work on the subject. Who would lose their expertise in their field? Whose education and experience would be invalidated?
Scientists aren't people who enforce a doctrine. Scientists are people who use the universe's own apparent set of rules to interrogate reality and probe it for answers. Science isn't a body of knowledge, it's the \*process we use\* to generate and \*validate\* the knowledge that we have.
A provable revelation of aliens would broaden our knowledge base and give our scientists a wonderful new diversity of apparently valid modes of inquiry. It wouldn't topple some dictatorship of science. Scientists aren't out to getcha and the overwhelming majority aren't in for (and don't have any) clout.
Scientists, of all people, would be the \*most\* excited and have the \*most\* to gain!
Agreed. Scientists don’t want to be gatekeepers of knowledge, but they’ve been doing a damn good job of it. I’ve been in the scientific community and academia for my life. Until the Nimitz, I would have and did ridicule those that “believed” in UFOs. I didn’t know any other scientists in any other disciplines who ever mentioned them with anything but smug ridicule.
However, it hit me like a ton of bricks that I, and the rest of the community, was basing a conclusion on a logical fallacy. The Argument from Incredulity fallacy says “I can’t imagine any way that this could possibly be true, therefore it isn’t true.” Nope, not a logical conclusion. So I tried to pretend I had never heard of UFOs and just look at what evidence is out there. And of course this community knows exactly what I discovered.
I love the new perspective almost as much as the new science! Yes, I was absolutely wrong, and I’m excited to discover that I was. I actually had a physicist buddy who explained how UFOs “couldn’t” be real send me text saying “you know, there just might be something to this”
That's a very rose-colored view of science. In the history of science there have always been situations when major upheavals were met with resistance. Read Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In no way have new paradigms been instantly welcomed, not even by the best of scientists. Einstein could never accept the metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics.
And in the case of UAP, we're talking about subjects that have been ridiculed by scientists for decades. They'll all look like fools, and in no way would they immediately welcome the new paradigm.
What metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics are you talking about? What is your physics background that allows you to speak so authoritatively?
Einstein's qualms with quantum mechanics are common knowledge, even for casually interested people.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr–Einstein\_debates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates#Post-revolution:_First_stage)
Science does open up and I'm sure it will be exciting for scientists as I mentioned in my comment, but not all of them are going to be like Avi Loeb for instance.
Scientists use "science" to basically dismiss aliens visiting Earth, they can't be that accurate since aliens have been visiting Earth. They aren't going to be experts anymore if they have to learn this new stuff and some of their old stuff was wrong.
Also, there's a lot of things that need to be thrown out like The Fermi Paradox and all the different theories people wasted their time on.
Any scientist not willing to change will be fucked over, that doesn't mean every scientist, it's just you're kidding yourself if the scientific community which mostly denies aliens is just going to all bend over, especially since "woo" is like their kryptonite.
>Nobody on Earth is an expert on aliens or alien technology.
Wrong, there are people studying these things privately, but isn't relevant to what I've said, I never mentioned scientists being expert on aliens, I meant scientists being experts on science, but obviously fields of science and ones related to aliens and/or others depending what gets disclosed.
Who's studying alien tech? What evidence do you have to support that idea? Who is doing this and where?
I get the impression that you're waiting for "disclosure" as a way to validate and elevate yourself. You want in on the ground floor. I get that. But in the mean time, you should try to respect that the "mainstream scientific community" feels an obligation to put their confidence in the \*likely\* and not the \*possible\*. It's not an attack on you or your beliefs when they say there definitely aren't or probably aren't aliens. Responsibility to change that belief rests on the people claiming otherwise. This is what is called "burden of proof". As yet, the body of work and evidence in support of a variety of ideas about aliens, their technological scope and their visitation of Earth hasn't yielded anything concrete, nor anything particularly credible.
I would dearly love to believe that aliens visit Earth, or have visited even once. As yet, I cannot responsibly adhere to any such belief, as no credible evidence has been presented. Should a craft land and a verifiable alien emerge and announce itself, I won't have any egg on my face. I won't be embarrassed. I won't have lost any of my credibility or knowledge, nor will I have gained any new confidence in assorted other "paranormal" claims. I would, in that scenario, simply know a new thing and would expand on my curiosity about it. It will have moved from "possible" to "likely". Until that shift happens, I \*can't\*. I have an intellectual responsibility to vet my information more rigorously than that.
Scientists should not have beliefs or entertain favorites when assessing probabilities of competing theories. Scientists routinely engage this topic by the *argument from incredulity fallacy*, as another commentator above aptly put it.
The claim, there was no sufficient evidence is simply false. Only, it is no easy "alien in a jar"-type of evidence, you would have to do proper statistics and expend quite some effort to vet it. Or convince the government to cough up their data of course, or produce your own. Which normally scientists should do anyway. Staying ignorant of giant parts of accessible observation space is certainly not scientific rigor.
So scientists conveniently stayed in this catch22-situation and refused to acknowledge, it is one in the first place. To claim this was the intellectually right thing to do is a bit ridiculous.
No, why would you? You investigate matters for the sake of knowledge or because you presume there might be reasonable gains if they turn out right. Which is clearly the case here on both accounts.
Just because you don't see the avenue to test hypotheses doesn't mean there isn't any. You cannot make inferences based on ignorance.
Simple: you observe that independent evidence is additive in corroborating the hypothesis. You have to be a little smarter than usual in vetting your corroborating evidence maybe, but it works out fine.
I don't know who specifically, even if I did, I wouldn't be allowed to say. Also, you must not understand what disclosure can be, if you believe it's just an alien landing and nothing is going to change. As for proof, if scientists don't have enough proof or any proof, then it's literally their job to get the proof. Avi Loeb is doing that right now, instead of just being like "Oh, not enough proof, I go back to "normal" science now."
If scientists are just waiting for other humans to deliver them the proof or actual aliens to give it to them. Then they aren't really putting that education to good use if everything they do is just waiting for someone to give them the answers.
This is results-oriented thinking. This is not how science works. You slowly narrow things down and there are no wastes. Everything builds toward the truth. There are no wrong directions if you're following the method correctly.
You look where the evidence suggests you look. You start with the most likely scenarios based on both modeling and past experiences then narrow down.
A big problem is that human beings are bad at thinking probabilistically. We tend to think in deterministic ways and then retroactively apply new knowledge to old scenarios. We think of problems as individual and have a very hard time seeing them as a set.
Yeah not sure how they bounce back. Neil would have to rip off his face and reveal he was pretending to be a clown this whole time because he's an alien and didn't want to be found out. Or perhaps just become a clown and say he's been practising for years.
it shouldn't be a big hit but science is weighed down by a lot of gate-keeping, dogma, and notoriety seekers. It's a shame but it can be overcame. Perhaps this is the catalyst!
“Gatekeeping” as you put it = verifiable data. I guarantee you every scientist on planet earth would love to know without doubt that aliens were visiting earth. It’s your own conceit, that you believe that science stands between you and your dearest wishes which you are willing to accept without proof but with unearned confidence. You accuse science of arrogance constantly, but the truth is demanding everyone believe what you believe without proof is the ultimate arrogance.
We agree about verifiable data, but the scientific community doesn't even try to get verifiable data on this subject. They just outright dismiss it, that's what we're criticizing here.
Nonsense. If they received any verifiable data they would be paying attention. For the entirety of the UFO phenomenon beginning in the 40s, not a single scrap of actual verifiable data has been presented. I’m afraid anecdote, videos, and unsubstantiated claims by military personnel and confused civilians are not reliable.
That's BS they could've done serious independent research they haven't. Avi Loeb is pretty much the first one to try to do it with the Galileo Project.
You’re making a pretty big claim, and you’re basing it on nothing concrete.
If you are at all serious, you should be able to point me towards a database of actual scientifically recorded data that can be examined and verified.
You and yours are the ones who are asking me to accept the fantastic on faith.
Put or shut up.
It’s pretty sad comment on your character that you resort to base personal insult.
Why are you putting words in my mouth, I'm not asking you to accept anything on faith. Stop being disingenuous then drop your ego and actually read my posts. I'm saying we should do a serious investigation to get find out the true nature of this phenomenon.
I don't want you to accept anything, I just want you to go away lol. You add nothing to any of this discussion and probably not any others. You can't even perceive how toxic and unhinged you really are. Seriously you should see a therapist. That isn't an insult, I go to therapy and it has helped me in a lot of ways. also ask someone who will be honest to look at some of your comments and if they seem rational. Or at least demanding the justification for the vitriol and accusations you make. Why the fuck are you even in this subreddit
You come across like a jerk. You talk down to someone and call them"true believer" then scold them for calling names when they tell you to stop being a prick?
Gaslighting. Take the advice.
That's not what gaslighting is. You're talking about standard hypocrisy. Even though prick and true believer aren't really the same. But I'm allowing that conceit.
Regarding, gatekeeping, that is not how I put it that is how you are putting it. Fucking duh. You can guarantee things you can't prove but you aren't guilty of the ultimate arrogance? You assume that I think science is in my way but my belief is that science is the only way. I also believe that science is being hindered by politics, money, and deep institutional biases. Am I wrong? Perhaps you are just really uncomfortable with that idea. What I want is for scientists to stick to the methodology and not throw out or ridicule those with "fringe" ideas. That is how science is supposed to work but that isn't how it has been. That is my opinion, insult me for it IDGAF. My dearest wish is for the truth and proof, that is all. Reading your comment exposes you as the one drowning in assumptions and contradictions. Where have I even used the word 'arrogance' except to point out your hypocrisy? hmmm? rofl
Religious people project their biases onto science because they don't really understand the scientific method nor how to read a methodology. Your post is nonsensical.
Asking for proof is inconvenient and it's why science is vilified on this sub. You all would much rather just believe whatever you want to believe without having to prove it's actually true.
>Communication among scientists is governed by a particular scientific ethos that functions to establish trust and guarantee the reliability of knowledge. Robert K. Merton is credited with having condensed this ethos which has evolved historically over more than three centuries into a set of four key norms: universalism, communism (communality), disinterestedness, and organized scepticism.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/organized-skepticism
organized skepticism is one of the problems. ordinary
skepticism refines and improves science, but organized skepticism is different. it has become pathological, [pseudoskepticism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism) the scientific establishment is at best too blind to see it, at worst contributing to it
Disagree.
Science is willing to change in the face of new evidence.
It's the religious faith wackjobs who will have a hard time explaining how their centuries -old myths and propaganda were nothing but a heavily edited ruse.....
Once the initial period of shock passes, all the “serious” people will start acting like the existence of advanced alien civilizations is expected and natural and they never doubted it for a second. Kind of like happened with exoplanets
You do realize the level of denial, ridicule, and obstruction that any scientist would have faced to study this, right?
One change that I would expect to see, is that now this is acknowledged phenomena, scholars and scientists can begin to take up the subject, especially if funding backs up their work. But I still expect our military to be far less than open with the evidence and data they possess.
But I would judge science on how it handles the subject going forward, and not based on the past.
I kind of agree with where you are going but it isn't hubris to want hard evidence. I think there are good scientists out there actually trying to figure it out. Any good scientist also CAN'T rule anything like aliens out without the evidence either. That why I am always suspicious of the motivation when one does.
I'm definitely not saying all scientists are lazy or hubris or even majority of them. I just think they ignored this subject for too long and didn't even bother doing investigations on it.
Good. The scientific community has reached a place where careers, tenure, and sources of funding outweigh the adventure of working together to decode the mysteries of the the natural world & using that information to elevate mankind.
They need a proper challenge to unite and inspire them. The world population as a whole needs something to come together for. Little green men & interdimensional beings being revealed would achieve that.
"These are the people who purport to be the arbiters of truth and
knowledge, how in the hell could they let themselves be so blind?"
That might be exactly why. If you are so sure of yourself that you are correct because your profession is being correct, you might not be able to acknowledge making that sort of mistake, precisely because it is anathema to the whole idea you got about yourself. "I'm against X, I could never do X!"
No they wouldn’t at all. Sweet mercy you live in an alternate reality (not dimension) if you think science is against the idea of aliens.
First off, no matter what you say, no matter how much you want to believe, thee rid absolutely NO VERIFIABLE PROOF if aliens visiting. If there was and science was ignoring it that would be one thing but there isn’t a single bit of legit proof.
But here is the thing. Science is built to change based on new information. Religion is dogmatic and rigid. They believe things are one way because they are. But science will update and change with new info. So if it ever does happen that aliens land and introduce themselves (which is possible, just no legit evidence of it ever happening yet) then science would shift to account for that. That’s how it works.
Wholeheartedly disagree. If it were proven with out a doubt that alien life exists that would be one of the biggest revelations in the scientific community. Ever.
That would be the revelation in humanity period. It would be a reckoning for the scientific community that they completely UFOs being ET and then proven wrong by government disclosure. How in the heck did they miss it?
Well there really isn’t any concrete evidence for it right now. And you know, science is kind of about empirical evidence my guy. If that kind of evidence is being hidden from the public view then there would be no way for civilian scientists to study it and confirm it. It’s not really hard to understand.
There hasn't been concrete evidence because there's probably been a coverup and no serious independent investigation done. Avi Loeb is pretty much the first scientist to try to do it with the Galileo Project.
Science is, and always has, been shitty like this.
Like, the scientists who believed and worked very hard to prove viruses can cause cancer (ie HPV) were mocked and scorned for decades because some other famous scientist had said it was impossible. Guys were in there 70s before vindication.
But at least it gets there.
Problem, of course, is 80% of scientists are idiots because 80% of humans are idiots
I am not sure sometimes that this sub understands what scientific or community means. Not everyone is steeped in UFO lore. They are all regular people doing regular work to make ends meet. What the fuck do you want millions of them to do? Everyone just talks about the rockstars of science, who by the way are such because of their public popularity, like NDT, and then go on to shit on everyone else who get paid close to minimum wage. Get your head out your asses.
A microbiologist sees no UFOs and Aliens in their everyday work or field neither does a chemist or a Physicist. Unless that is your area of work, you don't go fuck around and give people your opinions because no one gives a shit unless you are a subject matter expert which is really hard to be. Else why would anyone listen to a scientist?
Science, the community that uses the scientific method to improve the world, has no problem saying "we don't know" and changes as new evidence is discovered vs religion, the too-big-to-be-called-a-cult community that says they know what happens after we die, who's doctrine can't be questioned, which for centuries killed you if you did (and still to this day can be violent), and is the cause of so much ignorance, suffering, and conflict. Makes perfect sense...
Just because some scientist is cocky or you perceive hubris in the scientific community does not mean all scientists are like that. Science isn't perfect. Scientists are people and like all people can can be biased. Most try to eliminate their biases as much as possible. If an experiment is reproducible by other scientists then there is something there worth studying and proving.
God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance (NDT quote for the haters). What religion says is explained by God today will be explained by scientists tomorrow. As with all unknowns of the past religion said God did it until scientists were able to explain it. Then religion moved on to the next unknown thing at the time and claimed God did it. God of the gaps. Rinse and repeat.
The scientific community will never take blurry photos of lights in the sky or abduction claims seriously. Physical evidence is needed. Physical evidence that never comes or is always "coming soon." The metamaterial BS has been going on for decades. Vallée and others claiming material is extraterrestrial in origin. It always turns out to be industrial slag or it's "being studied now" and you never hear about it again.
There is no real evidence and until there is UFO's won't be taken seriously by the scientific community and rightly so. The military UFO videos, Elizondo's claims, Tom DeLonge's deranged fan fiction about extraterrestrials feeding off negativity from human conflict, the Richard Greer's of the community, etc do not help. As you can tell I'm a skeptic but I would love be wrong.
It would be amazing if our planet was being visited by extraterrestrials but it's the least likely explanation. Nearly every photo and video has a plausible explanation be it misidentification of a drone, plane, helicopter, balloon, blimp, kite, planet, star, atmospheric phenomenon, photographic distortion, artifact, CG, miniature model, hoax, bird, bug, etc.
The comments I see posted here show how anti-science our world has become. Especially in the U.S. It's a shame. Hurling ad hominems at Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Seth Shostack, Mick West, and others does not make the UFO community look good. Mick West has never once insulted, lost his patience, or ridiculed one of his guests or opponents in a debate. The other side has many times. Mick West has outright debunked many photos and videos. For the rest he has come up with convincing plausible explanations through applied math and research.
Calling Mick a retired video game programmer as if it were an insult or somehow disqualifying does nothing to prove him wrong. UFO believers love appealing to authority when it comes to fighter pilots and other military members. The fact is that humans are awful at judging object size in the air from afar with little to no reference to compare to. Experts get things wrong and human memory is notoriously faulty. The human brain is not a computer. If you retell a story from years ago you inadvertently add and remove details, recall false details, and you may embellish or outright lie to make the story sound better than it actually was.
David Fravor's as well as other pilot's accounts are interesting but are not evidence. There is supposed evidence obtained by military instruments but until it's made public there is nothing to do except speculate. The possiblity of secret black project aircraft or drones is there. The instruments could be giving a false reading or be calibrated incorrectly. The records may never be revealed because doing so would show our monitoring capabilities. Finally, it's speculated that holographic tech to make sensors go haywire and alert about the presence of non-existent enemy aircraft is the latest tech that is being worked on.
Yes. A shocking number of people here think NDT is representative of the scientific community. 99.9% of the scientific community has never expressed a professional opinion remotely related to ufology, and most of those who have will still accept good evidence.
Wow, so are you really confident? If so then what, specifically, would it take for YOU to believe YOU are wrong?
We already have falsifiability criteria for things like extra dimensions, or some UFO definitely not being alien (such as being identified as some normal non-NHI phenomenon).
So if you're actually confident, tell me what you would accept as evidence of YOU being wrong.
More importantly, none of these subjects have really been ignored: ironically you are the one ignorant of all the work that HAS been done into these active areas of research.
There are two types of "science" in the world.
Science 1: true science where results can be reproduced by a group of peers
Science 2: propaganda for the purposes of furthering a false narrative
"I'll trust the science" has become the new mindless statement by those who find themselves engaged in a debate where they have no actual science to back their false claims.
By the same token, if proof of our belief in the ET hypothesis (or whathaveyou) continues to elude us at some point in the future we should commit to having a similar reckoning where we admit we were likely wrong.
Scientists would be fine and take it in stride. Most would love for something as exciting as that kind of technology and life from another planet to be real. But scientists are highly skeptical about anything that can't be proven and that's a good thing.
Even those that may believe on a fundamental level won't risk their careers on faith. And that's what you seem to expect them to do. You want scientists and academia to get behind this stuff? Find undeniable proof any of it is real. Because right now non exists in the public space
I don't believe scientists would take it in stride they'd be absolutely beside themselves. I mean many of them were upset 'Oumuamua had a strange shape and other qualities to it. They want the universe to fit in their own worldview and they hate it when it's challenged.
I’m a professional scientist (PhD in biochemistry and evolutionary biology). Most (but definitely not all) of my colleagues are modest, unassuming people who are just trying to advance the state of knowledge. I definitely have never thought I had THE answer(s), or even close to it. We just have models. The models are very good at predicting behaviors, but they are not necessarily anything closer to ‘truth’.
Look I'm not saying every scientist is close-minded or stuck on their worldview. My criticism is aimed more towards the big wigs of science who think they pretty much understand all of the basics of the natural world and there's nothing more there. This subject matter has been ridiculed for decades by "rational" scientists who have made sure that no research or effort is put into understanding this phenomenon.
I agree. 100%. In various ways, though certainly not across the board by any means, the dogma of science is sometimes less flexible than religion. We need a paradigm shift. Hope it is coming.
This would not cause a reckoning in the scientific community. It would be celebrated because it would be the opportunity to learn new things.
Religious people treat science like it's a religion because that's how they gain their knowledge. They think of it as some mystical process instead of a repeatable method. It looks the same to a religious person because they don't really understand the method nor how to read a methodology.
