BAUT Review for Parents and Teachers

[Gillianren]

AFAIK, The Easter bunny was not said to lay eggs, just deliver them!

Depends on which version of the Easter Bunny you've heard.

[Strange]

My point exactly. You can not determine the odds! And that's where it must end. The rest is personal speculation (on both sides).

That is simply extraordinary. There was a discussion recently (not sure if it was on BAUT or elsewhere) about why people who "sign up" for one conspiracy or fringe science theory almost always seem to believe in several (or all) of them. This would seem to be a clue.

So AdamL, as you consider all hyopthesis equally valid and equally probable, can you explain why believing in the Easter Bunny or Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't exactly equivalent to believing in alien visitors? (Or you can follow MicVR's lead and claim that this question is an insult of some sort.)

[Strange]

But science isn't about hedging your current bets so that, whatever happens in the long run, you can claim to have not been wrong. It's about building useful models of the world according to our current understanding.

(I just thought that was worth repeating; a refreshing blast of ice-cold common sense)

[Nereid]

My point exactly. You can not determine the odds! And that's where it must end. The rest is personal speculation (on both sides).

That is simply extraordinary. There was a discussion recently (not sure if it was on BAUT or elsewhere) about why people who "sign up" for one conspiracy or fringe science theory almost always seem to believe in several (or all) of them. This would seem to be a clue.

So AdamL, as you consider all hyopthesis equally valid and equally probable, can you explain why believing that inthe Easter Bunny or Invisible Pink Unicorns isn't exactly equivalent to believing in alien visitors? (Or you can follow MicVR's lead and claim that this question is an insult of some sort.)

An example of where this "you can not determine the odds!" might have some, um, limits is "odds" to do with things personal to the proponents themselves.

For example, is X (a person making this "you can not determine the odds!") OK with not determining them when the proposition is that X was born of a mating between an Alien and a Predator, during the height of the last Ice Age, on an island deep in the Southern Ocean, now beneath the waves; that X's native language is, in fact, one of the extinct ones used by Homo neandathalis in what is today Finland; and that X actually actually beat Sohn Kee-chung in the marathon at the 1936 Berlin Olympics but was not given the gold medal because X was ... (you get the idea)?

IOW, when examined in some detail, "you can not determine the odds!" is less all-encompassing than it is claimed to be.

[pzkpfw]

Some great points above (and learnings about eggs, too).

I was also wondering (hope it's not been covered before and I missed it) just what use the "perpetual agnosticism" is, anyway - in a "sciencey way". I certainly see the point of an "open mind" and not ruling out possibilities before they've actually been disproven, but in the real World, we do need to make some judgement calls. (The N.Z. Skeptics Society web site has always had the saying: "If you hear hoofbeats in the night, think first of Horses, not Zebras". (Note that this saying does accept that Zebras are a possibility - but Unicorns are out.))

Say we've identified the cause of 95% of UFO sightings, and they have mundane explanations. Most of us say that the other 5% would be expected to have mundane explanations too (given the lack of evidence of extra terestrial visitations, and given the explanations of the first 95%). Others seem to say "that's closed minded, and just an opinion anyway - because you can't prove the other 5% were not caused by extra terrestrial visitors you should be 'agnostic' and accept that they might be".

(This is just a summary of the views, they are not meant to be exact quotes of any particular actual post; it's just to set up a scenario for...)

So anyway, what I was wondering is what use that view is? Does it lead to sitting back, saying "it might be aliens or it might be swamp gas" and leaving it at that? Or does it lead to an attempt by science to detect these "possible aliens"? (A kind of "local" SETI) Do the holders of this view think our science budgets (how much?) should cover study into how aliens might be detected? How would this detection be based on anything other than informed speculaton?

---

I also imagine a day when 100% of known UFO sightings were unexplained. I imagine some people said "it might be Venus, or it might be aliens". Then 5% of the sightings were explained. Those people then said "well, the remaining 95% might be swamp gas or might be aliens". Then another 5% were explained and those people said "well, the remaining 90% might be weather balloons or might be aliens". And so on. Eventually 95% percent of sightings have been explained and those people are saying "well, the last 5% might be aliens, you can't prove they are not".

