Neil deGrasse Tyson's flawed logic

Discussion in 'Science' started by Patricio Da Silva, May 28, 2022.

  1. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one says the physics is irrelevant. The trouble is, arguments against potential UFOs originate in 1905. They are 100 years out of date.

    As indicated in the published paper I posted, we don't know the limits of physics.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  2. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was faked.

    Prove it wasn't.

    Someone can ALWAYS say something was faked. They don't need to say how. Just making the claim with no information is enough for many people.

    As a judge once said after a mock trial regarding UFOs, if the evidence for UFOs were evidence in a murder case, there would have been a hanging long ago.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  3. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As for scientific evidence, science is based on repeatability. With transient events that can't be reproduced on demand like a UFO events, the traditional scientific method fails.

    We have the same problems with phenomena like earthquake lights and ball lightning. But because it doesn't involve aliens, a photograph or two of those was enough to convince scientists earthquake lights and ball lightning are real. Ironic huh!!! Indeed, what is and is not scientific evidence, is subjective. And that is scientific blasphemy.

    As stated earlier, there is no such a thing in science as extraordinary evidence. There is just evidence.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's still possible to do analysis of items that are claimed to be evidence.

    We saw what a poor job was done for the Navy tapes.
     
  5. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What are you talking about? The Navy tapes didn't show anything. They show a few seconds from an event that lasted minutes. They have multiple RADARs tracking the object by default but none of that was released.

    Who did a poor job? I only listened to the pilots who were there. Who are you listening to?
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not so sure about that.

    Claiming we don't know everything there is to know is not an excuse for throwing out what we DO know.

    Yet, that is what has been done in this thread.

    If you throw out enough science, what you have left isn't even good SciFi.
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sure the pilots were truthful and as complete as they could be.

    But, the post-event analysis of those reports is more important.
     
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are twisting my words.

    Now, pay close attention:

    You claim that practical interstellar travel is impossible (or highly improbable) because what we know about physics dictates that it is impossible or highly improbable. Therefore, it is not likely earth has been visited by aliens.

    That statement is predicated on the assumption that mankind knows most or all that can be known about physics.

    Well, that is an arrogant assumption, no one knows the extent of what can be known, and no one can assert that, because
    we don't have the knowledge currently, we won't have it in the near or some distant future date.

    No one can possibly claim that advanced civilizations from other planets haven't conquered the problem of interstellar travel based on what mankind knows about physics.

    My statement is not an indictment of what physicists know, only that we do not know how much can be known.

    You stated that I can't compare the size of the universe to the size of a human's knowledge. They are different spheres.

    But you took my statement literally, I meant it metaphorically.

    But, the universe, as a metaphor, one can, indeed, compare the vast scope of the universe, that mankind has only begun to tap into it's secrets.

    In a sense, the metaphor is apt, you just pettifogged the metaphor on an unimportant detail derived from literalness.

    We do not know how plausible or improbable practical interstellar travel is.

    the only thing we do know is that currently, it is beyond our capability.

    That doesn't equal 'disparaging physicists or science'.

    That doesn't equal 'throwing out most of science'.

    It just asserts that our knowledge is limited.

    I hate to tell you this, but our knowledge is limited. You need to get over that FACT.

    We are still using rockets for propulsion, a technology discovered 100 years ago, one which surely is impractical for interstellar travel, or barely practical for a trip to mars. It will require a huge ship, with living spaces, accommodations to house humans for months, which brings up all sorts of hurdles to clear. None of which we would have to clear if we had the technology to get there in a day or so via some non linear mode of travel we have yet to discover.

    Now, pay close attention, once again:

    Given that it was only a century or so ago we learned to fly, which is to say, we are neophytes of science, it is not unreasonable
    for me to assert that mankind's knowledge of physics is limited.

    No, it's not. Sorry.

    Sure, compared to 100 years ago, we've made great leaps forward. But a child of 5 makes great leaps forward compared to a newborn.

    It's still a child, however. Don't let mankind's achievements fog the forest of that concept.

    But we do not know how far we are along the scale of potential leaps forward that can be had.

    I suspect, compared to an alien race advanced some 1,000,000 years ahead of us, there is a lot more to be had.

    That is a reasonable proclamation. Can any civilization last one million years? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's not a million, but the comparison would still work if I said only 10,000 years ahead of us, and we've had civilizations last several thousand years, with no where near as much technology as we have now.

    Now, you need to get over the fact that mankind is a cosmological newborn. I know that concept bothers you, you think it is an insult.

    Is it an insult to a child to assert a child has a lot of learning ahead of it? No.

    A baby of 5 years is vastly more clever, intelligent, able capable, than a newborn babe, but a baby of 5 years is still a toddler compared to his life long growth which we know will be ahead of him.

    In physics, we don't know what the possibilities are. We do not know what the 'adult' will look like, what shape it will take, or how big it will grow or how long it will take. But, realizing those possibilities start with dreams, so I wouldn't be knocking dreams, if I were you.

    That is a reasonable statement. Now, please, don't twist my words, I'm not saying physicist are dumb, I'm saying we are cosmological children compared to advance alien races. I don't know that for a fact, but it's not an absurd declaration, it's reasonable. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's more logical than not that it's probably true.