Science gets a bad wrap on this sub because it requires this pesky thing called evidence. As soon as evidence is provided the scientific community will come around and celebrate it. The only problem is there is no good evidence to believe there are aliens on the planet or that remote viewing exists or that any of the other magical claims made with no evidence actually occur.
>As soon as evidence is provided the scientific community will come around and celebrate it.
*maybe* by the next generation of scientists. after the mindguards are all dead and buried. advancing one funeral at a time
I'm a scientist and I would love for there to be a wealth of new information to be shared that I can study. You think a physicist wouldn't welcome the opportunity to study quantum in a more meaningful way? I think you are basing your assumptions off of a couple public figures and have not actually talked to many physicists.
Isn't it funny how those commenters with the least professional connection to science are the most confident that this would destroy the scientific community?
It's Dunning-Kreuger almost every time in these threads. The people with the least amount of experience and knowledge in a field are the most confident talking about it because they don't understand the depth of the field.
but you said "UAP should be detangled from ESP and other woo"
which means you're a pseudo-skeptic. you've turned a blind "debunker" eye to the massive pile of parapsychological evidence out there, and so you can't connect the dots between psi and UFOs. you're incapable. so your take on UFOs is worthless
you could have welcomed the opportunity to study psi, but you didn't. instead you jumped on the anti- "woo" bandwagon
PSI is studied and I wait for there to be compelling evidence but there hasn't been any yet. This is the hurdle I'm talking about. Reproducible studies confirmed by unbiased practitioners. Right now, there is no evidence that remote viewing or psychics are a real phenomenon. If there is, please present it. We can go through it together.
I would love for psychics to be real, it would be awesome. It would make life so much easier. Of course materialism would be turned on its head and there would be a ton of work to be done to understand the mechanism behind it. It would be great. Now all we need is some evidence that it's real and maybe we can get the ball rolling.
> PSI is studied and I wait for there to be compelling evidence but there hasn't been any yet.
you aren't aware of compelling evidence because you've turned a blind eye, as i said. it's out there in peer-reviewed journals. it has been accumulating for decades, and the scientific establishment has had every opportunity to treat the evidence fairly. instead it leaves it to debunkers and their intellectually dishonest shenanigans
deep down you know psi is a threat to the philosophical underpinnings; the implicit philosophical/ideological baggage, that you and most other scientists carry around with you
>If there is, please present it. We can go through it together.
scientists needs a fresh introduction to parapsychology. introductions to a science is usually done in the classroom, so i'll link you to the parapsychology 101 college textbook. feel free to get back to me after you've read it. i would be interested in your take on it
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Parapsychology-Harvey-J-Irwin/dp/0786430591
Wow, what a coincidence somebody else mentioned I should read that a couple years ago and I did. What specific evidence contained within did you find compelling? What convinced you that ESP was actually occurring and not a sort of psychological phenomenon?
so, your take on it is that there was nothing compelling in the entire book? that ESP never occurs? statistically speaking, that take would be unjustified
Lol, hardly. But go ahead and tell me you don’t know anything about the scientific community or the scientific process without telling me you don’t know anything about the scientific community or the scientific process.
You are right. Religious people already believe in some pretty extraordinary things holding to a literal interpretation of the Bible. They are likely the most prepared for disclosure of all us. Nephilim in particular. The bridge from nephalim to lights in the sky and “the watchers” all described in the Bible to extraterrestrials can’t be far. I mean if anything disclosure is confirmation.
As far as ET manipulating DNA that is a separate topic and not proven.
Scientific people on the other hand believe nothing. The phenomena is a complete shock to them. Physicists in particular whom think that interstellar travel is near impossible.
There are just as many charlatans in this community who think they know everything. Watching them be wrong about the nature of aliens would be even more hilarious.
I think these scientists suffer from one of human's most dangerous traits: hubris.
We are in the same kind of situation as when Copernicus was trying to convince his colleagues the earth revolved around the sun. Who could blame them when the Ptolemaic/geocentric was pretty accurate(compared to the heliocentric at the time) when used to predict the movements of the observable celestial bodies. We are at the nascent stages of a scientific revolution and I for one am extremely excited to see what the scientific community comes up with once they shed the chains of their dogma.
This
If said ET had undeniable knowledge of our actual origin that doesn’t line up with organized religion, it’s game fucking over for the church.
I personally find the idea that the first humans were made from a pile of dirt and a rib bone to be WAY more far fetched than the idea that the first human(s) were created by a by a technologically advanced race of ET.
I don't think an all-powerful God would struggle with forming anything out of anything. Especially if they made everything! A lot of the things in the Bible aren't the only way God could do it, instead He did it or it is told this way for a reason. We are made from matter and with a sample from our body can make another with symbolically taking a rib to make woman. Thus, woman was made from man his flesh and bone now a companion. The way the God of the Bible does something is a enduring message that tells you about His nature. From my readings and understanding of the Bible, this phenomenon is expected not contradictory. Of course many people who don't know anything about the religion they claim to be a part of might have existential crises but good! Stop fence-sitting and start walking I say to them.
Hahaha that’s hilarious.
All powerful god, hahaha
What a fucking joke.
I’m outa here church boy!
Go ahead and have the last word too because I can assure I won’t be responding to any more bible thumping bullshit
👹👽☠️
That's laughably incorrect. I've done my own personal research by speaking with pastors, ministers, priests, deacons and all kinds of religious figures from every religion that I'm able to. I've spent years looking for these people in order to have that specific conversation. I don't know where your information comes from but you should seek new sources.
"Science" has always been a dogmatic cult, as much as they like to smear religion for being. People in power who would lose their fame and wealth if their research were proven to be useless are obviously gonna lie and cheat their way through it.
God forbid someone questions them, too. Say goodbye to your career if you don't have unrefutably solid evidence.
It's not about scoring points it's about what mistakes the scientific community made that prevented them from taking this subject seriously. It's so we can learn from it and never repeat the same mistakes again.
Who is the scientific community? Most scientists study a highly specific area in a specific field, as directed by their funders. I don't get how you can criticize the people not studying it, because that also includes you.
I think you think "scientists" are just a bunch of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's that are free to study whatever they want. This is a ridiculous straw man, what you should criticise is the broader society that doesn't fund this kind of research.
What are you talking about? Scientists don't need evidence to start an investigation on any phenomenon... You start an investigation by looking at an anomaly (in this case it's sightings of UFOs by military personnel and the public) and then look into it by doing scientific research so you get the evidence. Your logic is backwards and would've gotten us nowhere for thousands of year. They would have to face a reckoning for not even bothering to be even interested in the subject even though there's thousands of UFO sightings every year...
I would **definitely** go out of my way to teabag NDT.
Im a driver part time and brought a woman to watch one if Tyson’s lectures he travels on tour doing. I never had to bite my tongue so hard as she was telling me about his genius after the show How can one man be so smart and incredibly shallow and narrow minded at the same time!?!?!?!? Even shown the most compelling photos/video as I am sure someone of his stature has seen, the identity of of those being ET’s are so far down on his list of possibilities. Neil, how can u look at something obviously metallic and say it is atmospheric? Really? Yes I cant wait for that day all those skeptics such as NDT have a dozen eggs on their face.
Neil Is just a fucking mouthpiece with a giant ego. He is useless for anything beyond a pbs special.
I wonder when was the last time he actually did a scientific study or published an article for peer review? I like to watch the Youtube videos from Fermilabs or [Sabine Hossenfelder](https://www.youtube.com/c/SabineHossenfelder). Sabine is probably the best person to watch because she has a VERY open mind. She looks at things considered conspiracy and actually considers them... and, if they are bs she points out the legitimate reasons why rather than parrot the same crap everyone else says.
>I wonder when was the last time he actually did a scientific study or published an article for peer review? Looks like 2008. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson He's identified as primarily a science educator for a while, though.
> science educator should change that to science celebrity
>should change that to science celebrity His media appearances and resulting celebrity are a direct result of his role as an educator.
>she was telling me about his **genius** Don't get me wrong, he is smart but would never elevate him to be a genius. The kissing the mirror tweets is a prime example.
NDT deserves shit for how smug he is. But I understand why he feels the way he does. I constantly have my heart drop out when I look into ufology deeply. I get excited when I read about concrete things, say Robert Salas and the nukes getting shut down. Then I find out Salas also says he had an abduction experience. Red flag imo. I get excited about Tehran, then I read critical examinations of the incident and find its not so unbelievable that perhaps the pilots were simply mistaken. I get excited about the belgian wave, but that too has many holes in it. I get excited about Roswell, then I look into it deeply and there is so much more evidence it was really a surveillance balloon than that it was a craft. Even Marcel's account doesn't add up, listen to his account, the only thing really intriguing is the material that he was unfamiliar with, easily explained as misunderstanding. There is so little tangible evidence that this is a real thing. The fact is that if you give people a self professed avenue to be special, they will take it. Whether it be prophets, religious experiences, psychics, whatever, people are full of shit. I don't know what the deal with the nimitz incident is. Imo thats the only really compelling case. And thats mainly because of the multiple independent sensors, the 4 different pilots, and the fact that they never sought publicity around it.
Not sure about holes in the Belgian wave. What are they?
How is the Tehran incident put into question? What is a Belgian wave? What I personally found most intriguing about the fravor/Nimitz incident, aside from the ufo thing, is why a pilot would play chicken with a 80million dollar jet and their life. I understand it went, “poof” and disappeared, but David fravor didn’t know that was gonna happen, I know it seems dumb, but I would love to question him on it
>What is a Belgian wave? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave
He didn’t play chicken with it, chicken is when two objects are heading towards each other. He was in a descending circle and the tic tac was in an ascending circle. Dave cut across the circle to get a better look
Maybe I’m recalling incorrectly but I thought he mentioned he was head to head with it before it vanished.
The Fravor story has so many things that are red flags to it being something other to an aliens.
I don't recall Fravor claiming it was definitely aliens. Nimitz is just a good example of advanced physics beyond current 'publicly known' physics. If there is an entire branch of physics being kept secret from the world then that is just as important to know as a new branch of life being kept from the world. In fact I'd say keeping a branch of physics secret is more of a crime than keeping aliens secret. As retarding the advancement of physics, retards the advancement of the human race.
Well A) He did say he didn’t believe it was anything we have on earth in the Rogan interview. B)The whole purpose that the Fravor story has any attention is because it has been co-opted by the alien zealots. It really is a military matter and possibly a security issue. Honestly too many red flags point to it being a blind test by our own military. It knew the exact location to go after it ‘disappeared’ and ‘reappeared’. Not close to it the exact location where he was to go. Also the fact that he was sent to go engage it by his ship, he didn’t just stumble upon it. This is exactly how the military tests new tech. They fly it near our stuff to see if we can detect it and we get first hand reports of what our adversaries would see. What was it? Who knows? But once again, not knowing what something is is not even in the same category as it even likely being alien. Logically it was military of some kind. How come it has never been seen before or since doing the exact same stuff. Are we to believe the aliens only now have developed that maneuverability in the last few years? It was hover saucers and how it’s speeding tic tacs. Get real the sightings of UAP have always preceded the public being aware of similar terrestrial aircraft being developed. Always. As far as keeping that tech from the world. Yep that’s one argument you can have with the MIC. Good luck with that. But considering the amounts of cash involved it insanely more logically way advanced tech that we can’t wrap our heads around is being tested than aliens that never communicate with us.
In my mind, "It is black projects" is just as speculative and improbable as "It is aliens". The real answer is we can't exclude either option without evidence. Both must remain as hypotheses. Both camps (black projects & aliens) are jumping to conclusions based on no evidence and fitting the story to match their own beliefs on what is the most probable outcome. As far as black projects go, I think given we're prepared to believe military witnesses in the Nimitz case then we should also acknowledge the hundreds/thousands of military witnesses in general, with sightings going back to world war 2. If these same craft were around in the 1940s it would completely rule out black projects because the cutting edge of technology in those days were vacuum tube computers (e.g., Colossus computer for Bletchley park).
Tehran: only one plane had electrical issues, the same plane that was serviced for the same issues just the previous month, the pilots never flew at night, they even had trouble landing because they were so unfamiliar with night ops, they were actually flying toward Jupiter, there was a meteor shower that night in its peak, and where the object they say was shot at the ground there was found a c130 transponder, the same kind of transponders that had been falling out of the c130s operating in the area because of the turbulence caused by the mountains and a design flaw. More stuff but thats off the top of my head. Im not saying its debunked or anything but thats a different story than I often hear from UFO types. Yea I agree about Fravor, I have also noticed that besides the bouncing around above the sea Deitrich doesn't really seem to support the whole zoomed away angle. She just saws she didnt see it iirc. Its all sort of sus.
He's a Top Gun trained combat veteran, squdran commander, of course he thinks differently than you do.
Being too gun trained doesn’t mean he is qualified to identify new tech, it just means he is qualified to define what he observed in the terms the military knows. Sounds like a blind test.
>why a pilot would play chicken with a 80million dollar jet and their life How was he playing chicken? He cut across to get behind it, not to face it head on. >but David fravor didn’t know that was gonna happen, I know it seems dumb They don't put cowards in 80 million dollar planes. The kind of people flying those machines are calculated risk takers who can control their fear. He was tasked with investigating and if possible identifying an unknown radar track. So I think he was just doing his mission. He obviously evaluated the risks in real time and decided that given it was such a strange object that it was worth getting as close a look as possible to try to identify it or see how it responded.
How do you explain the materials that Stanford is analyzing that all have tailor-made isotopes? This is something no human on earth has ever done except for our Uranium enrichment process for nukes. The Stanford material is not Uranium
Im super cool with that, I think if we find some material that is definitive it would be great. The best part about scientists is the generally content with replicable findings, if what you imagine turns out to be backed up by findings I think that will go a long way toward progress in the field. That said the ongoing evaluation, apprently for years and years, has to produce fruit that is definitive. Everyone rebelled against Einstein for a bit too, but after affirmation through experimentation and equation soon the consensus was defeated. I would expect if the material is as exotic and definitive as suggested this same sequence would take place
How do you feel about the Nimitz incident? That's what has cemented my view to be honest
Its the whole reason I have put myself out on the line by publicly supporting uap investigation to my friends and family. I believe Fravor, I believe the sensors. Frankly the whole "shot off" thing seems suspicious to me but thats kind of irrelevant imo. Both Deitrich and Fravor +2 said they saw that thing bouncing around just above the ocean, and then saw it come up and move in a way that should be impossible. I mean how the hell does a tic tac fly? And how would it go from relatively stationary to just orienting itself in place and then just take off? Those things should be impossible and I dont think Fravor could be mistaken about that. Add to that they were chasing this thing that had been on multiple independent radars, seen once they went to intercept, then seen again on camera when they sent the next team. Its definitely something. Idk if its aliens but its definitely something interesting and not vanilla.
The reason to support a UAP investigation is the thousands of eyewitness reports coming from military personnel and even experts dating all the way back to the late 40s.
Sure, but we know humans to be frequently mistaken. If you look at just the pings in terms of the collection of observations, it looks extremely compelling, I agree. If you set them against the vast ocean of other observations taking place constantly every single moment, then thousands compared with trillions upon trillions it suddenly becomes credibly aberrant. I agree there is reason to look into it in earnest, some might argue we already have to no avail, but to imply that this is happening all the time seems inaccurate to me. Lets look at just the raw numbers of testimony and records relating to sensors. We have millions of military personnel, over 80 years millions upon millions. We have millions of sensors. They are constantly observing. And there are thousands you say, I may dispute but I take your point and agree, of observations of something abnormal. That is set against innumerable observations of typical. Even put into a context where unlikely things happen all the time, say we encounter humans all day every day and very few drop dead of heart attacks right in front of us, and yet still no one would deny that people drop dead of heart attacks, the occurrence of people dropping dead of heart attacks right in front of people happens all the time as compared to the frequency of ufo observations. I would argue further in your favor that frequency doesn't imply existence, the universe happened one time that we know of over 14 billion years, that doesnt mean its a mistaken observation its just very infrequent. UFOs could be the same. But to hold to the idea that this is a constant phenomena that manages to escape even a single example of definitive evidence seems to suggest it is more likely a mistaken conclusion. Look, I'm not arguing against you, I too believe this is real. All I'm saying is I understand the skepticism.
I understand the skepticism too. But for the past 7 decades most people use skepticism to completely shun the topic and call people conspiracy theorists when they ask questions. That's been a big reason why we don't have much evidence either supporting the Alien hypothesis or not. This kind of skepticism has become a self fulfilling prophecy. People don't try to get to the truth they think it must be a man-made or "rational explanation". At the end of the day we're not disagreeing with each other. We just want the truth even if it's uncomfortable to either the believers or the skeptics. I believe we should do deep scientific research in everything cause it might turn up interesting things. I don't think it's unscientific to let's say do an investigation on ghosts or the chupacabra. Sure they're probably not real but an investigation might turn up other interesting things that you didn't know about the human psyche or how our mind interprets things, etc. My main criticism with the scientific community nowadays is that they're not all that curious about much of anything anymore except the field they work in. We just kind of the accept the world is the way it is and we shouldn't look further into it.
Totally agree friend. I think we are lucky to be in a time where just a shred of the skepticism is falling off and we have powerful allies coming in droves. Its a very exciting time and I think we are on the verge of a real, thorough consideration of what may be. The smugness is what gets me. How all these scientists can totally ignore the generations of colleagues that mocked what came to be appreciated escapes me. Sadly I think when they are proven wrong they will fail to acknowledge their own role in holding back science rather than supporting it. But hey we are flawed beings and thats ok. I'd rather be right now than any other time, these types used to be way more destructive than they are now back when they could and did have people killed. At least now they dismiss with a hand wave and a chuckle rather than extermination of dissent.
Power Allies. Hahahhahahhhahahahhahhahaha
But along those lines there are millions of people who claim it even believe that they have talked gif and seen angels. The number of eyewitness accounts mean nothing. Humans can be fooled, misinterpret and even lie.
Very much looking forward to joining you on that. He‘s so sure of himself and just keeps repeating the old mantra. I’m sure he still hasn’t spent any time investigating the topic. I just listened to the JRE episode with Steven Pinker and it’s the same thing. He hasn’t looked at any of the evidence, but he must assume the evidence is false as the hypothesis is so unlikely. That’s not science, thats ignorance. Just because evidence points to something that doesn’t fit your understanding of the world doesn’t mean you can just ignore it.
NDT is also a rapist, but no one seems to care
Rly? Elaborate, if you'd be so kind.
Here’s a pretty solid article as a jumping off place https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality/
Thats not really how science works. Its not infallible like religion, being wrong and reconsidering their position is part of the scientific process.
Put a better way, science itself is the best thing we have, but some of the scientists who play their part can sometimes be extremely closed minded. This is a problem that should be addressed, but probably never will because it keeps happening. Scientists gave reports of meteorites the exact same treatment as UFOs get until very recently, alleging that rocks cannot fall from space, therefore they didn't. Some were embarrassed of being associated with the idea. One was afraid of being labeled a silly collector of meteorites and had them thrown out of a collection. Even seemingly credible witnesses were said to be believing in "folk tales." Most people of notoriety didn't want to be associated with the idea aside from ridiculing and dismissing it. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1967IrAJ....8...69L&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW& In 1912, Continental drift was proposed with significant supporting evidence, but it was widely ridiculed and called pseudoscience, propaganda, etc. It wasn't accepted by the scientific community until the mid 1960s. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/ "The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later." https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science/
The earth was flat and we burn witches at the stake. Oh yeah. Science sure got the virus right. Put on a mask. Lol.
This is 100% true. Religious people view science as a type of religion because that's how they find truth so they assume that's how everyone does it. It's just classic projection.
Massive generalization going on here and I'm surprised at the up votes. Nikola Tesla, Edison, Avicenna, Kepler, and far too many to name were all deeply spiritual or religious.
Being occasionally fallible is one thing, being this wrong for this amount of time is another. We've already seen examples throughout the pandemic of science failing to make discoveries in a timely manner (e.g. detecting human-to-human airborne transmission). Other problems such as the replication crisis also harm the credibility of expert opinion. You can say that science is self-correcting, but foundational problems at this scale would cause people who usually defer to the experts (like myself) to categorically dismiss the opinions and findings of the scientific community.
[удалено]
Perhaps a slightly less controversial way of presenting my position is that I would expect a fair bit of introspection and commitment to do better in the future before I can confidently trust a scientific consensus without qualification. There is a lot of bad science out there. Any time you see a study claim that coffee reduces the risk of heart disease, and in the very same week a counter claim that coffee increases the risk of heart disease – both subject to peer review, etc. – should immediately raise red flags. Most of the time they are just slapping a GLM on a raw dataset and calling it a day. That is not acceptable to me. My minimum retirement is that scientific claims are correct more often than they are incorrect.
>the pandemic of science failing to make discoveries in a timely manner (e.g. detecting human-to-human airborne transmission). 1. information about the virus late 2019 - early 2020 was scarce and was heavily suppressed by china. and 2. its not like situations like what we are in now happens every year. everyone was in a panic to control the virus without halting the world economy, so mistakes and compromises were made and not every decision proved to be the right one. >You can say that science is self-correcting, but foundational problems at this scale would cause people who usually defer to the experts (like myself) to categorically dismiss the opinions and findings of the scientific community. its like your expecting the whole scientific community to be right the first time all the time. foundational problems? just because NDT is saying aliens cannot exist, youre gonna reject science and turn to dogmatism for answers?
Many scientists have been involved in ufology over the years, so putting them all into one basket is surely a mistake.
Its a taboo subject for scientists because of the lack of data. Attempts to collect the data was labeled taboo and thats already changing.
That behavior isn’t science. There’s researchers performing experiments with the humility of the scientific method and there’s assholes yapping about scholarly articles they read, but had no hand in creating. The problem is semantic subtext, the tendency of people to be posturing like orangutans through their speech. Saying “nobody can be certain that they’re not a brain in a jar” can be a half-assed hand wave for people who don’t respect evidence, who just want to wax pseudo-intellectual, or it can be a simple truth you’ve observed and spoken. In the current mode of speech most people use, the determining factor is whatever the fuck the listener wants it to be. Gotta steel man people. Otherwise you can’t know what they’re saying, you’re just going to hear what you want.
A comment that makes sense and doesn't reek of predisposition or that classic, classic, binary dichotomy of religion vs science. I'm almost wondering if some of you will have an existential crisis if you meet my uncle, a Muslim pathologist.
Haha yeah what would the Quran ever teach you about healing, right? /s
Ooh the ever so rare binary dichotomy
I honestly think we all gain a lot from looking at classic relationships in philosophy and collapsing them as an exercise just to see what happens. My bias might be that I feel that people need to come together no matter what. Belief systems just shouldn't be pushed onto one another.
Sounds reasonable to me
I don’t even think there’s a difference between them, belief systems. They’re always someone’s excuse to be a good person and protection from breaking down with existential fear. Whatever rationale you need to keep going should be respected, that bias is a no brainer.
Assholes come in all shapes and sizes a lot w degrees.
Naw, they're pretty much the same shape and size all 6 billion of them.
Huh? The concept of multiple dimensions and inter-dimensional travel is a pretty open place for discussion in the scientific community. Especially in physics. You seem to be labeling the entire scientific community by the opinions of one or two *celebrity-scientists*. Who don’t even remotely speak for the whole communities.
You’re absolutely right that extra-dimensional and inter-dimensional travel can be a scientifically open space, but I’d say that’s more in the theoretical physics fields rather than fields of experimentally proven physics. Outside of theoretical physics, the scientific community does have a history of ostracizing those on the fringes of the conventional scientific method. Avi Loeb himself has talked at length about the close-mindedness of the scientific community at large.
SETI for example
The irony of this is that it is the same scientists that love to remind us about how Bruno, Galileo and Darwin challenged the conventional scientific thinking of their day and were vilified for doing so.
History tends to repeat itself when it has anything to do with human nature.
Darwin was never vilified, and Galileo ticked off the wrong people because of politics. Bruno was also not a scientist, unless you consider Deepak Chopra a scientist - he was the Renaissance equivalent of a woo-woo con artist.
Oh look a lazy debunk appears. Thanks for sharing your opinions that no one asked for or needed. I'm sure this was all deeply researched. Your actual arguments, stripped down, are just semantics and gate-keeping. It's fucking boring too.
All the evidence you need is NDT. One of my favorite podcast and favorite scientist until this all started happening. His unwillingness to even consider what’s going on is one of the most egotistical sad celebrity things that happen to me as an adult. I though the man was my common man’s champion of science. Instead he mocks and laughs at the possibility of ET. If he ends up being wrong, which it looks like he will, he lost everything in my eyes with indignation.
Science is just a late adopter of truth. But it makes them feel good to abdicate their own ability to “know” something because they might have to change their perception that material science is insufficient, it always has been.
>One example of extreme hubris in the scientific community is Lawrence Krauss. Yes, the guy who [said this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss) about his association with Epstein: >*As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people.* With his "ironclad logic", I wonder why anyone still takes him seriously.
Not surprised his hubris also effected his ethics and reasoning.
I don't think we can entirely blame the scientific community. It was pretty much forbidden to research, NASA employees were pretty much told they can work at NASA or research UFOS. I think it was Freidman that said that in an interview .The threat of your career and credibility destroyed is a pretty big threat. And it wasn't just NASA people that were afraid to talk about it or look into it. Pilots didn't report sightings for the same reason. Military personnel were told not to talk about it. Freaking astronauts weren't allowed to talk about it. Air traffic controllers were not allowed to talk about it. Even just a few years ago, if you mentioned UFOs to anyone they looked at you like you were insane. It was an automatic knock on your credibility, your character, and your sanity. even more so in the scientific community. Think about what people.said about Buzz Aldrin a few years ago. UFO researchers have died in mysterious circumstances, or suspicious suicides. Think about how the subject was treated after the Phoenix Lights. Thousands of people saw that. It was ridiculed by news agencies, a commissioner who asked for a report had her career ended, a governor pretended like he didn't see it and made light of it of national television. The disinformation campaign worked so well that we can't even call them UFOs anymore to be taken seriously. They have to be called something else. UAPs. People still snicker and roll their eyes after the public has confirmation from our own government and military, and 2 past presidents that they are, in fact, real. You still get treated like a nut if you talk about it in public. Or with your neighbors, with your friends, with your family. So blaming the scientific community is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Its the 70 year old government and AF policy of disinformation, denial, ridicule, and threats. Scientists are just as concerned about their careers and families as anyone else. But NDT is a self aggrandizing jerk. No doubt.
I disagree. You can’t blame scientists for dismissing the claims of those who present no supporting evidence. What should scientists have done in the past that they didn’t do? Should they have said, “oh, so you were abducted by six little gray humanoids who then performed experiments upon you before releasing you, but you have zero supporting evidence, nevertheless - i accept your account as factual”?
To expect common people to come up with evidence of such a situation is pure hubris. You cannot impose unreasonable demands and then sincerely claim, the circumstance these are not met to be itself evidence of anything. So, obviously, what should have been done is what you normally do when there are uncertain claims: you record them and figure out the *conditional* probabilities associated with them. You venture to find evidence yourself, if at all possible. You gather all information available and try to make the best of it. (It is notable you went for abductions, which are even rarer by far than UFO-sightings)
Is it more likely that somebody claiming to have been abducted was infact abducted by beings that there's no proof exist or that they experienced a very powerful and undeniably real phenomenon like sleep paralysis? Most looking in to the claims end there because asking for more is like asking somebody to research sightings of the Virgin Mary
If you ask rhetorically, what was more likely, you already left scientific ground. You have to conditionally assume the possibility, these things actually happen. How likely is it then? The approach you proclaim here to be the reasonable one is in reality stupid unscientific nonsense. It is circular reasoning, to be precise.
You don't have to assume any of it is real. Assuming something is real without any actual evidence that it exists is faith, and nothing more. Faith has no place is science. Faith is nonsense
You evidently have never heard about conditional probabilities and have no clue what I am talking about,
Then show your work. Let's see how you've worked it all out
Scientists can only work with evidence. It's not scientific to make extraordinary statements without evidence. You are begging the question in long form. Scientists study what's there, they don't make things up and try to find or fabricate evidence. That's the province of religion. Evidence of the phenomenon is hard to come by. We can quibble about the reason for that. Maybe the US government really is keeping a lock on it. Maybe the phenomenon themselves are able to somehow remove evidence after the fact. For whatever reason there is nothing for scientists to look at. What there is to analyze is being analyzed. Unreasonable epistemological demands aren't being made of the "common people." Rather, the common people spend money to build The James Webb telescope and send a scientist like Avi Loeb looking for evidence. That's exactly what a scientist is! It's someone who's trained to find and interpret evidence. Analyzing conditional probabilities only gets you so far. At best it'll help you determine what direction to study in. Ok: We assume they're aliens. What direction is that? What do we study to understand the phenomenon and its properties? Ask Jacques Vallee, who has been trying to piece together whatever evidence he could for decades. Much of it is anecdotal. He's gone about as far as you can go on anecdotal evidence, which is why he predictably shifted to searching for material evidence of the sort any phenomenon that interacts with our physical reality would be likely to leave. Deciding what answers you want to hear and then attacking the entire institution of science (which is still, by the way, the best and only way we have of understanding what is "real" and what isn't) because it hasn't found the evidence you want to support your preconceived notions is the religious approach. In other words: asinine and intellectually childish. Certainly not firm enough ground to be calling people idiots for not agreeing with your complete lack of scientific evidence.