Nereid brought up the excellant relevance of induction. I think a related aspect is the ability to spot trends.

[Canis Lupus]

AFAIK, The Easter bunny was not said to lay eggs, just deliver them!

Joining or reading BAUT would be justified by this post alone.

[HenrikOlsen]

AFAIK, The Easter bunny was not said to lay eggs, just deliver them!

Joining or reading BAUT would be justified by this post alone.

AFAIK, The Easter bunny was not said to lay eggs, just deliver them!

Depends on which version of the Easter Bunny you've heard.

And then there's the BAUT-typical "extra information is available that makes a throw-away comment an interesting subject in itself" follow-up.

And yes, some versions of the Easter Bunny folklore has it actually laying the eggs.

[Strange]

You know, I'm kind of coming round to this whole Easter Bunny Hypothesis as I learn more about it...

[captain swoop]

Easter Bunny is just a corruption of the Hare . Sacred to Eostre.

[Moose]

You know, I'm kind of coming round to this whole Easter Bunny Hypothesis as I learn more about it...

So am I.

[slang]

You know, I'm kind of coming round to this whole Easter Bunny Hypothesis as I learn more about it...

I'm still more attracted to the Half Easter Bunny Hypothesis. Bunny/Chicken crossbreed. Or something. Or maybe squirrel/ostridge. Big eggs, and routinely hidden.

[pzkpfw]

Let's get back to topic now, eh?

[inflector]

So AdamL, as you consider all hyopthesis equally valid and equally probable, can you explain why believing in the Easter Bunny or Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't exactly equivalent to believing in alien visitors?

One needs to distinguish between believing in alien visitors and allowing for their possibility.

We have certainly seen evidence that:

1) Life can evolve from non-life - we are here after all.

2) There at least tens of sextillions of stars and depending on whose assumptions you use somewhere between thousands, millions, billions or trillions of planets where life may be possible.

3) The scientific consensus has proclaimed limits on what was possible in the past that have been eventually proven wrong. Many thought powered flight was impossible.

4) Some physicists believe that it is theoretically possible to "bend space" and travel at superluminal speeds thereby somehow finding a loophole past lightspeed. No one knows how this could be done at the moment beyond handwaving and Star-Trek-level postulations but there is some theoretical wiggle room for a potential new theory in the future.

5) If humans ever attain the level of technology sufficient to achieve superluminal travel we will likely want to visit other planets with life, even those that are at early 21st century technology levels.

6) If we did visit some planets in any such scenario, it seems conceivable that we might want to keep our visit a secret so as not to panic the locals.

Combining the first two points leads me to believe that it is likely that there is life on many other planets and that it is likely that we are not the only intelligent life in the galaxy. I understand that others may make different assumptions.

From points 3 through 6, I also believe that it is possible that aliens could exist with the technology to visit and escape our detection. Nevertheless, I believe it is far far more likely that people are making up stories of alien interaction (or have fallen prey to mental illness or suggestion) than that actual interactions occurred. But I concede the possibility that there could be some actual alien interactions.

I see no proof of this, no evidence of it, but I concede the possibility.

The difference in probability mostly depends, to my way of thinking, on the very guessy assumptions that determine the probable number of intelligent planets in our galaxy and whether or not there is a way to achieve faster-than-light travel. Lots of smart scientists differ by many many orders of magnitude in their assessment of the raw numbers of potential intelligent civilizations as well as possibility of faster-than-light travel using some unknown technology. Some find the Drake Equation to be compelling evidence and others find it to be hogwash. Your particular perspective will color your belief in the possibility that aliens may have visited Earth. There are no obviously right answers since everyone is guessing on the assumptions. Famous scientists disagree on these points, how can we not expect forum members to do the same.

The Easter Bunny cannot exist under any conceivable interpretation of reality and assumptions of scientific theory. I do not concede the possibility of its existence.