    Now, you are going to say there is no 'evidence'. And, because of that, interstellar travel is impossible.

    Ah, but there are tons of evidence. No, not black and white evidence, evidence that is absolutely conclusive, but there is what I call 'grey' evidence, evidence which will, at the minimum, increase the plausibility of the notion of alien visitation. Grey evidence, taken in small segments, doesn't shout, but when teh vast field is looked at from above, over a period of years, a clearer picture begins to emerge. In Ufology, currently, that's as good as it gets.

    And, if you are going to claim that IF they are coming here, we would have conclusive evidence by now.

    Not necessarily. Not if they are deliberately preventing us from having conclusive proof because they are on a clandestine mission.

    But, of course, you are not interested in a plausible counter argument to the one that goes: if they are here, we should have conclusive proof by now.

    For you, it's absolute proof or nothing.

    With you, there are no shades of grey, right?
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one is throwing anything out. Not I, if that is what you are insinuating.

    You are committing an egregious logical fallacy, the strawman fallacy.

    See comment #84
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are those who claim the moon landing was faked.

    the fake claims were debunked. Much of it was about photography, and I know it was debunked because I'm a professional photographer, that is my turf, something I know a lot about, and I know the claims of the debunkers insofar as points on photography are accurate.

    Sure, you have a point, someone can always claim 'fake'.

    But, in the face of hard evidence, I mean really solid evidence, like the one I just described, those who cry fake, sure, they will, some will, some crazy fools always do, just as they claimed the moon landing was fake, but no one that matters takes them seriously.

    To date, the only kind of evidence we have for UFOs are those what would survive a civil trial of damages where all that is needed is a 'preponderance of evidence' (which is to say, a preponderance of evidence that is stronger than not that it is evidence as opposed to evidence that proves, conclusively, the case beyond a reasonable doubt required of a murder trial where someone's liberty is at stake), and, i don't know about a murder trial. Maybe.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  11. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He was a real judge. ;)

    You don't know the entirety of the evidence that exists. Your statement is incorrect.

    RADAR coupled with recorded fighter intercepts is surely as much proof as a video of someone committing murder.

    But you have to be careful about differentiating UFOs and any potential alien occupants. The two concepts are often used interchangeably but shouldn't be. For one, they may be purely robotic even if alien.

    Some military evidence comes from the same systems we use to determine if we start a nuclear war; or I should say it did. We only know about the old, declassified evidence.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, HWGA, Im acutely aware of what's out there, I've been studying it for many years.

    First off, I believe, not for the Naval videos, which are truncated and rather banal, I believe in UFOs and alien visitation. I come to that conclusion via a very different path.

    I come to it by the works of John Mack, Budd Hopkins, and Dr. David Jacobs, the testimonies of over a thousand persons from all walks of life concurring on nuts and bolts details of their abductions. That is what did it for me.

    What do the Naval videos prove? well, only that they are UAPs and compelling. But are they alien? No one knows, and the military is tight lipped about it.

    I've seen some interviews with a fellow that was, or claimed, to be in the know, that they were ours, and because of that video I'm inclined to believe that the tic tocs are American military black projects, whereupon the military has acquired anti-gravity and non linear technology. But, maybe the guy was a crackpot, I don't know. I'll have to hunt around for the video, I lost track of it.

    Or......

    There is also another claim that they are laser plasma holograms achieved by triangulation of three or four beams of lasers converging onto a singular point, created a plasma 'tic toc' appearing craft, all of which is another military project (Search on YouTube for Professor Simon, who goes into the possibility). I suppose it's possible, I know very little about the subject.
     
  13. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you studied personal accounts. I spent years reading every declassified military and government document available at the time - many thousands of official reports. RADAR data is hard evidence. So is the metallic materials that have been recovered. So are the elevated levels of radiation measured. So is the physical damage to the environment. There are even a few pieces of hardware that no one knows how they could have been made at the time they were discovered.

    Oh yes, and let's not forget cases like the inexplicable series of nuclear missile failures that occurred in conjunction with a UFO appearing over the base. Re Malmstrom AFB

    The evidence for ET mostly comes from the performance of the observed and tracked crafts, which often appear to defy physics as we know it. We cannot build a craft that does what we observe. So if it couldn't have been built on earth, it must have been build somewhere else. And we know this especially in cases like the Iran case because we know now what we had then. We can't know what is and is not military today, But we know what was in 1976. And no one had technology that can account for what the Iranian pilots encountered. Therefore, as was concluded by the COMETA committee, it was most likely alien in origin. This case is also cited in the JBIS paper I linked.

    PS, that craft was later found to have been tracked by a CIA satellite as well.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    cool. But that kind of data only proves craft is visiting us. That doesn't tell us what they are up to.

    I want to know what is going on inside the craft, and possibly figure out what their agenda is, hence the testimonies of those who have had encounters of the 4th kind.

    May I suggest reading Dr. David Jacob's "Walking Among Us" ?

    I think you will find it compelling. I did.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  15. jmotivator

    jmotivator Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem is that really Sagan was no better than Tyson at staying in his lane. The original Cosmos was a fret with inaccuracies to feed Sagan's desired narrative as Tyson's was, and his advocacy for the concept of Nuclear Winter was both flawed and unhelpful.
     

Share This Page