Every person on Earth could agree that Earth is flat and it wouldn't affect the reality of whether or not extraterrestrials visit earth even a little bit.
The shared causal structure is the absence of facts and denial of science. Nearly every religion on earth also suffers from that in their gospel, where many fictitious and supernatural phenomena are bundled together and sold for truth.
I'd prefer to speak about "evidence in support of/against" rather than "facts", which often conceals a presuming-the-consequent kind of fallacy.
> denial of science
Whether "science" is believed or denied by any particular person has no effect on whether or not extraterrestrial intelligence has or is visiting earth.
Demanding that "science" be believed is un-scientific. I am not drawing an equivalence between science and religion here, but pointing out that your argument is a super hand-wavey appeal to an inviolable "gospel". I'm old enough to remember when a theory like intra-galactic panspermia was regarded like canals-on-Mars.
In my view, ETI theories are lacking any credible evidence and this makes me sad.
There is nothing anti-science about the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence. In fact its apparent absence is has a name -- it's called the Fermi Paradox.
And the facts are just ... released. It's the interpretation of the observations that are disputed. And unless you think they are all fake, the explanations that do not involve alien tech are non-trivial to say the least.
I'm not sure why you'd think there is any shared causal structure with flat earthers at all.
Extraterrestrial intelligence existing somewhere in the universe, and extraterrestrial life visiting Earth are two distinct things, and the former is vastly more probable than the latter.
Yes, and to bring it back to GP's point, if someone comes telling you they just saw a flying saucer rise on a big chem trail above the flat earth's horizon, then you perhaps don't take their next claim all too serious.
You are assuming that the people who are arguing about "transients", or people like Avi Loeb, are also people who believe in flat earth or flying saucers.
True, but if you don't have sufficient knowledge of IR to assess the claim that a particular photo cannot be a bird, the tendency of the people making and believing that claim are usually equally confident that jet fuel cannot melt steel beams and that vaccines contain microchips is a compelling argument against it.
Similarly the absence of a conspiracy of freemasons running something does not inhibit the existence of a conspiracy of Taylor Swift fans running it in any possible way. But I think any objective assessment of whether the Swiftie conspiracy is likely to be real or not should probably take into account the possibility people positing Swiftie conspiracies have been influenced more by well established tropes about freemasons and Jews, and if the alternate hypothesis that a common human failure mode involves positing the idea groups they distrust secretly conspire to achieve unrelated outcome they dislike is well supported and the claim of an actual Swiftie conspiracy isn't...
The only thing that cuts against this is that if I was an intelligent extraterrestrial wishing to remain secret at a time of widespread interest in the possibility of extraterrestrials, I'd probably actively select the sort of people that might discredit the existence of UFOs by pattern matching all sorts of rubbish to reveal myself to.
> if I was an intelligent extraterrestrial wishing to remain secret at a time of widespread interest in the possibility of extraterrestrials, I'd probably actively select the sort of people that might discredit the existence of UFOs by pattern matching all sorts of rubbish to reveal myself to.
I've read claims that the Cold War-era US Gov employed exactly this strategy on the people camping out along the fence at sites like Area 51, taking pictures of advanced aircraft under development. I.e., they actually took some people down into the basement and showed them "alien bodies" to confuse the Soviets.
Conspicuously missing in your argument is a link to a credible source with any evidence (or even 1st person testimony). It should be easy.
Instead, I just see elaborate narratives about political motivations and garbage evidence like that laughably low-effort fake video presented in Congress by Representatives.
Lol, what? Reads as zany non-sequitur in context - did you reply right? Your frame that any timing of this drop is disputed and requires evidence, I reject. If you say precisely which phrases you felt that about, your comment might be better.
Haha Nooo, lol, not joking at all! And no, you do not encounter such as there's no person like me and you don't know me. You tried to fit a real person into a stand-in category in your head you're already tired of arguing with :)
I get if you wanna pretend a joke to avoid dealing directly, as you've done here. Very crab like! Little crab. One would think a crab so experienced would be more deft at directness lol
As used here "UFO-crazy" wasn't a supposition, it was a constraint.
"UFO-crazy uncles" are known to exist. This is not an extraordinary claim. The existence of such uncles provides no evidence for or against extraterrestrial visitors or other aerial phenomena.
