Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Here's a gedanken question that may help focus the issue:
"On the exo-planet Kepler 442 b, are traffic lights red, yellow and green? There is only one single correct answer. Either yes or no. The logic is inescapable."
Here everyone recognizes the flaw. The question is absurd because currently there's not enough data to postulate whether or not life exists on Kepler 442 b, much less if there are motorists on motorways with traffic signals.
IMHO the following question likewise exhibits the same lack-of-data kind of assumptions:
"Have objectively real craft from beyond the boundaries and constructs of civilization as we know it been observed by humans?"
Strange things are certainly being reported. But, actually, there simply is not enough conclusive empirical data to prove what the objects are. Especially so if by "craft" the idea intended is of vehicular spacecraft with crew. Not to mention the possibility of some kind of perceptual influence on observers ....
Your point is well taken, but there are subtle yet important issues to consider. It's a bit involved but I would encourage you to follow me here: The first is that the question about Keppler 442b is a loaded question because it assumes that there are traffic lights there, whereas the question about UFOs asks if UFOs have been observed by humans, which isn't the same as stating they exist. The other issue is one of proof. Proof is evidence that is sufficient for someone to believe a claim is true. Some people require more or less evidence, or evidence of a different kind than what you require. So proof is subjective, not objective. It is based on belief.
But still, if we go with empirical evidence, which is evidence that is gained via the senses, there is so much of it that many people, including myself, consider it to be sufficient proof. The evidence that isn't sufficient, is valid scientifically verifiable material evidence, which is moving the goalposts way down the field. Certainly valid scientifically verifiable evidence has been presented, e.g. the Battelle Memorial Institute statistical study of Blue Book case reports, but those don't include sufficient material evidence. So we've gotten the ball down to the 10 yard line, but that's still not enough to qualify as a win for some people. OK Fair enough.
But now let's suppose we make it all the way to the touchdown. There would still be those who remain unconvinced. They'd say the game was rigged or the evidence was tampered with, or come-up with some reason or another to refuse to accept that the evidence qualified as proof. There are also still people who think the Earth is flat and we never went to the Moon. Is that reasonable? That depends on who you ask. So the question of proof really boils down to the question of reasonableness. Is the amount of evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to agree that it qualifies as proof? Personally I think the answer is "Yes".
I base my answer on the firsthand accounts of many witnesses and our scientific understanding of how the physical stimulus response works. So let's return to your example of the traffic lights on Kepler 442b. Assuming that there is such a place, and many thousands of people had gone there, and many thousands reported back that there were indeed traffic lights there, and that furthermore they appeared to be red, yellow and green, would it be reasonable not to believe them unless they brought one back with them? I'd say most people would consider the claim to be reasonable without actually having the physical lights.
But even if lights were brought back, there would still be skeptics who would claim the lights never came from Keppler 442b, and would find some traffics lights here on Earth that looked very similar to use as evidence that the lights brought back were in-fact mundane lights found everywhere on Earth. OK fine, but let's now assume that you yourself are one of the people who had gone to Keppler 442b and you had observed them with your own eyes? Still not enough evidence to qualify as proof for you? Would that be a reasonable position to take? I would suggest that most people would not think so.
Nevertheless, we could still suppose that you're one of those skeptics who thinks that even your own personal experience isn't sufficient evidence to be considered reasonable. OK fair enough. Let's arbitrarily dismiss yours as a mirage or deception or a hallucination or whatever. How many more times do we do that before it becomes apparent that continuing to deny the rest is unreasonable? How about a hundred? A thousand? At what point do we stop telling ourselves that it is reasonable to think that all these people are lying or misperceiving or hallucinating or being deceived? Remember you've also seen the lights for yourself. Is continued denial still in the land of reasonableness?
Only you can decide the answer to that question, but it's perfectly clear to me. I'm one of those people who have seen one. Not simply some static object that could be a decoy, but a craft that maneuvered and performed in ways nothing made from within civilization as we know it could. For me that evidence was proof enough, but I've also studied the subject for years. So even if I hadn't also seen one for myself, the evidence provided by others is in IMO still sufficient to consider it reasonable to believe that other people have, even if they cannot prove it to everyone. Therefore the issue has been proven to me from two separate perspectives.
There might come a day when there is sufficient evidence to disprove alien visitation, but in the meantime, regardless of what I or anyone else believes, there is still only one correct answer, and it is independent of our subjective viewpoints. So agnosticism, from that perspective, remains flawed at its foundation. Add to that, that refusing to recognize that the game is over, despite the fact that there is still time on the clock, amounts to sheer denial. Sure it will be nice when someday we get a craft to put in a museum, but at this point it's a mere technicality. The question has already been answered for those who have had sufficiently convincing firsthand experiences or are reasonable and well informed on the subject.
This leads to the next obvious question: What now?
Last edited: