@Lou

Quote:

Quote: Yes real as in unable to be identified. Not proven to be Visitors. Real as in not disproven to be visitors but proven to not look like accepted terrestrial technology.

In 98% of the investigated cases there was clear and concise evidence that the "sightings" were ordinary everyday events that had been misidentified. In only 2% of the reports was there insufficient evidence to clearly and definitely prove that there was a mundane explanation.
Lack of evidence against a proposition is not evidence for the proposition.

Quote:

Your figure is an invention and the figure is irrelevant because your answer is mundane.

Basically what you are saying in this line is that you will not accept any answer that is not exciting. This in spite of the fact that it is part of the human psyche to "normalise" any event or condition. An example of this comes from the Apollo moon landings. Apollo 11 was the first moon landing, watched by millions of people all around the world. The launch of Apollo 13 was almost totally ignored as mundane, and it was not until "Houston, we've had a problem" that anybody actually paid it any attention.

Edit: corrected Swigert's quote.

Last edited by Nimrod on 23-Nov-2011 at 10:15 AM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: [quote] Yes real as in unable to be identified. Not proven to be Visitors. Real as in not disproven to be visitors but proven to not look like accepted terrestrial technology.

In 98% of the investigated cases there was clear and concise evidence that the "sightings" were ordinary everyday events that had been misidentified. In only 2% of the reports was there insufficient evidence to clearly and definitely prove that there was a mundane explanation.
Lack of evidence against a proposition is not evidence for the proposition.
[/quote]
What's funny is alot of those statistics were made when someone was getting paid to debunk despite evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Quote: Your figure is an invention and the figure is irrelevant because your answer is mundane. Basically what you are saying in this line is that you will not accept any answer that is not exciting. This in spite of the fact that it is part of the human psyche to "normalise" any event or condition. An example of this comes from the Apollo moon landings. Apollo 11 was the first moon landing, watched by millions of people all around the world. The launch of Apollo 13 was almost totally ignored as mundane, and it was not until "Houston, we've had a problem" that anybody actually paid it any attention. Edit: corrected Swigert's quote.

Funny how most of the Apollo mission astronaughts have come forward about ufos, isn't it?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: One ones who challenge the system forge their own path such as write books Challenge or not any scientist's work must be able to stand up to observation, experimentation, and provide predictability. It's the exact same criteria.

Right! Just like the big bang theory. Oh wait a minute...

Atleast now I see the real issue. There are your expectations of science...then there is what really happens...

Quote:

Your figure is an invention and the figure is

The unidentied to a person or small group of persons becomes identiable in the over 90% range holding on to 14% of the population has an Unidentified experience is the invention. In reality the majority of the 14% don't know the answer when one does exist.
[/quote]
If the stats you are using are from Blue Book, then they are admittedly wrong by the guy who admitted to being paid to stretch the truth...

Swamp Gas ring a bell? Oh wait, let's just keep ignoring evidence. Par for the course...

Quote:

confirmation bias.

Thanks for coming clean and admitting you are biased!


Quote:

Quote: Real as in not disproven to be visitors but proven to not look like accepted terrestrial technology. Again unable to be evidenced to a conclusion. Simply the researchers were unable to come to a fair conclusion.

A conclusion attempted to be made after the fact by someone who wasn't there to begin with will always skew to the mundane.

Quote:

Quote: So when you get proven wrong you continue to twist the subject with humor You've yet to provide a single iota of evidence that Vistors really did come that night, nor has anyone else found one.

Let's rephrase this:
Despite thousands of eye witness reports by civilians, govermnent officials and military personell of both ufos and extra-terrestrials, you have yet to accept one of them as real.

Quote:

Quote: Isn't it funny that since MikeB originally started this thread "gravity probes" proved nothing and your big-banging colliders have just about given up the the mythical god particle and the science I support is making news? Gravity probes in space proved some of Einstein's unprovens. So indeed interesting. Not sure where you think they proved nothing? As for the LHC do you realize it's 1/2 speed unti 2012 and not full speed until 2014? And once reached full speed if the Higgs exists one would only exist every few hours and take a couple years to collect and analyze data. I'd say before you conclude at least let the experimentation complete. And you never know what they may find.