In context seemed more like a smear for any who don't dismiss as unremarkable. But I'm glad you took it as the narrow case, tho - do they really "exist", or might they have just been right all along? Lol
People who believe in "chemtrails" are (in my un-scientific survey) pretty likely to be conspiracy enthusiasts ("cranks", "crazy", etc.).
But they're not wrong that the stuff coming out of the back of jet aircraft is changing the climate.
Small, localized weather engineering programs have long been real (cloud seeding), and planetary-scale climate engineering projects are now openly discussed by governments. E.g. https://www.epa.gov/geoengineering/about-geoengineering "Types of solar geoengineering techniques include: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) – adding small reflective particles to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) to reflect incoming sunlight. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), one of the types of chemicals considered for SAI, can chemically react in the stratosphere to form reflective sulfate aerosols."
Except "stuff" isn't coming out of the back of aircraft: they're talking about aircraft contrails which is just condensed water vapor from wingtip turbulence.
The people who claim they're monitoring chemtrails aren't even watching aircraft which are deliberately dispensing payloads, because it just isn't that common in the first place (unless you go out and watch crop dusting, but then you can also just see the guy land, get out, and talk about it).
And then a counter example of something broadly accepted but untrue. The humoral theory and blood letting, practiced for thousands of years. This is what killed George Washington.
Yep. The planets do not, in fact, revolve around the Sun. They revolve around the solar system center of mass (barycenter). This is an error of about 0.25 degree viewed from Earth which was significant at the time.
> Hand washing prevents illness
Did the person who we credit for hand washing advocate for it because he was "crazy", or because he had a well-founded theory?
> COVID came from a lab, not a wet market
The lab-leak theory has not held up to scrutiny. It is considered refuted. Though IMO the initial backlash was excessive.
> Hunter Biden laptop was real
No one outside of politics said the laptop "wasn't real", many emails were cryptographically authenticated very early on. There was a great deal of concern by experts that a coordinated disinfo op was being played into the election. It was, though probably not with the involvement of foreign actors this time. Nothing about that laptop ended up being relevant to the Presidential candidate actually running for election.
> And then a counter example of something broadly accepted but untrue. The humoral theory and blood letting, practiced for thousands of years. This is what killed George Washington.
We're talking about examples of things a "crazy uncle" might believe that turned out to be true. These are just abandoned pre-scientific medical theories and treatments.
These libraries are not more human friendly. Humans can write GTK or win32 or QT or Cocoa code just fine. GUI frameworks are very complex and often have very in depth setup code that is required. It requires a huge investment to get an app up and running with a GUI framework, and AI makes setting that up approachable when it was a real challenge before.
Have you ever written GUI code using one of the big GUI frameworks?
I, not the previous writer, have and PSG did exactly this. It made writting compact GUIs for smaller projects manageable without going into the deeps of GTK, win32 or QT.
I tried a bunch of Frameworks and some were easier (PSG, Kivi) and others much harder.
That's a really good point: now is about when we would expect to see the effects of third-round layoffs and vibes-oriented programming make it to critical production systems.
I'm reluctant to form conclusions from early returns but, wow, there have been some prominent outages recently.
Bash is one of the most complicated languages in common use and is horribly error-prone.
It's almost never useful alone, but as an interface to call other CLI tools.
I don't think this is a particularly useful comparison.
You abandoned your dreams of mastering Haskell by making a system operator UI using QT, but gave up out of concern that `journalctl` might not be in PATH?
I gave up because I couldn't see a way to make the program consistent. The path issues were the most immediate concern, yes, but not the only one. I really wanted a consistent UI because there are few things that irritate me more than UI layouts switching up on me, but I just couldn't see a way of doing that. For example, OpenRC stores the complete description of service definitions in 2 separate files, one of which is optional. You have a shell script that contains the code to run in /etc/init.d, but you also have a config file that describes the environment that code is ran in in /etc/conf.d. If I wanted to have services be editable live in the GUI (and that was one of the main features I wanted out of it), I would have had to split the text editor into two panes for OpenRC.
Overall, I guess this is a kind of perfectionism or choice paralysis I guess. I have continued to write Haskell since, and am now comfortable with the base language, if not the ecosystem (I have no idea what a lens is).
I often have to remind myself that we have the programs we have today only because somebody wanted them to exist more than they wanted them to express abstract properties like consistency.
reply