There is a big difference between the possible (but unlikely) and pure fantasy.

IMHO, MicVR was merely conceding the possibility that aliens could possibly have visited but he was treated like he was proposing that Easter Bunnies had built chocolate condos in Dubai while he vacationed there.

[Canis Lupus]

One needs to distinguish between believing in alien visitors and allowing for their possibility.

We have certainly seen evidence that:

1) Life can evolve from non-life - we are here after all...

I'm not sure if your post is on topic but it does mention the "Easter Bunny", so I'm assuming it's at least vaguely in the ball park.

Equally, I'm not sure whether there is any evidence for the above statement. Despite the idea's popularity, and much hoped for success in one day being proven, I can't find one chocolate egg of evidence to support it, not even one of those little tiny ones with the soft centres.

There does, on the other rabbit's paw, seem to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary ie. life comes from life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking shouldn't we be going with the weight of evidence, or seeking extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, Occam's razor and all that?

[R.A.F.]

...If we did visit some planets in any such scenario, it seems conceivable that we might want to keep our visit a secret so as not to panic the locals.

Really?...and of course if we did that, we could assume that visiting aliens would do that too??? Other than a "excuse" for irrational alien behavior, just why would you think that??

MicVR was merely conceding the possibility that aliens could possibly have visited...

Even though there is absolutely no credible evidence that they have...

[Nereid]

[...]

IMHO, MicVR was merely conceding the possibility that aliens could possibly have visited but he was treated like he was proposing that Easter Bunnies had built chocolate condos in Dubai while he vacationed there.

I have a rather different HO.

As far as I could see - and I could well be wrong - MicVR's expressed views, in this thread, on scientific agnosticism/closed-mindedness/etc were not limited to UFOs/alien visitation/etc; rather, they were (and still are?) very general, encompassing just about the whole of science and rational enquiry.

In particular, he made no distinction at all between "the possibility that aliens could possibly have visited" and "proposing that Easter Bunnies had built chocolate condos in Dubai while he vacationed there" (of course, I may be wrong).

And because he did not make any such distinction, it is entirely reasonable - IMHO - to be "treated like he was proposing that Easter Bunnies had built chocolate condos in Dubai while he vacationed there."

Of course, I may be wrong ... and I would welcome being shown to be wrong, by presentation of material taken directly - and only - from this thread.

[Jeff Root]

I make distinctions between speculation and fiction.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[caveman1917]

3) The scientific consensus has proclaimed limits on what was possible in the past that have been eventually proven wrong. Many thought powered flight was impossible.

And thus people ask for evidence.

I see no proof of this [alien visitation], no evidence of it, but I concede the possibility.

I don't think anyone here is actually postulating it is impossible, just improbable - there's a difference.

The Easter Bunny cannot exist under any conceivable interpretation of reality and assumptions of scientific theory.

The fact that your warp drive thing fares the same doesn't bother you? At least concerning the scientific theory part, "conceivable" is fairly subjective.

There is a big difference between the possible (but unlikely) and pure fantasy.

Probably, but it is subjective. Think evidence..

[pzkpfw]

Equally, I'm not sure whether there is any evidence for the above statement. Despite the idea's popularity, and much hoped for success in one day being proven, I can't find one chocolate egg of evidence to support it, not even one of those little tiny ones with the soft centres.

There does, on the other rabbit's paw, seem to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary ie. life comes from life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking shouldn't we be going with the weight of evidence, or seeking extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, Occam's razor and all that.

Abiogenesis is mainstream science, and claims to the contrary should perhaps be kept to the ATM sub-forum (e.g. see current BAUT rules on panspermia). If you wish to dispute this advice, use a P.M. or a report.

[Tensor]

There is a big difference between the possible (but unlikely) and pure fantasy.

The problem here is that, following currently known physics, the ETH explanation is pure fantasy. I know, people have stated that our level of technology can build multi generational starships or possibly get to 20-30% of the speed of light. The problem with that is we still can't duplicate the so call 'turn on a dime" or zoom off faster than anything I've seen before type things.
Could a advanced technology with advanced physics do it? Sure. And I'll be among the first to change my mind, when I see it. Until then, it's still fantasy by our current physical rules.