Right, but I know what they won't find.
Sorry, but the tide is turning. Even the head of one of the teams is doubtful.

Again, gloss over the quantum wave theory that is looking like fact... Which I ofcourse was already in agreement with...

@the people who would still believe the world is flat if they didn't read in a book that it wasn't

Quote:

Lou wrote: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/the-insanely-weird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all.ars ZOMG!!!!!! WAVES!!!!! Who would have thunk it? Oh and how did Frank Znidarsic link Relativity to Quantum Mechanics? ZOMG! He replaced an equation with a spring(aka wave) function!!! http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Z_theory_of_everything.php

Let me quote myself for truth here...

@Lou

Quote:

Funny how most of the Apollo mission astronaughts have come forward about ufos, isn't it?

What is really funny is how few astronomers (you know, people who spend hours looking at the sky through telescopes) claim to have seen any evidence of UFO's. Especially since so many of them have cameras connected to their telescopes to record any new sightings. But of course I am forgetting that you honestly think that they are all part of the conspiracy to make you look foolish. I could comment on each one of these claims but will simply offer you the opportunity of reading this

Quote:

Despite thousands of eye witness reports by civilians, govermnent officials and military personell of both ufos and extra-terrestrials, you have yet to accept one of them as real.

So let's get this straight, If a government official or military person says there are UFO's, an then that person is honest upstanding individual, yet if the same person says it was not ET then he/she/it is lying as part of some grand worldwide conspiracy. And you have the cheek to call BrianK biased.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

Just like the big bang theory. Oh wait a minute

I hope you really do realize that scientists do admit the Big Bang explains the current state of evidence really well from about 10^-23 seconds to current. They are very clear in saying earlier we don't have evidence for nor prior to point '0'. Thus we see many postulates especially when you start throwing in multi-verses.

Quote:

If the stats you are using are from Blue Book, then they are admittedly wrong by the guy who admitted to being paid to stretch the truth

Here's the problem you need to figure out without faith. That is is the person who said they lied telling the truth or are they lying about lying? Since other studies and astronomers both professional and amateur have evidenced events in the 90+% range the majority of the evidence is that he wasn't lying about Blue Book and the 'Unidentified' are in the vast majority of cases identifable. Multiple lines of evidences are a good thing when identifying what's going on.

Quote:

A conclusion attempted to be made after the fact by someone who wasn't there to begin with will always skew to the mundane

That's your opinion. My opinion is a properly evidenced event isn't skewed. Nor is the muhe Gondane something to fear. It's simply one possible conclusion and in the majority of cases is the best evidenced one. If we had TONS of UFOs coming daily they'd become mundane too. Again don't conclude then evidence, evidence then conclude.

Quote:

Despite thousands of eye witness reports by civilians, govermnent officials and military personell of both ufos and extra-terrestrials, you have yet to accept one of them as real.

Statistical analysis of these events tell us that better than 90% are incorrect. The goal would be to identify the one's that aren't and see if there's evidence that back up the observer and concluder. Again this ~.2% of the population may indeed be UFOs but they lack the evidence to make a definitive conclusion. Thus, we need to say we don't know because we in fact do not know.

Quote:

Thanks for coming clean and admitting you are biased!

Yes I am indeed biased to following multiple lines of evidence no matter where they lead.

Quote:

Right, but I know what they won't find

As what they're experimenting on has no other experimental evidence to date we have no observations. What you conclude they won't find isn't a known it's a best guess. Interestingly Stephen Hawkins believes the God Particle will not be found. Though he's all for the experimentation because he understands that even not finding it is evidence which furthers our understanding of the universe.

Quote:

Which I ofcourse was already in agreement with

Feel free to be in agreement with whatever you want. But understand due to epistomological lackings you are using faith to decide. OTOH I'm open to all lines of evidence and even that someday GEM might have a better evidenced working explaination of the universe. Cuz science is the most open analytical and accepting system we can use to determine these things.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-Nov-2011 at 04:25 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Funny how most of the Apollo mission astronaughts have come forward about ufos, isn't it? What is really funny is how few astronomers (you know, people who spend hours looking at the sky through telescopes) claim to have seen any evidence of UFO's. Especially since so many of them have cameras connected to their telescopes to record any new sightings. But of course I am forgetting that you honestly think that they are all part of the conspiracy to make you look foolish. I could comment on each one of these claims but will simply offer you the opportunity of reading this

Perhaps you need to do more research...
...and perhaps you didn't read what I quoted from the Dr. Allen Hyneck wiki...

Yes, you and BrianK are funny in how you ignore blatant evidence...

Hmm...the Skeptical Inquirer:
Quote:

Some criticism has also come from within the scientific community and at times from within CSI itself. Marcello Truzzi, one of CSICOP's co-founders, left the organization after only a short time, arguing that many of those involved “tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts.”[22] Truzzi coined the term pseudoskeptic to describe critics in whom he detected such an attitude...

It's like Project Bluebook Revisited...

The government as a faceless entity will lie and deceive and do injustices.
However, the people who leave the government may come forward and expose them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek
This is why my stance has always been to believe the people who were there vs. the 'official government report'.

Quote:

Quote: Despite thousands of eye witness reports by civilians, govermnent officials and military personell of both ufos and extra-terrestrials, you have yet to accept one of them as real. So let's get this straight, If a government official or military person says there are UFO's, an then that person is honest upstanding individual, yet if the same person says it was not ET then he/she/it is lying as part of some grand worldwide conspiracy. And you have the cheek to call BrianK biased.

Using your same reasoning, you can apply it to anything in existence.
What your saying is akin to: if a person of [insert arbitrary race] race robs you, then they are all cooks and can't be trusted.

This is the logic you and BrianK employ.

Last edited by Lou on 23-Nov-2011 at 05:53 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Just like the big bang theory. Oh wait a minute I hope you really do realize that scientists do admit the Big Bang explains the current state of evidence really well from about 10^-23 seconds to current. They are very clear in saying earlier we don't have evidence for nor prior to point '0'.

You mean scientists who support the big bang theory admit this, because the rest don't...

Quote:

Thus we see many postulates especially when you start throwing in multi-verses.

Multi-verses are not part of the big-bangers....

Quote:

Quote: If the stats you are using are from Blue Book, then they are admittedly wrong by the guy who admitted to being paid to stretch the truth Here's the problem you need to figure out without faith. That is is the person who said they lied telling the truth or are they lying about lying? Since other studies and astronomers both professional and amateur have evidenced events in the 90+% range the majority of the evidence is that he wasn't lying about Blue Book and the 'Unidentified' are in the vast majority of cases identifable. Multiple lines of evidences are a good thing when identifying what's going on.

BrianK, I only need 1 valid ufo with visits to exist to be correct.

I'm sure you think like Nimrod that astronomers never report anything...

Quote:

Quote: A conclusion attempted to be made after the fact by someone who wasn't there to begin with will always skew to the mundane That's your opinion. My opinion is a properly evidenced event isn't skewed. Nor is the muhe Gondane something to fear. It's simply one possible conclusion and in the majority of cases is the best evidenced one. If we had TONS of UFOs coming daily they'd become mundane too. Again don't conclude then evidence, evidence then conclude.

Enjoy your box. I hope if has A/C in the summer.

Quote:

Quote: Despite thousands of eye witness reports by civilians, govermnent officials and military personell of both ufos and extra-terrestrials, you have yet to accept one of them as real. Statistical analysis of these events tell us that better than 90% are incorrect. The goal would be to identify the one's that aren't and see if there's evidence that back up the observer and concluder. Again this ~.2% of the population may indeed be UFOs but they lack the evidence to make a definitive conclusion. Thus, we need to say we don't know because we in fact do not know.

