Order of Kilopi
Here ye, hear ye...
I, A.DIM, think ETi is plentiful in the universe.
Until there is more than a single example of Life, anyone reading my posts should understand that these are simply opinions.
If I come across as matter of fact, please refer back to this thread for clarity.
Much obliged!
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
I understand the sentiment, and in a way your frustration, but I disagree. IMO, placing a CYP post and continuing to be ambiguous in your ETI statements is no substitute for clarity while posting. Simply seperate speculation from fact, and ATM from mainstream, and I don't see the problem. I don't see this post/thread as a valid cover for continued posting in the same style. It needs to be differentiated per post, in every post. I think Moose sums it up nicely:
"The problem, A.DIM, is your sloppy use of language. You can't say "It is certain that" and claim that's an opinion. It's an assertion of fact. Assertions of fact carry certain evidentiary responsibilities. Responsibilities you're not meeting (and in many cases, cannot possibly meet).
So yes, you should say "I think" and "IMO" where you're indicating a personal preference, opinion, interpretation, etc. When stating fact, you should provide evidence. You should say what you mean as clearly as you can. Language is important, A.DIM. Communication skills on a written medium such as the Internet are everything."
Order of Kilopi
So I should've said, "According to those scientists involved in the search for ET who think it will be found in the next 20-30yrs, I will most certainly be alive when it is." ??
Sorry Serentiude, but I disagree that when discussing ET one should qualify each statement with IMO or I think.
Of course we don't know at this point.
If we did, there'd be no debate!
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
I see nothing wrong with that. "These scientists [link] believe they will find ET withing 20-30 years. I will most certainly be alive to see that, according to their prediciton."Originally Posted by A.DIM
What is wrong with that statement?
I'm sorry you disagree. But when one presents a chronic problem of presenting opinion as fact, and presenting pseudo-science such as Ancient Astronauts, etc... into discussions, I think it is a wise policy to follow. It simply saves you alot of trouble in the long run, methinks. Feel free to disagree, though. This is by no means a warning or ruling of any kind - it is merely opinion. Follow it or not at your want. I merely state it because I think it would save you trouble in the long run.
And I know less than most, likely. These debates are great, and you add a certain amount of spice. I merely think more careful wording on your part likely would save trouble down the road. Follow my advice or not at your discretion, though. As stated above, this is merely opinion only
Order of Kilopi
This is a similarly sloppy claim, specifically the words "most certainly". It isn't. It's within a normal human lifespan, and it's fair to say it's within your life expectancy, but there's no such thing as certainty (and certainly not "most certainly") you'll live to be a part of it. It may sound pedantic, but one of my first bosses explained: "God forbid," (he was devoutly religious) "you might get hit by a bus tomorrow. We crosstrain and document everything, just in case."
More recently, I've used the same explanation (almost, but not quite verbatim) with some of my newer coworkers when I was the sole prog on site.
Sloppy language means sloppy ideas.
Learn to hedge your bets. The point of science, when properly done, is that when we finally commit to an assertion, after all of the appropriate work's been done (no slacking), we can (finally) be certain it's the truth. If you're parrotting anything from anyone, you're doing it wrong.
Order of Kilopi
Ah, so "most certainly" should be removed as a phrase in stating an opinion as well?
I've never professed to be doing science in expressing myself on the topic of ET.
But try Grinspoon's Lonely Planets and tell me again how wrong my parroting of his ideas is, ok?
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
Nothing.
But in the past I've been accused of "data mining" or "cherry picking" or "appealing to authority" when providing links that support my ideas.
Links and cites have done nothing to quell the "skepticism" I've encountered here when discussing the topic.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
By "those scientists" are you referring to Seth Shostak? Here's an article on Shostak's idea:
http://space.newscientist.com/channe...biology/dn6189
As a counterpoint it is noted:
Paul Shuch, executive director of the SETI League, a separate organisation in New Jersey, says Shostak's prediction ignores one important factor. "It is altogether reasonable to project the development of human technology, based upon past trends and planned investments," he says.
"But predicting the date, the decade or even the century of contact is another matter because the 'other end' of the communications link is completely out of our hands. It would be nice to think we know something about the existence, distribution, technology and motivation of our potential communications partners in space, but in fact, we don't."
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
Well, A.Dim, when I read something you link to after reading your comments or conclusions about it, I often wonder if I'm actually reading the same article. If the article says "It is possible that . . .," "it is speculated that . . ." and so forth, those qualifiers rarely seem to make it to your comments. If the article contains counterpoints to your preferred position, those also tend to be absent. Very often, the qualifications of the article's writer are very much in doubt, or the writer argues for things that are very much in the realm of pseudoscience.
This tends to foster a certain amout of skepticism.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
You see, the trouble is, A.DIM, I honestly don't think you are using the words "think" and "opinion" correctly.
I mean, how can you possibly think that ETi is plentiful in the universe? You can hope it, you can assume it (say, for the purposes of discussion), you can imagine it (say, for the purposes of writing a science fiction novel). But to say you think it means one of two things: you have some supporting evidence, or you are deluded.
It's the same with opinion. Suppose a pregnant woman whom I hardly know is due to give birth soon. Leaving aside complications, she is going to have a girl or a boy.
Now, can I have an opinion on whether it will be a girl or a boy? Of course not! It would be meaningless. Whereas if you said, "Well, in my opinion it will be a boy," then I would assume you are basing this opinion on something. For example, you might be the doctor who examined her, or the ultrasound scan operator, or she might have confided in you that she found out.
However, if it turned out that you didn't know her any better than I do, I would say, "So who do you think you are, giving an opinion like that? Why do you think you're in a better position to give an opinion than I am?"
Order of Kilopi
I base what I think about ETi on the same accepted assumptions as SETI scientists themselves, just as Shostak states in the article linked to by VanRijn.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Senior Member
My thoughts exactly. Boy, A.DIM...Van Rijn sure has got you "pegged".
Order of Kilopi
And what about Shostak's response to this?
Why did you leave that off your quote?
He's simply using the accepted assumptions used by SETI scientists and astrobiologists themselves.
And yet here I am "wrong" for essentially doing the same...
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Senior Member
Although I very much respect Seth Shostack and the work he does, I think he is "going out on a limb" making predictions without any actual supportive evidence.
What he is doing is speculating, and there is nothing "wrong" with that as long as everyone agrees that it is only speculation.
That's where you seem to be having a problem...separating speculation, and opinion from established fact.
Order of Kilopi
Well, the point in this thread, RAF was to make it clear that nothing I say on this topic, no matter how "factual" it comes across, my words are simply opinions and conjecture.
We don't know, can't know, based on a single example.
I've conceded this, more than a few times.
I've not had a problem saying so.
It is others who repeatedly ignore such statements by me and insist that what I say sounds factual; namely, youself.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Senior Member
Can you not take responsibility for your own behavior???
sheesh...
Order of Kilopi
I have already tried to answer this one. It is at least partly due to your misuse of key words and phrases.
For example, take this sentence:
"There is a real possibility that ETi is plentiful throughout the universe."
I think everybody would agree that there's nothing wrong with that sentence, and it probably sums up the feelings of Shostack and co.
Now take this sentence:
"I think ETi is plentiful throughout the universe."
In terms of content it is superficially similar to the first sentence. But that "I think" gets my hackles up.
I'm not sure I can explain it any more clearly than that. But, A.DIM, you seem to think you are being persecuted, and to me, it seems obvious why. I am honestly trying to help you here.
Order of Kilopi
How many times shall I reitereate that mine are only opinions on the ETH?
How many times will you reply to my posts knowing my stance but still suggesting "this sounds factual?"
Are you the "skeptical police" protecting innocent readers from being swayed by what can only be considered opinion?
Sheeesh.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
I appreciate what you're trying to do, Paul, but I see this as largely pedantic semantics when the regulars (the primary respondents here) know that I agree with the "single example" and the "we don't know" bits.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
Well no.
You make the statement, "We don't know," then you follow it with another statement (such as "I think ETi is plentiful throughout the universe") that kind of suggests you think you know. As someone else pointed out, that makes your "we don't know" sound like lip service.
Now if you said, "We don't know, but I favour the possibility of ETi being plentiful throughout the universe," then you wouldn't have that problem.
Order of Kilopi
This is a discussion board. Opinions here are expressed through words - written words, without tone of voice, without facial expressions (except the occasional smiley), without hand gestures. Much of the time the people reading the words are from distant parts of the world.
You have got to appreciate that using words correctly is vital in these circumstances.
Order of Kilopi
I'm sorry, it simply befuddles me to think that we're arguing over words / phrases in discussing the ETH, the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
Then you are beyond hope.I'm sorry, it simply beffuddles me to think that we're arguing over words / phrases in discussing the ETH, the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis.
I tried. I failed. Goodbye, A.DIM.
Senior Member
I don't know...how many times will you be using the word "certain" to discribe something that you can't possibily be "certain" of??
Which "stance" would that be??...the stance in support of (almost) all things peudo-scientific, or the stance that "parrots" scientists such as Carl Sagan??How many times will you reply to my posts knowing my stance but still suggesting "this sounds factual?"
I'll post as I wish to post unless/until a mod/admin tells me not to...and I'll leave any "policing"(sp) to the mods/admin.Are you the "skeptical police" protecting innocent readers from being swayed by what can only be considered opinion?
Order of Kilopi
Indeed I do!
I hold Bachelors in English and Sociology; I know full well how syntax and grammar affect interpersonal communications.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
Look, I conceded that rewording my "most certain" remark to include "according to SETI scientists" might've avoided this mess.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
Then, IMO, you have no valid excuse for sloppy communication.
Senior Member
The "regulars" here don't know that at all. Oh, you've posted as much, but as Paul (and others) points out, your posts show that you are only paying lip service to that idea.
It's no secret that you want to be "taken" as a mainstream proponent, but you're against the mainstream ideas betray you.
Order of Kilopi
Total rubbish, RAF.
"Taken" as a mainstream proponent of what?
I have no desire to be taken as anything around here other than as a "space enthusiast," just like the rest of us.
No, I think your aversion to my ideas is simply, and firmly, rooted in disbelief.
That, as you know, is not skepticism.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Senior Member
Well, it is true that I don't believe most of what you say...
Oh my goodness...I'm a pseudo-skeptic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote