But during that time a number of liminal phenomena have stayed liminal. Bigfoot. Ghosts. UFOs. Angel and demons. Clairvoyance. Haunted houses. Telepathy. Dowsing. Many more, I'm sure.
There are two ways to explain that. One is that all of those things have gotten way better at avoiding evidenced encounters. The other is that they are like the scary animals/monsters kids imagine lurk just outside the firelight when you take them camping: things humans imagine to fill the gaps when sensory data is ambiguous.
The answer to this is that there are infinite possible things that could be true. But until there's decent evidence, nobody is obliged to take it seriously.
Do I think there is alien life somewhere in the universe? The odds seem very good. Do I think that a bunch of them have crossed the galaxies just to spend decades hanging around and fucking with people? I don't in the slightest. The simpler explanation is that primate brains evolved to survive on the African savannas are maybe not perfectly tuned to dealing with a universe 93 billion light-years across. That all of these ever-liminal phenomena share a pretty mundane set of explanations in the evolutionary history of the human cognitive architecture.
No one's ever "obliged" to do anything, particularly about this, but "decent" is your judgment. What the decent evidence your family loves you? It's not hard data. it's a story you piece together and your existence depends on it. Far less high stakes whether or not aliens are visiting us or not, for you personally, for easier to accept or reject this belief for personal reasons.
I think something else is involved in what makes this hard for people to consider. Not sure what it is. Maybe something like ridiculous anthropocentrist arrogance? "Aliens can't travel here because we don't know how they could."
What you're doing is classic "god of the gaps" thinking. Science fiction from 100 years ago imagined aliens on Venus and Mars. From early telescope images, people believed there were canals on Mars. It was all bunk, of course. We have enough data that current live on Mars and Venus looks much less likely. So now you've pushed the little green men back to the parts we can't see as well. That's not because there's any evidence there, but because you have started with a conclusion and you're reasoning toward it.
You may say you want there to be aliens here but you're not acting like you're willing to engage with the evidence about this. You're viewing it through a preconceived idea.
Right there's no smoke gun evidence for solar residence but there's no evidence for them not being there. Circumstantial evidence for proximity to help explain the evidence that they're here on Earth.
"God of the gaps" is a biased and weird way to describe something you do every day. You have a hypothesis, you know there's something wrong, somewhere, but you don't know where it is. So you go looking. Is it in your fridge? No. The closet? No. Under the rug? Backseat of the car? No. Where could it be? Maybe you just imagined the thing. But you were so sure. But there's no evidence....But there is. You sensed something was wrong. You saw the thing yesterday, and now can't see it.
Because you have some Wikipedia page and fancy scary name for some thing that's a normal part of human thinking (and science -- where are all those particles? Let's search in other energy levels and collisions ...) then any thing that looks like that is "little green men" and "bunk"? Come on. By that logic the housemate's lost package, the smell in the living room and the bug you hunt down in your program is bunk.
You're sure there's a bug (might it not just be how you're measuring it?), and you employ a process of elimination. That you employ that process does not make you crazy...but it seems you would look yourself in the mirror and think, "I'm crazy for doing god in the gaps thinking about this bug." Or is that just what you say about others but not yourself?
I just think it's not the type of erroneous thinking you think. It's actually logical. We have a big search space, we have some signals, now go find where they originate. It's a big space, and you don't have access to any of it. If you want to sit there and say, there's nothing there. That's completely illogical. It's not even "unlikely" that there's nothing there. You have signals on Earth, and by your logic of the impossibility of intergalactic travel, the signals are more likely to originate locally.
So... just because you didn't find it on Venus or Mars (so far, but have you been there?), doesn't mean they're not here. There's a lot of places we haven't looked, and they could be there.
