The Alien-Haunted World | Hacker News Reader

The Alien-Haunted World

m.nautil.us

After listening to his interview with Lex Fridman, I'm with Dr. Loeb on this one: Loeb's position is scientific. He's not saying he's certain that Oumuamua was sent by aliens; it is a distinct possibility, with just enough evidence that we should take the possibility seriously, rather than ruling it out as the orthodox inquisitionists posing as scientists do.

For me it went into the opposite direction after listening to 'omuamua is not aliens' video [1]. I think Dr. Loeb, contrary to what he says, is exploiting this a bit for some personal gain and fame.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wICOlaQOpM0

As I keep saying everytime this topic comes up: resulting in what new experimentation, that is meaningfully distinct from what would be done normally?

We could prepare better for similar occurrences. Such as funding better the astronomers and the labs so that we have instruments able to at least detect and take pictures of such objects, if not probe them.

Not to mention the possibility of one hitting the earth, for which we are completely unprepared. Even if it’s just a rock and not an UFO.

The main reason for having this debate is that we weren’t even capable of taking a good picture of it. The best thing we have is a white dot with varying brightness over time. We have no clue what it was and we probably will never know.

The state of the tech we have would be understandable if it was 1990, but in 2021 it’s starting to look pathetic.

Possible venues for experimentation and research: 1. Do we have or should we develop a technology to detect incoming bodies like that earlier? 2. Do we have or should we develop a propulsion technology and/or spacecraft that is able to intercept these bodies at some point in their trajectories and send back some useful information

We are doing both those things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua#Hypothetical_sp...)

We were doing those things before we even detected ʻOumuamua. Whether or not ʻOumuamua specifically is extraterrestrial - which is not worth considering based on weak evidence - didn't change anything.

This is the problem: the evidence doesn't make the case, and "considering the possibility" doesn't lead anywhere interesting in terms of actual experimentation.

What a thought!

Billions of billions of stars, with planets and civilizations, pushing technology to new heights, but ultimately realizing that the best way to leave your handprint on the galactic cave wall is a Universe-wide message in a bottle.

I’m afraid we have more chances of making ourselves known by randomly throwing these bottles, than by answering back to where it came from.

Or it could be a civilization-in-a-bottle artifact with carefully programmed trajectory between several stars. If the message sender blew itself to nuclear ashes, its frozen siblings could have a new opportunity in a new system.

From the article:

This is precisely why an agency like ESA is developing its Comet Interceptor Mission, to be ready to chase future interstellar visitors.

This is basically the thesis of the article and the person you're responding to: the "orthodox inquisionists" are already doing this stuff, because they're not actually as close-minded as Loeb is making them out to be.

One that Loeb has mentioned: the status quo 10-year plan involves searching exoplanets for oxygen, which could arise without life, and which organisms would not necessarily need or produce. Instead, Loeb thinks we ought to look for industrial pollutants. A positive result on that would be extremely interesting.

Another apt religion metaphor: a deist insists there must be a god and an atheist insists there must not be. Neither position has any information or falsifiable claim. An agnostic admits ignorance until observations can be made.

Presumably the agnostic is then worshipping Christianity, Islam and Judaism, as well as the entire Hindu pantheon, various African gods, the Rainbow Serpent...

Claims for the defense of agnosticism always seem to be bizarrely certain about which god they can't be sure doesn't exist.

It is just that there are no observations that would suggest any deity. Scientific ones that is, because we are talking rationality.

So anything else than atheism is purely faith-based. Until the moment it does not incommodate me ona personal level (by teaching "equivalent theories" in schools, or forcing me to wear thisor that) I am fine with that.

What do you think about intelligent design sort arguments? It is hard to understand how random variation and natural selection can produce the equivalent of a biological operating system. I have also a fair amount of experience with evolutionary algorithms, and they add to my perplexity as to how random variation and natural selection are sufficient mechanisms to produce the genome, let alone how the whole system would get started in the first place. This does seem to be a pretty good piece of scientific evidence for the intrusion of something entirely unlike any physical process we know of, and capable of feats only analogous to what human intelligence can produce. This seems to me a quite persuasive scientific argument for something deity-ish.

>an atheist insists there must not be.

Wrong... Only so-called "strong atheism" is active belief in gods' non-existence. Regular (unqualified) atheism is lack of belief in gods' existence.

There is a word for "lack of belief"... Agnostic.

In practice, Deism is indistinguishable from atheism. Both claim that the laws of nature explain all observable phenomena.

Having read both this and the NYT Opinions Manjoo article,

I found the argument in this article a bit weird. Seems to go like:

- There was an Opinion column in a newspaper, focused on a book review, that had a headline that was clickbait-y and slightly misleading (TRUE)

- This opinion column (meanwhile recalling that opinion columns are effectively arguments-for-and-from-perspective) was not 'balanced' with opinions like mine; (TRUE)

- It's frustrating that there is a book about this that does not mention my preferred explanation [n.b. I have bought but not yet read this book, so I cannot myself comment, but for the sake of argument, let's say, TRUE]

- There are some other scientists who have also done excellent work in this field and they are not being mentioned and they may or may not have different opinions, however I will hereby insinuate that they share my view (possibly, TRUE? I don't know e.g. Jill Tarter's view; haven't had a chance to google around.)

So, this article seems to say a bunch of plausible things, but none of which are terribly well-motivated or compelling.

- Opinions columns are allowed to be cases for/against a view, and are not expected to both-sides any given issue;

- The book itself _just is_ a principled, accessible, scientifically-informed argument for the position opposed by Scharf; it's not clear why Scharf needs to write an article apparently decrying both the book and the review of it --- as if the articulation of the position itself was somehow beyond the pale

- Recalling that writers seldom get to pick their headlines, I still worry that the title of this piece (riffing on Sagan's _Demon Haunted World_) implicitly associates demons and aliens as equivalently fanciful. Now, they may well be, but given that *this is the question presently under consideration*, I cannot help but feel a question begged, or at least, prejudiced.

Writing a "popular" book aimed at the general public that espouses a particular theory is often seen as an escalation outside of an expected social norm in scientific publishing.

You're supposed to be a good little scientist, write your paper, get refereed, and hold out your hand for grant money like every one else. You ought not dare stir up the mob of public opinion. The general public shouldn't be paying attention to how science works. They might muck it up.

Thank goodness for the likes of Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Richard Feynman, and Sean Carroll. They've all displayed a love of science strong enough to want to share with any who'll listen, and the wisdom to know science is a big enough idea to withstand scrutiny.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com