IMHO, MicVR was merely conceding the possibility that aliens could possibly have visited but he was treated like he was proposing that Easter Bunnies had built chocolate condos in Dubai while he vacationed there.

Really? From Moose in post #66:

MicVR doesn't buy the Easter Bunny because the claim is implausible on its face (mammals don't lay eggs, let alone chocolate ones), and there's no reliable evidence to challenge that implausibility. I don't buy his UFOs because the claim is implausible on its face (mostly on engineering/physics grounds), and there's no reliable evidence to challenge that implausibility.

That one chooses to dismiss one example based on fantasy characteristics and the other dismisses it based on their interpretation of physics and engineering doesn't change the fact that the actual physical evidence for the Easter Bunny and ETH explanation for UFOs is the same, zero.

Part of MicVR's problem, IMHO, was his stance mentioned here:
And that is just the essential point of my criticism of this forum. It is that agnostic and tolerant attitude that is lacking in this forum.
You have to go where the evidence leads you. And in the absence of evidence a scientist must remain agnostic.

Part of the problem I have with that stance is it is well known in science that theories are the best description we have, until proven otherwise. Is it my opinion if I state that c is the fastest any signal can travel? After all, I don't have any physical evidence that can't. Just a lot of experiments that haven't traveled faster and some math that suggests that c is a limit. From your other posts here, I'd be willing to state that you would say that c is a limit for signals also, based on our current explanations and experiments. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a built in assumption, with a theory, that a theory could be wrong, and that a scientist who talks about the theory is agnostic about the theory. It's a change from the "laws" pre 1900. Scientists (and people here for the most part) are quite aware that a theory could be wrong and there could be other explanations. But until something else better comes along, they are going to explain a theory as if it's fact, without putting conditions on it. If that is not agnostic, then so be it.

Now, this does not apply to speculative items. I will routinely state that white holes, for example, while allowed by GR, are highly unstable. Which means they are highly unlikely to actually exist, by current theories. Is this non-agnostic and close-minded? If it is, again, so be it. But that is what our current theories tell us. You want to change my mind? Show me the GR equations that show a white hole is not highly unstable. Or, failing that, show me a new theory of gravity that will show white holes are not highly unstable. Is that closed minded an non-agnostic? I don't think so, but I'm willing to see evidence to the contrary.

As for UFO being intelligent being from another planet. We have zero evidence UFO's are that. I would love to be proven wrong. But, until then, without evidence, there is no more reason to believe there are intelligent beings in UFOs than in (take your pick of any mythological god).

[AdamL]

I agree with everything inflector said in post #193 and personally, I come to very similar conclusions.

He (or she) was also right about the blatant misrepresentations MicVR had to endure in this thread.
The same is now happening to me. Well, my friends who know BAUT, predicted that that would happen. I guess I am naive in assuming that people here would value truth and intellectual honesty.
My friends were right (and I believe EDG said it as well): this is mostly a club of hardened and very closed-minded "skeptics". Arguments that reveal those traits are distorted to a degree that has nothing to do with what was originally said. My friends were right...

To BAUT members:
I am sure most of you are decent and friendly human beings and we might have fun sharing a beer and just have a human conversation.
Intellectually, however, we do not see eye to eye. The dominant climate of closed-mindedness at BAUT is saddening. I hope your eyes will some day be opened.
And I agree with MicVR: you are (and should be) free to share and indulge in your personal opinions all you want here at BAUT. But this forum is certainly not suitable for a scientific education of young and impressionable people.


To other readers:
Just read the first few posts of the Michio Kaku thread here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....11-Michio-Kaku
They illustrate the intolerance against the personal opinion of a respectable scientists and the closed-mindedness of this forum (which was one of the main topics of this thread here) perfectly.

The Michio Kaku thread and this thread speak for themselves. Nothing more needs to be said.