You may deny it but that doesn't change one iota of the reality. It's just your belief about it. "God of the gaps" cuts both ways. Every time you see a gap, "You can say, see this is more support to what I'm saying." I can say that. SO can you. It doesn't disprove what you think is unlikely. It doesn't make it more likely. People used to say Marilyn Monroe made a man more of what he was. Cocky men became more cocky in her presence. Timid men more timid. Maybe the gaps show us what we really think, not what's really there? It doesn't show you anything. It's not "god of the gaps" it's unknown in the gaps.
Only thing it shows is we're both willing to fill in the gaps with certainty. You're certain they're not in the solar system. Another idea that supports the notion that aliens visiting Earth is more likely than without them being in the solar system? You deny it. To support your pre-existing belief? Of course not. Simple because the evidence guides you toward that in your unbiased appraisal of it. Come on... You're blind to the interpretive nature of your conclusions, and still hide that in the perception that the "sensible majority consensus" aligns with your view. But that very conservatism makes you an unreliable speaker about these mysteries. What value can you add if you're not willing to engage with the gaps?
"Ah, it's a big black unknown. Leave it alone. Nothing to see there."
You're saying it's all bunk, is the bunk. Because you don't know. Have you searched every crevice of the solar system to prove there's no life there? That someone had a story that was a wrong interpretation of the data, but if true supports a 'they're here' hypothesis, does not disprove that hypothesis if their interpretation is wrong.
I'd say we don't have nearly enough data to rule it out. 'Much less likely' compared to a strawman? Still can be very likely.
You've kept the little green men out of your garden because it doesn't make sense to you that they're here. Or you felt in the past it's just too much fun for you to argue with those that believe. And you think the time is still here when denying evidence of this stuff still looks rational. But that time has passed. It now looks crazy to say the evidence leads you to stretch denials into invoking a certainty of impossibility in the face of ambiguity and lots of signal.
No. Bigfoot, as with UFOs, could exist on other planets. That's not the assertion being made with these recent videos, though. Just like Bigfoot, they're alleged to be here, on Earth.
1. Phone and security cameras are good for objects in close distance. The farther the object, the worse the quality. Best example I have is that I live close to a flight path of a local airport. I've tried to take photos (with an iPhone 11) of interesting airplanes to send to my friends who work in aviation, but the pictures are usually crap. I don't have an exact metric, but I would say its something like every 1 or 2 pictures out of 10 is good enough to identify the plane.
2. There actually are a lot of modern UFO videos on Youtube and the rest of the web that you can spend hours watching. It's just that they are mostly taken with phone cameras, so your video categories will basically be: "that's clearly someone practicing their CGI skills", "that looks like trash/that's clearly a drone", "That's neat and I can't really explain it". I dug through a few popular subreddits and youtube channels last month as we saw an influx of UFO stories in the media and this was basically my experience. It's a fun way to kill some time, but yeah you aren't going to get the high quality videos you want.
This may be becoming less of an issue with the newest generation of cameras.
This is like "God of the gaps" theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
The claimed phenomenon keeps retreating to exactly fit into the gaps of our ignorance. And it will always keep retreating, because filling in the unknown with quasi-anthropomorphic entities is what humans have been doing since long before they invented Zeus and Thor.
Is it possible it's all UFOs or angels or Huginn and Muninn running errands for Odin? Sure. But there is no more reason to favor one explanation over the other. And the world is full of infinite things we don't have enough data to explain.
Why is that particular bird outside your window right now? Why is it singing the song it does? One explanation is that space aliens are using it to spy on you; the birdsong is how it communicates to coordinate observations with other birds. Maybe the iPhone 11 just isn't good enough to show the construction flaws in the feather patterns that would prove it too is a UFO.
But that theory is exactly as valid as "the explanation for this video is UFOs" and we should treat them with equal weight.
With that said, I don't know how we will get beyond "that's neat and I can't explain". My belief is these UFO's are man made or natural phenomena. In order to fully explain them all, it requires us to know what is man made (disclosure from governments), and then study and understand the natural phenomena.