Rather than "we" use the term "me" as in YOU...mmmk?

Quote:

Quote: Right, but I know what they won't find As what they're experimenting on has no other experimental evidence to date we have no observations. What you conclude they won't find isn't a known it's a best guess. Interestingly Stephen Hawkins believes the God Particle will not be found. Though he's all for the experimentation because he understands that even not finding it is evidence which furthers our understanding of the universe.

There you go using the word "we" again.
You will deny "we" have any evidence.

Quote:

Quote: Which I ofcourse was already in agreement with Feel free to be in agreement with whatever you want. But understand due to epistomological lackings you are using faith to decide. OTOH I'm open to all lines of evidence and even that someday GEM might have a better evidenced working explaination of the universe. Cuz science is the most open analytical and accepting system we can use to determine these things.

Prepare for your world to crumble...

@Lou

Quote:

You mean scientists who support the big bang theory admit this, because the rest don't...

I think here you are trying to differentiate consensus of evidence and current scientific understanding versus complete agreement. We'll never get to 100% agreement. It's not a science problem though it's a people and politics problem. The great thing about science is the evidence is the evidence no matter one's opinion. Science makes no special 'priests' out of PhD's. All work, no matter the source, must stand up to the rigors of experimentation, evidence, skepticsm, and predictability. In short fallacy of authority is eliminated.

Quote:

BrianK, I only need 1 valid ufo with visits to exist to be correct.

If you really want to clain 14% of the population have experiences with ET then you need far, far more than 1.

Quote:

Multi-verses are not part of the big-bangers

Multiverses are one reasoning of what came before the 'big bang' that started our universe. Of course any start of the universe, at this point, is unproven. Just as we know about evolution but the jump from non-living to living is unproven.

Quote:

Rather than "we" use the term "me" as in YOU...mmmk?

Fair enough you want to live in the believe but not evidence box.

Quote:

You will deny "we" have any evidence.

Using the royal we, meaning the evidence of science. I'm open to you telling me how the LHC speed and tests were carried out by another collider as powerful prior to the LHC. LHC is an experimentation of some tested and many untested postulates. If you'd like to explain how the untested postulates have been tested I'm open to hearing it.

Quote:

Prepare for your world to crumble...

You've hinted to this new more powerful epistemological system before. Too bad you can't define it.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-Nov-2011 at 05:37 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You mean scientists who support the big bang theory admit this, because the rest don't... I think here you are trying to differentiate consensus of evidence and current scientific understanding versus complete agreement. We'll never get to 100% agreement. It's not a science problem though it's a people and politics problem. The great thing about science is the evidence is the evidence no matter one's opinion. Science makes no special 'priests' out of PhD's. All work, no matter the source, must stand up to the rigors of experimentation, evidence, skepticsm, and predictability. In short fallacy of authority is eliminated.

Here's your fallacy: you assume everything is incorrect until it meets your criteria.

Quote:

Quote: BrianK, I only need 1 valid ufo with visits to exist to be correct. If you really want to clain 14% of the population have experiences with ET then you need far, far more than 1.

Your logic here is contrived.

Quote:

Quote: Multi-verses are not part of the big-bangers Multiverses are one reasoning of what came before the 'big bang' that started our universe. Of course any start of the universe, at this point, is unproven. Just as we know about evolution but the jump from non-living to living is unproven.

Didn't you say in your last post that "they" don't know anything before the ZERO point?
You sound like a switch-hitter now. Make up your mind on what you believe in.

Quote:

Quote: You will deny "we" have any evidence. Using the royal we, meaning the evidence of science. I'm open to you telling me how the LHC speed and tests were carried out by another collider as powerful prior to the LHC. LHC is an experimentation of some tested and many untested postulates. If you'd like to explain how the untested postulates have been tested I'm open to hearing it.

What's funny here is "your" speed tests want to be limited to the speed of light.
When some preliminary results showed they were slightly faster, madness ensued...

Quote:

Quote: Prepare for your world to crumble... You've hinted to this new more powerful epistemological system before. Too bad you can't define it.

I'd much rather live in a world where the definition is evolving than one that is clearly incorrect.

Last edited by Lou on 23-Nov-2011 at 05:46 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Here's your fallacy: you assume everything is incorrect until it meets your criteria.

Giving you the favor of doubt you clearly misunderstand.

I do not draw any conclusions until the situation is evidenced. Incorrect is a conclusion that can only be drawn if the evidence fails to support the postulate. Just like correct is a conclusion that can only be drawn if the evidence supports the postulate. Though even there it's bracketed with 'based on the current evidence'. It's a simple acceptance that in the future there may be better evidence which is unavailable today for analysis. Thus, gravity is the best theory we have based upon our current state of evidence. A very valid statement.

Quote:

Your logic here is contrived.

It's fairly straight forward. You claim 14% of the public have experience with Vistiors. You said you have to prove 1. You have to prove all 14% if you wish to claim 14% have had such an experience.

Quote:

Didn't you say in your last post that "they" don't know anything before the ZERO point? You sound like a switch-hitter now. Make up your mind on what you believe in.

I was discussing various postulates of types of universe creation not my personal belief.

Quote:

What's funny here is "your" speed tests want to be limited to the speed of light. When some preliminary results showed they were slightly faster, madness ensued...

We have calcuated the trajectories based upon the energy put into the system. If we measure something statitstically significant higher that's certainly of interest.

And yes certainly some preliminary results showed a speed faster than light. Though this is 1 experiment which is still in the process of validation. We have some initial findings to why beyond C wasn't acheived. We have more experiments on the way that can be used to collaborate the findings. And of course we have other instances in our universe where beyond C fails. For example, a supernova event should, if the beyond C is true, send us particles years before we actually can see that supernova. One must ask why we haven't seen this.... In short - lots more work to do as 1 experiment not fully vetted is clearly not validated evidence.

Quote:

I'd much rather live in a world where the definition is evolving than one that is clearly incorrect.

I know you're arguing strongly that you shouldn't have to validate your postulates with evidence but instead want to claim them to be true. As much as you hate the gaps in science. Gaps are where we simply say we don't have enough evidence for a fair conclusion. Though we still may have enough fairly conclude it's not something. As for your undefined epistomology it is unusable in demonstrating truth. If you believe and your belief happens to be right it's fairly useless when there's no epistomology behind it. You need one of those in order to demonstrate to someone the work you did to get to the understanding of the truth. Lou can run around all day with the truth. If he can't explain it he becomes 1 in 15Billion with the truth and an inability to use it. I suppose you can run around saying you're wrong, can't show you why, but you're wrong. Not much good there either.

I thought you might like this recent example of how evidence and research work. It was thought Americans spend about 20 minutes in the shower. This conclusion was reached due by using the observer's word as the truth.(14% right?) Afterall one should know something as mundane as how much time they spend washing right? Turns out when the observer's versions are evidenced it's 8 minutes. Moen stuck computer monitors in showerheads and they recorded the actual time. This validated, or in this case invalidated, the observer's statements. (95% or better were mistaken sounds pretty familar) Various lines of evidence helps to understand or even eliminate the bias within the observational equipment, in this case the human itself was faulty in their observational 'truths'.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-Nov-2011 at 10:10 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 23-Nov-2011 at 07:36 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Here's your fallacy: you assume everything is incorrect until it meets your criteria. Giving you the favor of doubt you clearly misunderstand. I do not draw any conclusions until the situation is evidenced. Incorrect is a conclusion that can only be drawn if the evidence fails to support the postulate. Just like correct is a conclusion that can only be drawn if the evidence supports the postulate. Though even there it's bracketed with 'based on the current evidence'. It's a simple acceptance that in the future there may be better evidence which is unavailable today for analysis. Thus, gravity is the best theory we have based upon our current state of evidence. A very valid statement.

aka what I said above...

