The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is?

[PCarr]

I agree, I have no clue.

But I also don't find the need to dismiss the obvious. They saw something and that something was a shared experience. No evaporation involved.

But what is woo woo exactly apart from what we would have considered Einstein's theory of relativity and special relativity just 100 years prior to it being reviewed and accepted and worked with in a myriad of situations?

It all serves to remind me of that quote from Arthur C. Clarke about that which is indistinguishable from magic, or woo woo.

There is nothing monumental within science that gets overturned without as much first be considered woo woo. Simple fact.

The consensus of the ego is that which predicates science, who can deny it?

Beware the Galileo gambit ( Galileo gambit - RationalWiki ).

Same thing goes for Einstein. And no, I know of no historical evidence that Einstein's work was ever considered woo woo. Major people fully supported his ideas, because he made profoundly logical arguments for them and made connections that others had been struggling with for decades. Ditto Darwin, who probably motivated the single biggest shift in thinking in the history of science.

Just because some very carefully thought out and extraordinarily brilliant ideas may have appeared a bit radical in their time doesn't mean....

 

[Soupie]

Noble Savage?

No.

Moreover, what I wrote appears to be in line with Mr. Pinker's theories. He argues that the human phenotype was shaped over millions of years and thus, much of human behavior is innate. I agree. That's exactly why I think the shift from a hunter-gatherer system to an Agrarian system began to wreak havoc on our psychology. I believe that a lack of movement, exertion, sunlight, and problem solving - things that were not lacking in hunter-gatherer societies - are to blame for many of the ills in our society. (That's not to say that there was no mental illness or antisocial behavior in hunter-gatherer societies, or even that hunter-gatherer societies are superior to our own.)

On the other hand, I completely reject the notion that humans are born good or bad. Those terms are relative to the environment, culture, and/or circumstances one is in. Societies/cultures do have established (if often unwritten) expectations regarding prosocial behaviors, whether a hunter-gatherer or agrarian society. In order for an individual to perform these expected behaviors, I believe they need two things: A triad of psychological nutriments, and the ability to self-regulate.

Many, many, many children and adults lack these two things, and thus they fail to display prosocial behaviors. And that's not to mention the millions of children and adults that have been scarred by traumatic events.

What this has to do with identified alien craft, I have no idea other than to say that if they are studying us, I'd love to read their analysis!

 

[Jeff Davis]

Beware the Galileo gambit ( Galileo gambit - RationalWiki ).

Same thing goes for Einstein. And no, I know of no historical evidence that Einstein's work was ever considered woo woo. Major people fully supported his ideas, because he made profoundly logical arguments for them and made connections that others had been struggling with for decades. Ditto Darwin, who probably motivated the single biggest shift in thinking in the history of science.

Just because some very carefully thought out and extraordinarily brilliant ideas may have appeared a bit radical in their time doesn't mean....

Excellent post, nope have no familiarity with the Galileo gambit...cool, I will be familiar with it shortly however. The internet, what an amazing thing.

Thank you for responding.

 

[Constance]

Agreed, Jeff: "The consensus of the ego is that which predicates science, who can deny it?" I'd add: the consensus of the ego attempting to stay afloat on the shifting waters of actual knowledge.

 

[Tyger]

But what is woo woo exactly apart from what we would have considered Einstein's theory of relativity and special relativity just 100 years prior to it being reviewed and accepted and worked with in a myriad of situations?

It all serves to remind me of that quote from Arthur C. Clarke about that which is indistinguishable from magic, or woo woo.

There is nothing monumental within science that gets overturned without as much first be considered woo woo. Simple fact.

The consensus of the ego is that which predicates science, who can deny it?

In my lifetime I have seen it: Plate Tectonics, for one. To even mention it was to be hooted down in Geology Class. By the professor.

Mention an asteroid hitting the earth in relatively historic times - same reaction. I recall vividly the over-rated Carl Sagen hooting down Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas. The "consensus of the ego" in spades!

 

[Randall]

Agreed, Jeff: "The consensus of the ego is that which predicates science, who can deny it?" I'd add: the consensus of the ego attempting to stay afloat on the shifting waters of actual knowledge.