[Strange]

One needs to distinguish between believing in alien visitors and allowing for their possibility.

Quite. I accept the possibility. I just see no evidence it has happened.

There is a big difference between the possible (but unlikely) and pure fantasy.

As your "possible" case consisted in part of fantasy, I don't see the difference as that great.

But you are missing the point: which is there more evidence for?

IMHO, MicVR was merely conceding the possibility that aliens could possibly have visited but he was treated like he was proposing that Easter Bunnies had built chocolate condos in Dubai while he vacationed there.

Except that isn't what he was doing. He repeatedly stated that he believed (some) UFOS were aliens. He agreed that there was no evidence but thought others were closed minded for not agreeing with him.

That seems to me to be equivalent to me calling you closed minded for not believing the chocolate condos in Dubai thing. (Which I am obviously not going to do, because it is a daft idea )

[Strange]

He (or she) was also right about the blatant misrepresentations MicVR had to endure in this thread.

Could you point to one example? Just one. Because I can point to several where MicVR has misrepresented me.

The same is now happening to me.

Really? Really?? Could you point to one example? Just one.

It seems like all you and MicVR are willing to do is make accusations, rather than discuss or explain anything.

And I agree with MicVR: you are (and should be) free to share and indulge in your personal opinions all you want here at BAUT. But this forum is certainly not suitable for a scientific education of young and impressionable people.

You and MicVR are free to have and post whatever opinions you want. And even discuss them. But it seems totally unreasonable to dismiss everyone who disagrees (because there is no evidence) as closed minded pseudo-skeptics. And I think that would be a good lesson to learn.

If you want young people to grow up with no respect for the value of evidence, and to think that dismissing other points of view as "closed-minded" makes a good argument then, sure, keep them away from BAUT.

[Tog]

I've written this out about three times so far, but never actually posted it.

A US quarter is 15/16 of an inch in diameter and 1/16 of an inch thick. If one were to measure the perimeter of a cross-section is would equal 2 inches. Given a flat, level surface, I can stand a quarter on edge most of the time, with relative ease. Given that he edge makes up 6.25% of the total perimeter, and the idea that all things that could possibly happen should be given equal weight, I'm curious about why the only options for calling a flipped quarter are Heads or Tails.

If all possible outcomes should be considered equally, then the odds of a quarter landing on edge is 33%.
If we break it down by width of surface, the odds fall to 6.25%, which is low, but still double the odds of any given number coming up on a US roulette wheel (we have the 0 and double 0), yet I've personally had my numbers come up often enough that my lifetime average is still a positive gain.

So which is it on the coin landing on edge? 33.33% or 6.25%

Or is there a third option that takes more factors into consideration? Speed of rotation. The bounce on impact. The draft from the air conditioner. Certainly, I've never actually seen a coin land on edge and stay there, but it's possible.

And, there is far more direct, observable and repeatable evidence that a quarter can stand on edge than there is that any UFO ever reported is an ETV. So why isn't landing on edge a valid option in a coin toss? Any physics people want to work up the actual math for the real odds of it happening?

That's all that's being said here. Things can be possible, while still being so improbable that they cannot rightfully be considered an option until we have actual evidence that it can happen. Personally, I have no issues with intelligent life existing on other planets. But, there is a HUGE gap between the possibility of it and saying that that thing I saw in the sky was one.

I have no issues with the possibility of humans possessing psychic abilities either, but if someone tells they're they are psychic, I'm not taking it on face value. I want to see some sort of evidence.

Finally, wouldn't Chocolate condos in Dubai need so much paraffin in them to stop them from melting that might better described as chocolate scented candles?

[grant hutchison]

The Michio Kaku thread and this thread speak for themselves. Nothing more needs to be said.

I'm certainly comfortable with that.

Grant Hutchison

[Strange]

I thought it might be worth revisiting the original post as we have had some interesting examples in ATM recently (and to get away from pointless discussions about people's beliefs). We have had a couple full of the usual wordy waffling with no real content and we have had a few where people have some observational and mathematical detail.

Just focusing on the latter group, within a few days these started to go two different ways. In one subset the questions, answers and ensuing discussions remained friendly and in one case resulted in one of the BAUT regulars almost providing assistance to the ATM proponent (which could be taken to be against the rules). That thread has been closed temporarily while the ATM proponent works out some more details. Another was closed when the ATM proponent realised they argument wouldn't currently hold water.

In one thread there has been nothing but some polite requests for clarification and some polite suggestions for ways to improve the presentation.

However, another one has already started to go a different way, arguably becoming more hostile as characterized by MicVR:

However, the general tone expressed by many (probably the majority of) BAUTians is very closed-minded, garnered with hostility, impoliteness and ridicule.

The reason for the difference appears (to me) to be due to the ATM proponent rather than the questioner. Especially as the questioner was also involved in at least one of the other threads that ended "happily".

The questions asked have been terse and to the point. No introductory waffle along the lines of "that is an interesting idea but how would you account for..." Just a straightforward "How do you account for..."

I can't see anything particularly wrong with that. I suppose it could be cosnidered impolite or hostile, but that seems a bit extreme. In the "happy" threads that are now closed, the ATM proponent generally responded propmptly with an equally terse (and to the point) answer and things moved along quite smoothly.

In the "unhappy" thread, the ATM proponent has started trying to avoid answering questions and complaining about the "attitude" of the questioner. I suppose if you are feeling negative about BAUT you will see that as direct result of the style of questioning. And if you feel that BAUT generally does a good job, you will think it is the ATMer's fault for being defensive and over-sensitive. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.... Sometimes people rub each other up the wrong way and sometimes they hit it off.

The only thing that could be considered "closed minded" in any of these is that people have asked for more mathematical detail or for an explanation about why the ATM theory is contradicted by observation.

In none of the recent threads did I see any sign of ridicule (not even in the waffly content-free ones which might deserve it).

[Tensor]

To other readers:
Just read the first few posts of the Michio Kaku thread here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....11-Michio-Kaku
They illustrate the intolerance against the personal opinion of a respectable scientists and the closed-mindedness of this forum (which was one of the main topics of this thread here) perfectly.

The Michio Kaku thread and this thread speak for themselves. Nothing more needs to be said.

No, I think a few more things need pointing out. I would note how MicVR has avoided answering questions in Michio Kaku thread and here. For instance, JayUtah wanted to clarify the position of the Null hypothesis (among other questions by Jay and others that MicVR left open). I've asked you several questions in this thread and in this thread which have been left unanswered. The same pattern as MicVR. Why is it those who brand us close minded psuedo-skeptics, when given the chance to change our minds with some evidence, instead of answering questions honestly, either ignore those questions or start trying to push the buttons of the members here?

[Spoons]

Language is complex. Misunderstandings are commonplace.

Is it not more sensible, if one believes they have been insulted, to engage the other party in clarification of their intent rather than to assume one of a negative nature?

e.g. Gillian (not to single her out) and I have misunderstood each other on several occasions, and I for one am very glad that we've given each other ther opportunity to clarify our intents, as I may otherwise have made a false assessment of her character, stopped paying attention to her posts (I refuse to use the ignore function) and missed some incredibly insightful comments. If we all practised this, and I believe we mostly do, I don't think this thread would have arisen.

The only other way this sort of thing arises is either if someone is intentionally being rude, in which case we are regularly reminded of the report function, or if someone wants to feel slighted.

This thread itself is littered with what appear to be misunderstandings or intentional misrepresentations, and in a number of cases people asked for and received clarifications which cleared things up immediately. For example, orionjim's comments. Communication can be your best friend or worst enemy. The choice is yours. I believe you will find the people here, as I have, extremely reasonable and accommodating.

[Jeff Root]

Everything Spoons said!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[R.A.F.]

Language is complex. Misunderstandings are commonplace.

Do you really think that this is all about "misunderstandings"?...I certainly don't.

There have been NUMEROUS polite requests for evidence that have been completely ignored. I think that says more about these claims than the actual claims themselves.