Quote:

It's fairly straight forward. You claim 14% of the public have experience with Vistiors. You said you have to prove 1. You have to prove all 14% if you wish to claim 14% have had such an experience.

I am the one. I know what I saw and you do not and no matter what I tell you, you will not believe it. Your opinion will always be "it must have been something more mundane."

Quote:

What's funny here is "your" speed tests want to be limited to the speed of light. When some preliminary results showed they were slightly faster, madness ensued...

We have calcuated the trajectories based upon the energy put into the system. If we measure something statitstically significant higher that's certainly of interest.
[/quote]
Great, so explain galaxies 55 billion light-years away when the theory you believe says that shouldn't be...

Quote:

Quote: I'd much rather live in a world where the definition is evolving than one that is clearly incorrect. I know you're arguing strongly that you shouldn't have to validate your postulates with evidence but instead want to claim them to be true. As much as you hate the gaps in science. Gaps are where we simply say we don't have enough evidence for a fair conclusion. Though we still may have enough fairly conclude it's not something. As for your undefined epistomology it is unusable in demonstrating truth. If you believe and your belief happens to be right it's fairly useless when there's no epistomology behind it. You need one of those in order to demonstrate to someone the work you did to get to the understanding of the truth. Lou can run around all day with the truth. If he can't explain it he becomes 1 in 15Billion with the truth and an inability to use it. I suppose you can run around saying you're wrong, can't show you why, but you're wrong. Not much good there either.

What I'm saying is to you the earth is flat until 30 years later some book tells you its round.

Quote:

I thought you might like this recent example of how evidence and research work. It was thought Americans spend about 20 minutes in the shower. This conclusion was reached due by using the observer's word as the truth.(14% right?) Afterall one should know something as mundane as how much time they spend washing right? Turns out when the observer's versions are evidenced it's 8 minutes. Moen stuck computer monitors in showerheads and they recorded the actual time. This validated, or in this case invalidated, the observer's statements. (95% or better were mistaken sounds pretty familar) Various lines of evidence helps to understand or even eliminate the bias within the observational equipment, in this case the human itself was faulty in their observational 'truths'.

A useless example. When I say I'm in the shower, I include from the time I close the door, brush my teeth and undress.,,then shower and dry, etc...up until I actually leave the bathroom. So your ever so literall definition is useless. I also shave in the shower and on those days, I am officially "in the shower" for longer than 8 minutes. That's the problem with people who shove books up their backsides, they take things too literally just to attempt to prove they are right. This is akin to moving the goalposts.

@Lou

Quote:

aka what I said above...

Now you're being difficult. Simply 'incorrect' is a conclusion based on present evidence. If evidence doesn't exist I say 'I don't know'. They clearly are not the same.

Quote:

I know what I saw and you do not and no matter what I tell you, you will not believe it. Your opinion will always be "it must have been something more mundane."

I've said nothing of your experience personally. But, since you asked I believe you believe you saw something. Because you don't have evidence I have to say 'I don't know' what you saw.

Quote:

What I'm saying is to you the earth is flat until 30 years later some book tells you its round.

Science is an open system that all items are judged on the same critiera. Evidence takes time to generate, as they say Rome wasn't built in a day. In generating an answer we must follow the evidence and some will be dead ends and less workable. These are discarded. So if EM can build the evidence it's unquestionable that a paradigm shift will occur and 4 fundamental forces will be discarded accordingly.

Quote:

That's the problem with people who shove books up their backsides, they take things too literally just to attempt to prove they are right. This is akin to moving the goalposts

Pshaw, there is no goal post moved. The question always was the same - how much water is used and saved by a shower versus a bath. Built in skepticism designed an improved experiment which produced more accurate evidence of water usage in showers.

@BrianK

Quote:

Science is an open system that all items are judged on the same critiera.

