The potential impact of Extraterrestrials on philosophy and 'religion'....?

[Milky Way Resident]

Originally Posted by ocpaul20

Do not kid yourself, science is a 'faith' too. People believe in the 'right-ness' of science just as much as they do any other religion or belief system.

If you had actually worked with consciousness, or any fringe science, you would come to the conclusion there is something out there, something beyond which we can explain away by science-based laws. I am sure we will come to understand it more as we evolve, but at the moment, we are not at the stage where we can explain the unusual events which sometimes occur in our science experiments.

Taking this to a very mundane level, look at the Skinwalker Ranch phenomena, where experiments are continuously interrupted by unexplained phenomena which are as yet not understood by science.

That’s a misunderstanding of what science is supposed to be. Faith operates on the basis that there is no evidence. That’s essentially what religion is. With science, the principle of being falsifiable lies at the heart of it. That means that every hypothesis should be scrutinized before it becomes accepted as a theory. There are fringe elements, like the multiverse, which lack empirical evidence.

[ocpaul20]

Originally Posted by 1insider

Everyone's opinion carries equal weight? Scientists shouldn't be more trusted than laymen, because the only difference is that they use special words? This is a pretty silly even for this forum.

Just because you disagree there is no need to call my opinion silly. So, now I need you to illustrate where I have shown examples which are 'silly'.

I have given an example of oumuamua which is valid. There are plenty of 'silly' scientific proposals which are shown to be unlikely by Avi Loeb in his book - bearing in mind this is an MIT professor writing this book. He documents each proposal and explains why it cannot work as a hypothesis. If you have not read the book, then you obviously cannot have an opinion on his arguments.

The reason why I say that peer review is pretty much a joke because the opinions put forward in articles are often opposing each other. Folk who are not scientists can give opinions on something, just as easily, but somehow because these guys are scientists their words have more authority in some people's minds. They are supposed to be the experts, yet they do not agree among themselves. This opposing opinions is fact and you only have to read some NASA articles about Mars to see this is correct.

Medicine and food industries are full of scientific papers written by industry-employed scientists and reach conclusions which are often misleading and often opposing non-industry scientists. Do you disagree?

So, what conclusion should I draw from these examples I have given?

Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident

That’s a misunderstanding of what science is supposed to be. Faith operates on the basis that there is no evidence. That’s essentially what religion is. With science, the principle of being falsifiable lies at the heart of it. That means that every hypothesis should be scrutinized before it becomes accepted as a theory. There are fringe elements, like the multiverse, which lack empirical evidence.

Yes, but it is not a misunderstanding. I agree with what it is supposed to be, but thats why it is losing its authority because often it is not as analytical as it should be to apply science correctly. When opinions are bandied about without evidence then what extra authority should they have? When scientists from the same company (NASA) have differences of opinion, then how can the public believe what they say is true? - or are both opinions true?

Theory is one thing, but it starts with a hypothesis and before that there are witness accounts or observations, the more the better. There are plenty of witness reports which were dismissed as impossible to believe. Unfortunately there are often pre-conceived beliefs which mean some hypotheses are not likely to see the light of day. UFOs are one example of 'fringe elements' which until recently have been the subject of scepticism, and ridicule.

It is all tied up in governmental shenanigans, money, lobby organisations, politics, intelligence, defence and secrecy.

[1insider]

Originally Posted by ocpaul20

Just because you disagree there is no need to call my opinion silly. So, now I need you to illustrate where I have shown examples which are 'silly'.

This was the specific statement I was commenting on. You equated scientific observation and opinion with "normal eye-witnesses" and then went on to take a jab at science over their use of "special words". I doubt I'm alone in thinking that is silly.

Originally Posted by ocpaul20

So...how is this different except that you rate scientists opinion or observation far higher credibility than normal eye-witnesses? Special words which science uses dont make the data more accurate you know.

[sam812]

Sorry replied to wrong post.

[ocpaul20]

Insider1 -

This was the specific statement I was commenting on. You equated scientific observation and opinion with "normal eye-witnesses" and then went on to take a jab at science over their use of "special words". I doubt I'm alone in thinking that is silly.

You and I both know that all professions have their special words and phrases which also add to the mystique of whatever profession we are talking about. So, yes there are special words which everyone uses in their job to describe necessary events and items. It does also increase the attraction and allure of those professions by the folks (often impressionable kids) who follow it.

Yes, I did equate scientific observation with normal non-scientific eye witnesses. Thats because there are non-scientists who are trained by the military and other organisations to make observations. That is part of their job. People such as police, military observers, investigators, doctors, etc. These people are NOT scientists but they ARE trained to observe. So, it seems both things you are arguing about are in fact true. Being silly is your opinion because you do not want to admit to the non-uniqueness of science in this respect. Hypotheses start with observations and reports of phenomena, but to dismiss those where they are not perfomed by science is ridiculous. Yes, weed out the uninformed and untrained perhaps, but accept as valid data the ones by those trained in observation who are NOT scientists.