Who can deny it? I'm sure you can guess that at least one of us can. Although there are scientists who are unduly influenced by politics and their own biases, it's not the "consensus of ego" that "predicates" but the consensus of evidence and reason. Science has a long history of being hamstrung by the so-called "spiritual" institutions where I think it's far safer to say human ego is the real motivating factor. They even made God in their own image!

 

[manxman]

boom in goes another verbal hand-grenade from randal.

but before i read that i read constance's previous reply, and the way it is crafted, well it looks like a consensus of ego to me, the '' who can deny it '' question cements it, thats if i am right, and just in a small consensus of ego way, im just trying to get a handle on something i dont really 'get'.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Especially where's money involved and political power likely bed fellows.

 

[smcder]

boom in goes another verbal hand-grenade from randal.

but before i read that i read constance's previous reply, and the way it is crafted, well it looks like a consensus of ego to me, the '' who can deny it '' question cements it, thats if i am right, and just in a small consensus of ego way, im just trying to get a handle on something i dont really 'get'.

boom in goes another verbal hand-grenade from randal.

Just remember . . . you don't have to pull the pin . . . ;-)

 

[manxman]

all i meant was another skirmish was afoot with the randal comment, constance will sort him, 1/2 the lady 6/4 the canadian 100/1 bar.

 

[smcder]

all i meant was another skirmish was afoot with the randal comment, constance will sort him, 1/2 the lady 6/4 the canadian 100/1 bar.

Odds on the lady but short odds on Ufology?

 

[manxman]

yes it's around a 120% book but sssh, a mans gorra have an edge.


edit
no its not goddammit im giving money away

1/2 = 62.5%
6/4 = 40%
100/1 = 1%

sorry evens is all yer getting about randal.

 

[PCarr]

In my lifetime I have seen it: Plate Tectonics, for one. To even mention it was to be hooted down in Geology Class. By the professor.

Mention an asteroid hitting the earth in relatively historic times - same reaction. I recall vividly the over-rated Carl Sagen hooting down Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas. The "consensus of the ego" in spades!

And Velikovsky's "ideas" are still demonstrably false. Sagan was RIGHT about that.

 

[Tyger]

And Velikovsky's "ideas" are still demonstrably false. Sagan was RIGHT about that.

The case demonstrates the 'consensus of ego' - since Sagan turned around and proffered his own 'asteroid hitting the earth' scenario.

 

[trainedobserver]

I think it is important to remember that whether you are talking religion, science, or philosophy, you are talking about human activities complete with all the baggage that implies.

 

[Tyger]

I think it is important to remember that whether you are talking religion, science, or philosophy, you are talking about human activities complete with all the baggage that implies.

In spades!

 

[PCarr]

The case demonstrates the 'consensus of ego' - since Sagan turned around and proffered his own 'asteroid hitting the earth' scenario.

Strawman. Of course asteroids have hit the Earth - millions of times. No one doubts that, and it doesn't make Velikovsky right or SAgan inconsistent.

 

[trainedobserver]

yes it's around a 120% book but sssh, a mans gorra have an edge.


edit
no its not goddammit im giving money away

1/2 = 62.5%
6/4 = 40%
100/1 = 1%

sorry evens is all yer getting about randal.

I'll wager 400 quatloos on the newcomer. (Had to beat Burnt to the STOS punch.)

 

[Tyger]

Strawman. Of course asteroids have hit the Earth - millions of times. No one doubts that, and it doesn't make Velikovsky right or Sagan inconsistent.

Sagan was vicious with Velikovsky. He brought none of his 'consistency' to the table when debating Velikovsky, and was, in fact, purposely misleading when arguing the various points. Sagan was on an ego trip from start to finish - reprehensible man. It was always about him - always about 'looking good', appearing 'top dog'.

Velikovsky's 'sin' was that he crossed disciplinary lines. How could he be 'right' - when he had strayed from his area of concentration. A no-no.

 

[PCarr]

I think it is important to remember that whether you are talking religion, science, or philosophy, you are talking about human activities complete with all the baggage that implies.

That doesn't mean all bets are off. Not at all.