The really amusing thing here is that the word science derives from the Latin "scio" meaning "I know" and yet a scientist is usually the only person willing to say "I don't know".
It is only when people are willing to admit that they don't know something that they make the effort to find real answers, changing the "I don't know" to "I don't know yet". The other advancement of knowledge that some cannot grasp is contained in the statement "I don't know what it is, but I do know what it isn't". As yo pointed out earlier, If, in the next few years CERN find the "God particle" then we know Higgs was right, if not we have closed an avenue of enquiry, and are at the starting point of a new search for more answers.

Speaking as an engineer, if quantum is the answer then perhaps the quantum mechanics can give me a quantum screwdriver to replace this slightly tatty sonic one the Doctor gave me.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

@BrianK Quote: Science is an open system that all items are judged on the same critiera. The really amusing thing here is that the word science derives from the Latin "scio" meaning "I know" and yet a scientist is usually the only person willing to say "I don't know".

I think scio in this case is better interpreted as 'to consciously know'. IMO this better reflects what occurs in the real world.

Oh and an appropriate Sagan quote -
"In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again." Though I'll be the first to admit people are built to win arguments more so than find the truth. As such this point is like pulling teeth. But, it indeed does happen.

Quote:

It is only when people are willing to admit that they don't know something that they make the effort to find real answers, changing the "I don't know" to "I don't know yet". The other advancement of knowledge that some cannot grasp is contained in the statement "I don't know what it is, but I do know what it isn't". As yo pointed out earlier, If, in the next few years CERN find the "God particle" then we know Higgs was right, if not we have closed an avenue of enquiry, and are at the starting point of a new search for more answers.

Leartning comes through failure. It's the only way it happens.

Quote:

Speaking as an engineer, if quantum is the answer then perhaps the quantum mechanics can give me a quantum screwdriver to replace this slightly tatty sonic one the Doctor gave me.

What NASA is looking for life on Mars? I thought someone said that doesn't happen. http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/nasa-rover-scout-lifes-habitats-mars-062217776.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: What NASA is looking for life on Mars? I thought someone said that doesn't happen. http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/nasa-rover-scout-lifes-habitats-mars-062217776.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

Who would that someone be?

I said they don't go to where we see monoliths and other structures to quell those issues once and for all. What they are doing is going to what looks like dried riverbeds and looking for signs of dried riverbeds.

That's like being in a dark room and walking towards a lightsource wondering if you'll find light.

This is ofcourse a wasted excersize since the polar lander already recorded snow.
Perhaps its part of the master plan to get people to slowly accept alien life.

Last edited by Lou on 25-Nov-2011 at 07:34 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I said they don't go to where we see monoliths and other structures to quell those issues once and for all.

I highly doubt that NASA investigating will 'quell those issues once and for all'. The evidence for this is that most of UFOies reject the improved resolution and different angles of the 'The Face on Mars'. They refuse to be quelled even when clearly improved evidence is available. Additionally, most people that claim NASA is conducting a master plan to cover up alien intelligences will simply reject better evidence claiming it to be a futher cover up indicative of the consipracy.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I said they don't go to where we see monoliths and other structures to quell those issues once and for all. I highly doubt that NASA investigating will 'quell those issues once and for all'. The evidence for this is that most of UFOies reject the improved resolution and different angles of the 'The Face on Mars'. They refuse to be quelled even when clearly improved evidence is available. Additionally, most people that claim NASA is conducting a master plan to cover up alien intelligences will simply reject better evidence claiming it to be a futher cover up indicative of the consipracy.

Well, the only way to fix that is 100% openness, right? I mean, Mars is another planet, what is the 'national security' issue?

@Lou

Quote:

Well, the only way to fix that is 100% openness, right?

That lays the blame at the wrong entity. If someone is going around assuming a conspirarcy and looking for evidence to support their conclusion it matters very little the % of openness of an agency. You gotta get those believers to the point they understand the value of an epistomological system where they evidence first and conclude last, not vice versa.

National Security issues? If communications are not encrypted to satellites there is a much greater probability of external manipulation. I, and I doubt, NASA wants to lose a $200Million dollar mission because they failed to encrypt communications and some script kiddy drove the rover over a cliff.