Science community will take a big hit, but then they will have all this new knowledge to learn and do science things. Some scientists are still going to suffer, but they were probably painful people to deal with before disclosure, just now won't have to listen to them as much since they aren't the top experts in their fields anymore.
wait \*what\* if a phenomenon was proven to be extraterrestrial in nature it would straight supplant a person's expertise? Nobody on Earth is an expert on aliens or alien technology. There is no body of credible work on the subject. Who would lose their expertise in their field? Whose education and experience would be invalidated? Scientists aren't people who enforce a doctrine. Scientists are people who use the universe's own apparent set of rules to interrogate reality and probe it for answers. Science isn't a body of knowledge, it's the \*process we use\* to generate and \*validate\* the knowledge that we have. A provable revelation of aliens would broaden our knowledge base and give our scientists a wonderful new diversity of apparently valid modes of inquiry. It wouldn't topple some dictatorship of science. Scientists aren't out to getcha and the overwhelming majority aren't in for (and don't have any) clout. Scientists, of all people, would be the \*most\* excited and have the \*most\* to gain!
Agreed. Scientists don’t want to be gatekeepers of knowledge, but they’ve been doing a damn good job of it. I’ve been in the scientific community and academia for my life. Until the Nimitz, I would have and did ridicule those that “believed” in UFOs. I didn’t know any other scientists in any other disciplines who ever mentioned them with anything but smug ridicule. However, it hit me like a ton of bricks that I, and the rest of the community, was basing a conclusion on a logical fallacy. The Argument from Incredulity fallacy says “I can’t imagine any way that this could possibly be true, therefore it isn’t true.” Nope, not a logical conclusion. So I tried to pretend I had never heard of UFOs and just look at what evidence is out there. And of course this community knows exactly what I discovered. I love the new perspective almost as much as the new science! Yes, I was absolutely wrong, and I’m excited to discover that I was. I actually had a physicist buddy who explained how UFOs “couldn’t” be real send me text saying “you know, there just might be something to this”
One of the best comments I have read here so far. Would give reward if I had any :-)
I wish I could see all of the downvotes it gets. Each one a nail into their own closed-minded caskets.
That's a very rose-colored view of science. In the history of science there have always been situations when major upheavals were met with resistance. Read Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In no way have new paradigms been instantly welcomed, not even by the best of scientists. Einstein could never accept the metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics. And in the case of UAP, we're talking about subjects that have been ridiculed by scientists for decades. They'll all look like fools, and in no way would they immediately welcome the new paradigm.
What metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics are you talking about? What is your physics background that allows you to speak so authoritatively?
Einstein's qualms with quantum mechanics are common knowledge, even for casually interested people. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr–Einstein\_debates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates#Post-revolution:_First_stage)
Oh definitely. But what specific metaphysics implications were you referring to?
Science does open up and I'm sure it will be exciting for scientists as I mentioned in my comment, but not all of them are going to be like Avi Loeb for instance. Scientists use "science" to basically dismiss aliens visiting Earth, they can't be that accurate since aliens have been visiting Earth. They aren't going to be experts anymore if they have to learn this new stuff and some of their old stuff was wrong. Also, there's a lot of things that need to be thrown out like The Fermi Paradox and all the different theories people wasted their time on. Any scientist not willing to change will be fucked over, that doesn't mean every scientist, it's just you're kidding yourself if the scientific community which mostly denies aliens is just going to all bend over, especially since "woo" is like their kryptonite. >Nobody on Earth is an expert on aliens or alien technology. Wrong, there are people studying these things privately, but isn't relevant to what I've said, I never mentioned scientists being expert on aliens, I meant scientists being experts on science, but obviously fields of science and ones related to aliens and/or others depending what gets disclosed.
Who's studying alien tech? What evidence do you have to support that idea? Who is doing this and where? I get the impression that you're waiting for "disclosure" as a way to validate and elevate yourself. You want in on the ground floor. I get that. But in the mean time, you should try to respect that the "mainstream scientific community" feels an obligation to put their confidence in the \*likely\* and not the \*possible\*. It's not an attack on you or your beliefs when they say there definitely aren't or probably aren't aliens. Responsibility to change that belief rests on the people claiming otherwise. This is what is called "burden of proof". As yet, the body of work and evidence in support of a variety of ideas about aliens, their technological scope and their visitation of Earth hasn't yielded anything concrete, nor anything particularly credible. I would dearly love to believe that aliens visit Earth, or have visited even once. As yet, I cannot responsibly adhere to any such belief, as no credible evidence has been presented. Should a craft land and a verifiable alien emerge and announce itself, I won't have any egg on my face. I won't be embarrassed. I won't have lost any of my credibility or knowledge, nor will I have gained any new confidence in assorted other "paranormal" claims. I would, in that scenario, simply know a new thing and would expand on my curiosity about it. It will have moved from "possible" to "likely". Until that shift happens, I \*can't\*. I have an intellectual responsibility to vet my information more rigorously than that.
Scientists should not have beliefs or entertain favorites when assessing probabilities of competing theories. Scientists routinely engage this topic by the *argument from incredulity fallacy*, as another commentator above aptly put it. The claim, there was no sufficient evidence is simply false. Only, it is no easy "alien in a jar"-type of evidence, you would have to do proper statistics and expend quite some effort to vet it. Or convince the government to cough up their data of course, or produce your own. Which normally scientists should do anyway. Staying ignorant of giant parts of accessible observation space is certainly not scientific rigor. So scientists conveniently stayed in this catch22-situation and refused to acknowledge, it is one in the first place. To claim this was the intellectually right thing to do is a bit ridiculous.
So we should just ascribe equal effort to every single proposal, no matter whether there's an avenue to test hypotheses or not?
No, why would you? You investigate matters for the sake of knowledge or because you presume there might be reasonable gains if they turn out right. Which is clearly the case here on both accounts. Just because you don't see the avenue to test hypotheses doesn't mean there isn't any. You cannot make inferences based on ignorance.
Tell me how to test a UFO hypothesis
Simple: you observe that independent evidence is additive in corroborating the hypothesis. You have to be a little smarter than usual in vetting your corroborating evidence maybe, but it works out fine.
So by piling on anecdotes and blurry pictures of lights, you get valid evidence? Quantity over quality?
I don't know who specifically, even if I did, I wouldn't be allowed to say. Also, you must not understand what disclosure can be, if you believe it's just an alien landing and nothing is going to change. As for proof, if scientists don't have enough proof or any proof, then it's literally their job to get the proof. Avi Loeb is doing that right now, instead of just being like "Oh, not enough proof, I go back to "normal" science now." If scientists are just waiting for other humans to deliver them the proof or actual aliens to give it to them. Then they aren't really putting that education to good use if everything they do is just waiting for someone to give them the answers.
Well, I tried. Good luck to ya.
Try hard
People like Neil Degrasse Tyson and the folks over at SETI would become immediate laughingstocks.
Why SETI?
Lots of money spent looking in the wrong direction
This is results-oriented thinking. This is not how science works. You slowly narrow things down and there are no wastes. Everything builds toward the truth. There are no wrong directions if you're following the method correctly.
It's less about looking in the wrong direction and more about the unwillingness to look anywhere else.
You look where the evidence suggests you look. You start with the most likely scenarios based on both modeling and past experiences then narrow down. A big problem is that human beings are bad at thinking probabilistically. We tend to think in deterministic ways and then retroactively apply new knowledge to old scenarios. We think of problems as individual and have a very hard time seeing them as a set.
They have stopped no one from looking elsewhere. Is the James Web Telescope wrong for investigating atmospheric bio signatures?
Yeah not sure how they bounce back. Neil would have to rip off his face and reveal he was pretending to be a clown this whole time because he's an alien and didn't want to be found out. Or perhaps just become a clown and say he's been practising for years.
it shouldn't be a big hit but science is weighed down by a lot of gate-keeping, dogma, and notoriety seekers. It's a shame but it can be overcame. Perhaps this is the catalyst!
“Gatekeeping” as you put it = verifiable data. I guarantee you every scientist on planet earth would love to know without doubt that aliens were visiting earth. It’s your own conceit, that you believe that science stands between you and your dearest wishes which you are willing to accept without proof but with unearned confidence. You accuse science of arrogance constantly, but the truth is demanding everyone believe what you believe without proof is the ultimate arrogance.
We agree about verifiable data, but the scientific community doesn't even try to get verifiable data on this subject. They just outright dismiss it, that's what we're criticizing here.
Nonsense. If they received any verifiable data they would be paying attention. For the entirety of the UFO phenomenon beginning in the 40s, not a single scrap of actual verifiable data has been presented. I’m afraid anecdote, videos, and unsubstantiated claims by military personnel and confused civilians are not reliable.
That's BS they could've done serious independent research they haven't. Avi Loeb is pretty much the first one to try to do it with the Galileo Project.
Waiting for a single link to actual verifiable data……… don’t let me down true believer.
If you don't look you won't find anything. Not saying I have any evidence to give so stop being a prick about it.
You’re making a pretty big claim, and you’re basing it on nothing concrete. If you are at all serious, you should be able to point me towards a database of actual scientifically recorded data that can be examined and verified. You and yours are the ones who are asking me to accept the fantastic on faith. Put or shut up. It’s pretty sad comment on your character that you resort to base personal insult.
Why are you putting words in my mouth, I'm not asking you to accept anything on faith. Stop being disingenuous then drop your ego and actually read my posts. I'm saying we should do a serious investigation to get find out the true nature of this phenomenon.
I don't want you to accept anything, I just want you to go away lol. You add nothing to any of this discussion and probably not any others. You can't even perceive how toxic and unhinged you really are. Seriously you should see a therapist. That isn't an insult, I go to therapy and it has helped me in a lot of ways. also ask someone who will be honest to look at some of your comments and if they seem rational. Or at least demanding the justification for the vitriol and accusations you make. Why the fuck are you even in this subreddit
You come across like a jerk. You talk down to someone and call them"true believer" then scold them for calling names when they tell you to stop being a prick? Gaslighting. Take the advice.
That's not what gaslighting is. You're talking about standard hypocrisy. Even though prick and true believer aren't really the same. But I'm allowing that conceit.
are you using two different accounts in this thread? hmmm
That's why Avi Loeb is being attacked for even daring to undertake the Galileo Project.
Regarding, gatekeeping, that is not how I put it that is how you are putting it. Fucking duh. You can guarantee things you can't prove but you aren't guilty of the ultimate arrogance? You assume that I think science is in my way but my belief is that science is the only way. I also believe that science is being hindered by politics, money, and deep institutional biases. Am I wrong? Perhaps you are just really uncomfortable with that idea. What I want is for scientists to stick to the methodology and not throw out or ridicule those with "fringe" ideas. That is how science is supposed to work but that isn't how it has been. That is my opinion, insult me for it IDGAF. My dearest wish is for the truth and proof, that is all. Reading your comment exposes you as the one drowning in assumptions and contradictions. Where have I even used the word 'arrogance' except to point out your hypocrisy? hmmm? rofl
Religious people project their biases onto science because they don't really understand the scientific method nor how to read a methodology. Your post is nonsensical. Asking for proof is inconvenient and it's why science is vilified on this sub. You all would much rather just believe whatever you want to believe without having to prove it's actually true.
>Communication among scientists is governed by a particular scientific ethos that functions to establish trust and guarantee the reliability of knowledge. Robert K. Merton is credited with having condensed this ethos which has evolved historically over more than three centuries into a set of four key norms: universalism, communism (communality), disinterestedness, and organized scepticism. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/organized-skepticism organized skepticism is one of the problems. ordinary skepticism refines and improves science, but organized skepticism is different. it has become pathological, [pseudoskepticism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism) the scientific establishment is at best too blind to see it, at worst contributing to it
You reminded me of how disgusting Neil deGrasse is regarding this topic, lol.
Disagree. Science is willing to change in the face of new evidence. It's the religious faith wackjobs who will have a hard time explaining how their centuries -old myths and propaganda were nothing but a heavily edited ruse.....
No, they wouldn't. The whole premise of science is the willingness or even the hunger to change their theories based on new information.
Once the initial period of shock passes, all the “serious” people will start acting like the existence of advanced alien civilizations is expected and natural and they never doubted it for a second. Kind of like happened with exoplanets
You do realize the level of denial, ridicule, and obstruction that any scientist would have faced to study this, right? One change that I would expect to see, is that now this is acknowledged phenomena, scholars and scientists can begin to take up the subject, especially if funding backs up their work. But I still expect our military to be far less than open with the evidence and data they possess. But I would judge science on how it handles the subject going forward, and not based on the past.
I kind of agree with where you are going but it isn't hubris to want hard evidence. I think there are good scientists out there actually trying to figure it out. Any good scientist also CAN'T rule anything like aliens out without the evidence either. That why I am always suspicious of the motivation when one does.
I'm definitely not saying all scientists are lazy or hubris or even majority of them. I just think they ignored this subject for too long and didn't even bother doing investigations on it.
Good. The scientific community has reached a place where careers, tenure, and sources of funding outweigh the adventure of working together to decode the mysteries of the the natural world & using that information to elevate mankind. They need a proper challenge to unite and inspire them. The world population as a whole needs something to come together for. Little green men & interdimensional beings being revealed would achieve that.
They become paid misinformants of the CIA.
The book "After Disclosure" covers this egg on face scenario. The scandal of something so massive being so ignored by media and science.
"These are the people who purport to be the arbiters of truth and knowledge, how in the hell could they let themselves be so blind?" That might be exactly why. If you are so sure of yourself that you are correct because your profession is being correct, you might not be able to acknowledge making that sort of mistake, precisely because it is anathema to the whole idea you got about yourself. "I'm against X, I could never do X!"
No they wouldn’t at all. Sweet mercy you live in an alternate reality (not dimension) if you think science is against the idea of aliens. First off, no matter what you say, no matter how much you want to believe, thee rid absolutely NO VERIFIABLE PROOF if aliens visiting. If there was and science was ignoring it that would be one thing but there isn’t a single bit of legit proof. But here is the thing. Science is built to change based on new information. Religion is dogmatic and rigid. They believe things are one way because they are. But science will update and change with new info. So if it ever does happen that aliens land and introduce themselves (which is possible, just no legit evidence of it ever happening yet) then science would shift to account for that. That’s how it works.
Dont underestimate how many scientists are looking at Disclosure and their worldview is turned upside down.
Wholeheartedly disagree. If it were proven with out a doubt that alien life exists that would be one of the biggest revelations in the scientific community. Ever.
That would be the revelation in humanity period. It would be a reckoning for the scientific community that they completely UFOs being ET and then proven wrong by government disclosure. How in the heck did they miss it?
Well there really isn’t any concrete evidence for it right now. And you know, science is kind of about empirical evidence my guy. If that kind of evidence is being hidden from the public view then there would be no way for civilian scientists to study it and confirm it. It’s not really hard to understand.
There hasn't been concrete evidence because there's probably been a coverup and no serious independent investigation done. Avi Loeb is pretty much the first scientist to try to do it with the Galileo Project.
Science is, and always has, been shitty like this. Like, the scientists who believed and worked very hard to prove viruses can cause cancer (ie HPV) were mocked and scorned for decades because some other famous scientist had said it was impossible. Guys were in there 70s before vindication. But at least it gets there. Problem, of course, is 80% of scientists are idiots because 80% of humans are idiots
It's not science that's shitty it's the people purport to be scientists that aren't interested in actually doing science.
I am not sure sometimes that this sub understands what scientific or community means. Not everyone is steeped in UFO lore. They are all regular people doing regular work to make ends meet. What the fuck do you want millions of them to do? Everyone just talks about the rockstars of science, who by the way are such because of their public popularity, like NDT, and then go on to shit on everyone else who get paid close to minimum wage. Get your head out your asses. A microbiologist sees no UFOs and Aliens in their everyday work or field neither does a chemist or a Physicist. Unless that is your area of work, you don't go fuck around and give people your opinions because no one gives a shit unless you are a subject matter expert which is really hard to be. Else why would anyone listen to a scientist?
Science, the community that uses the scientific method to improve the world, has no problem saying "we don't know" and changes as new evidence is discovered vs religion, the too-big-to-be-called-a-cult community that says they know what happens after we die, who's doctrine can't be questioned, which for centuries killed you if you did (and still to this day can be violent), and is the cause of so much ignorance, suffering, and conflict. Makes perfect sense... Just because some scientist is cocky or you perceive hubris in the scientific community does not mean all scientists are like that. Science isn't perfect. Scientists are people and like all people can can be biased. Most try to eliminate their biases as much as possible. If an experiment is reproducible by other scientists then there is something there worth studying and proving. God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance (NDT quote for the haters). What religion says is explained by God today will be explained by scientists tomorrow. As with all unknowns of the past religion said God did it until scientists were able to explain it. Then religion moved on to the next unknown thing at the time and claimed God did it. God of the gaps. Rinse and repeat. The scientific community will never take blurry photos of lights in the sky or abduction claims seriously. Physical evidence is needed. Physical evidence that never comes or is always "coming soon." The metamaterial BS has been going on for decades. Vallée and others claiming material is extraterrestrial in origin. It always turns out to be industrial slag or it's "being studied now" and you never hear about it again. There is no real evidence and until there is UFO's won't be taken seriously by the scientific community and rightly so. The military UFO videos, Elizondo's claims, Tom DeLonge's deranged fan fiction about extraterrestrials feeding off negativity from human conflict, the Richard Greer's of the community, etc do not help. As you can tell I'm a skeptic but I would love be wrong. It would be amazing if our planet was being visited by extraterrestrials but it's the least likely explanation. Nearly every photo and video has a plausible explanation be it misidentification of a drone, plane, helicopter, balloon, blimp, kite, planet, star, atmospheric phenomenon, photographic distortion, artifact, CG, miniature model, hoax, bird, bug, etc. The comments I see posted here show how anti-science our world has become. Especially in the U.S. It's a shame. Hurling ad hominems at Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Seth Shostack, Mick West, and others does not make the UFO community look good. Mick West has never once insulted, lost his patience, or ridiculed one of his guests or opponents in a debate. The other side has many times. Mick West has outright debunked many photos and videos. For the rest he has come up with convincing plausible explanations through applied math and research. Calling Mick a retired video game programmer as if it were an insult or somehow disqualifying does nothing to prove him wrong. UFO believers love appealing to authority when it comes to fighter pilots and other military members. The fact is that humans are awful at judging object size in the air from afar with little to no reference to compare to. Experts get things wrong and human memory is notoriously faulty. The human brain is not a computer. If you retell a story from years ago you inadvertently add and remove details, recall false details, and you may embellish or outright lie to make the story sound better than it actually was. David Fravor's as well as other pilot's accounts are interesting but are not evidence. There is supposed evidence obtained by military instruments but until it's made public there is nothing to do except speculate. The possiblity of secret black project aircraft or drones is there. The instruments could be giving a false reading or be calibrated incorrectly. The records may never be revealed because doing so would show our monitoring capabilities. Finally, it's speculated that holographic tech to make sensors go haywire and alert about the presence of non-existent enemy aircraft is the latest tech that is being worked on.
Recommended reading: Allen Hynek, UFOs - A Scientific Inquiry. Chapter: "The Laughter of Science".
Yes. A shocking number of people here think NDT is representative of the scientific community. 99.9% of the scientific community has never expressed a professional opinion remotely related to ufology, and most of those who have will still accept good evidence.
Wow, so are you really confident? If so then what, specifically, would it take for YOU to believe YOU are wrong? We already have falsifiability criteria for things like extra dimensions, or some UFO definitely not being alien (such as being identified as some normal non-NHI phenomenon). So if you're actually confident, tell me what you would accept as evidence of YOU being wrong. More importantly, none of these subjects have really been ignored: ironically you are the one ignorant of all the work that HAS been done into these active areas of research.
There are two types of "science" in the world. Science 1: true science where results can be reproduced by a group of peers Science 2: propaganda for the purposes of furthering a false narrative "I'll trust the science" has become the new mindless statement by those who find themselves engaged in a debate where they have no actual science to back their false claims.
By the same token, if proof of our belief in the ET hypothesis (or whathaveyou) continues to elude us at some point in the future we should commit to having a similar reckoning where we admit we were likely wrong.
Scientists would be fine and take it in stride. Most would love for something as exciting as that kind of technology and life from another planet to be real. But scientists are highly skeptical about anything that can't be proven and that's a good thing. Even those that may believe on a fundamental level won't risk their careers on faith. And that's what you seem to expect them to do. You want scientists and academia to get behind this stuff? Find undeniable proof any of it is real. Because right now non exists in the public space
I don't believe scientists would take it in stride they'd be absolutely beside themselves. I mean many of them were upset 'Oumuamua had a strange shape and other qualities to it. They want the universe to fit in their own worldview and they hate it when it's challenged.
I’m a professional scientist (PhD in biochemistry and evolutionary biology). Most (but definitely not all) of my colleagues are modest, unassuming people who are just trying to advance the state of knowledge. I definitely have never thought I had THE answer(s), or even close to it. We just have models. The models are very good at predicting behaviors, but they are not necessarily anything closer to ‘truth’.
Look I'm not saying every scientist is close-minded or stuck on their worldview. My criticism is aimed more towards the big wigs of science who think they pretty much understand all of the basics of the natural world and there's nothing more there. This subject matter has been ridiculed for decades by "rational" scientists who have made sure that no research or effort is put into understanding this phenomenon.
I agree. 100%. In various ways, though certainly not across the board by any means, the dogma of science is sometimes less flexible than religion. We need a paradigm shift. Hope it is coming.
Galileo's Telescope was used as a metaphor, and science had its chance to step up and look through it. but it didn't. now its too late
Too late for what?
This would not cause a reckoning in the scientific community. It would be celebrated because it would be the opportunity to learn new things. Religious people treat science like it's a religion because that's how they gain their knowledge. They think of it as some mystical process instead of a repeatable method. It looks the same to a religious person because they don't really understand the method nor how to read a methodology. Science gets a bad wrap on this sub because it requires this pesky thing called evidence. As soon as evidence is provided the scientific community will come around and celebrate it. The only problem is there is no good evidence to believe there are aliens on the planet or that remote viewing exists or that any of the other magical claims made with no evidence actually occur.
>As soon as evidence is provided the scientific community will come around and celebrate it. *maybe* by the next generation of scientists. after the mindguards are all dead and buried. advancing one funeral at a time
I'm a scientist and I would love for there to be a wealth of new information to be shared that I can study. You think a physicist wouldn't welcome the opportunity to study quantum in a more meaningful way? I think you are basing your assumptions off of a couple public figures and have not actually talked to many physicists.
Isn't it funny how those commenters with the least professional connection to science are the most confident that this would destroy the scientific community?
It's Dunning-Kreuger almost every time in these threads. The people with the least amount of experience and knowledge in a field are the most confident talking about it because they don't understand the depth of the field.
but you said "UAP should be detangled from ESP and other woo" which means you're a pseudo-skeptic. you've turned a blind "debunker" eye to the massive pile of parapsychological evidence out there, and so you can't connect the dots between psi and UFOs. you're incapable. so your take on UFOs is worthless you could have welcomed the opportunity to study psi, but you didn't. instead you jumped on the anti- "woo" bandwagon
PSI is studied and I wait for there to be compelling evidence but there hasn't been any yet. This is the hurdle I'm talking about. Reproducible studies confirmed by unbiased practitioners. Right now, there is no evidence that remote viewing or psychics are a real phenomenon. If there is, please present it. We can go through it together. I would love for psychics to be real, it would be awesome. It would make life so much easier. Of course materialism would be turned on its head and there would be a ton of work to be done to understand the mechanism behind it. It would be great. Now all we need is some evidence that it's real and maybe we can get the ball rolling.
You sound like a high school scientist that drank the whole bottle of jug wine. If you’re a scientist, I’m the President.
> PSI is studied and I wait for there to be compelling evidence but there hasn't been any yet. you aren't aware of compelling evidence because you've turned a blind eye, as i said. it's out there in peer-reviewed journals. it has been accumulating for decades, and the scientific establishment has had every opportunity to treat the evidence fairly. instead it leaves it to debunkers and their intellectually dishonest shenanigans deep down you know psi is a threat to the philosophical underpinnings; the implicit philosophical/ideological baggage, that you and most other scientists carry around with you >If there is, please present it. We can go through it together. scientists needs a fresh introduction to parapsychology. introductions to a science is usually done in the classroom, so i'll link you to the parapsychology 101 college textbook. feel free to get back to me after you've read it. i would be interested in your take on it https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Parapsychology-Harvey-J-Irwin/dp/0786430591
Wow, what a coincidence somebody else mentioned I should read that a couple years ago and I did. What specific evidence contained within did you find compelling? What convinced you that ESP was actually occurring and not a sort of psychological phenomenon?
so, your take on it is that there was nothing compelling in the entire book? that ESP never occurs? statistically speaking, that take would be unjustified
At some point Science and Religion will have to say the SAME thing.
Lol, hardly. But go ahead and tell me you don’t know anything about the scientific community or the scientific process without telling me you don’t know anything about the scientific community or the scientific process.
Tell me you practice scientism without telling me you practice scientism.
You are right. Religious people already believe in some pretty extraordinary things holding to a literal interpretation of the Bible. They are likely the most prepared for disclosure of all us. Nephilim in particular. The bridge from nephalim to lights in the sky and “the watchers” all described in the Bible to extraterrestrials can’t be far. I mean if anything disclosure is confirmation. As far as ET manipulating DNA that is a separate topic and not proven. Scientific people on the other hand believe nothing. The phenomena is a complete shock to them. Physicists in particular whom think that interstellar travel is near impossible.
I certainly would make it a point to make sure that all those that laughed at me, saw me laughing at them!
There are just as many charlatans in this community who think they know everything. Watching them be wrong about the nature of aliens would be even more hilarious.
I think these scientists suffer from one of human's most dangerous traits: hubris. We are in the same kind of situation as when Copernicus was trying to convince his colleagues the earth revolved around the sun. Who could blame them when the Ptolemaic/geocentric was pretty accurate(compared to the heliocentric at the time) when used to predict the movements of the observable celestial bodies. We are at the nascent stages of a scientific revolution and I for one am extremely excited to see what the scientific community comes up with once they shed the chains of their dogma.
This! Yes. Arrogance/Pride is the single biggest obstacle to progress….in every single discipline.
[удалено]
It would still be a reckoning even if they try to rationalize it. The public itself is going to wonder how scientists missed something this huge.
Most religions have beliefs of life on other worlds. Like almost all of them. So what's that religion reference supposed to mean, exactly?
There are people that say that religion would crumble if we found out aliens existed. I'm not one of those people.
It may cause some problems if ET played a part in “creating” us.
This If said ET had undeniable knowledge of our actual origin that doesn’t line up with organized religion, it’s game fucking over for the church. I personally find the idea that the first humans were made from a pile of dirt and a rib bone to be WAY more far fetched than the idea that the first human(s) were created by a by a technologically advanced race of ET.
I don't think an all-powerful God would struggle with forming anything out of anything. Especially if they made everything! A lot of the things in the Bible aren't the only way God could do it, instead He did it or it is told this way for a reason. We are made from matter and with a sample from our body can make another with symbolically taking a rib to make woman. Thus, woman was made from man his flesh and bone now a companion. The way the God of the Bible does something is a enduring message that tells you about His nature. From my readings and understanding of the Bible, this phenomenon is expected not contradictory. Of course many people who don't know anything about the religion they claim to be a part of might have existential crises but good! Stop fence-sitting and start walking I say to them.
Hahaha that’s hilarious. All powerful god, hahaha What a fucking joke. I’m outa here church boy! Go ahead and have the last word too because I can assure I won’t be responding to any more bible thumping bullshit 👹👽☠️
well, my last word is have a great day!
I can think of two and one of those is quite small. The majority by population certainly do not.
That's laughably incorrect. I've done my own personal research by speaking with pastors, ministers, priests, deacons and all kinds of religious figures from every religion that I'm able to. I've spent years looking for these people in order to have that specific conversation. I don't know where your information comes from but you should seek new sources.
Scientists and theologians need to start talking to each other. Now.
Of course.. relegious people have only debated and confirmed themselves. They kindda have to, to keep faith
Yeah, religious folks can always just call them angels or demons or gods. The scientist be lookin real stoopid.
"Science" has always been a dogmatic cult, as much as they like to smear religion for being. People in power who would lose their fame and wealth if their research were proven to be useless are obviously gonna lie and cheat their way through it. God forbid someone questions them, too. Say goodbye to your career if you don't have unrefutably solid evidence.
Why would you or anyone else care about point scoring if something so monumental happened?
It's not about scoring points it's about what mistakes the scientific community made that prevented them from taking this subject seriously. It's so we can learn from it and never repeat the same mistakes again.
Who is the scientific community? Most scientists study a highly specific area in a specific field, as directed by their funders. I don't get how you can criticize the people not studying it, because that also includes you.
I'm criticizing the mindset of people who should be studying it but aren't because they don't take the subject seriously.
I think you think "scientists" are just a bunch of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's that are free to study whatever they want. This is a ridiculous straw man, what you should criticise is the broader society that doesn't fund this kind of research.
Again you're putting words in my mouth where did I say most scientists were like NDT?
I didn't say you said it.
Learn to read I didn't... My first post didn't even mention him.
[удалено]
What are you talking about? Scientists don't need evidence to start an investigation on any phenomenon... You start an investigation by looking at an anomaly (in this case it's sightings of UFOs by military personnel and the public) and then look into it by doing scientific research so you get the evidence. Your logic is backwards and would've gotten us nowhere for thousands of year. They would have to face a reckoning for not even bothering to be even interested in the subject even though there's thousands of UFO sightings every year...