If this was actually aliens, then I don't think we will get past the "this is neat and I can't explain" unless they want us to. The way I reason with it is that it is the equivalent of if we time traveled a fighter jet or submarine to the 14th century. People back then would have no way to reason or prove what they were seeing unless we landed those vehicles and demonstrated to them. Even then, they would probably think the machine were a creation of pure evil or something.
Your "it could be aliens" argument applies exactly as well to fairies, angels, demons, demi-gods, wizards, Satan, time travelers, humans from other dimensions, etc. If you weight one of them more highly than the others, you should examine why. But the answer won't be in the evidence.
I like the liminal theory but this isn't the same thing.
To extend the pirate rapists example from my other answer. Maybe you'd never known a pirate that had raped a person, but I think if you knew someone who told you that story, and you'd heard other people had similar experiences, you'd certainly believe them.
Or maybe not pirates but Trump supporters. Or whatever group fit your priors for likely/payoff for you to do this. So the "aliens are not a smart possibility" here is just an interpretation skewed by the way you want to read signal in the evidence.
It's equal that we can look at the same things and come to different conclusions. That's diversity of opinion and experience. But maybe you haven't even looked at the same things. Certainly we look at them in different ways.
I believe aliens are here. But I'm not saying this Navy evidence points to that definitely. I'm saying it doesn't rule it out. It's smart to keep open to it. I'd say the preponderance of witness evidence over decades without a doubt points to that they are here. Does this evidence prove it? No to me. But I know it. It's what I believe based on my own knowledge and experiences.
You have a different belief is normal. I don't think either of us can claim to be "right" on this topic re evidence (tho about the solar system, what do you think about those weird obelisks? structures on the moon? NASA's history of censoring space photos? Lights on Ceres, on Phobos, on Luna?)
In one view, the lack of solid widely accepted data is why there's so much "meat" to be argued about, but actually I don't think that's the meat, that's just reaching the ground consensus that people will reach different conclusions and I think as long as they do so with an open mind to the evidence that's valid.
I do think you have to admit that what you say about it comes not from evidence, but from your interpretation of it. It's not proven either way, it's just your belief that it's so. And that's all that matters so far right.
The primary metaphysical principle which, in my understanding, is seeking to be respected by these intelligences is this: Free will, even on the level of deciding what is allowed to be considered as real. A UFO that "proves its existence" to you has made concrete decisions about how it wants to alter your worldview. I believe that is a no-no.
The evidence that you will find in favor of UFOs, matches precisely or semi-precisely what the deeper nature of your belief system and mind want to believe about them. The Twining Memo alone, if meditated on and considered for its implications, proves beyond a doubt the reality of the phenomenon. I could rattle off a list of a half-dozen books that go into the topic in great detail. The amount of deathbed confessions and former insider testimony will astonish anyone, truly. The freedom to disbelieve in these things is protected. But even the Pentagon just came out saying that "UAPs" harass them regularly (with the implication known to those of us who research the matter, that this has happened ongoingly now for 70 years).
Basically just choose to open yourself to the possibility and I think you will find the evidence.
It's an exercise in medievalist superstition dressed up in a cheap sci-fi veneer. Waste of time.
In some sense it's easily dismissed as "trivially lumping together all things we don't understand" and calling it "quantum". But on another level there does seem to be overlap: in types of experiences, places they happen, and other things I don't know about.
The answer "it's very funny" should not be ruled out.
It is a lifeform—a lifeform with a laser pointer teasing a cat.
Ultimately, an "explanation" that can explain any set of data is useless. I will grant, given the state of the world, "Because God is fucking with us," is an emotionally satisfying one. But ultimately it's just as unhelpful as "Because God wants it that way" from a scientific perspective.
There's a world full of natural phenomena which we perceive dimly. We try to create linguistic structures that explain it. A proposed change to that linguistic structure, like "Fairies are real," can only be more or less helpful in explaining the world we observe.
As George Box said, "All models are wrong; some models are useful." We should always be open to possibility. I am equally open to Bigfoot, UFOs, ESP, vampires, fairies, Santa, and Thor as explanations for phenomena. Which is to say that they are historically bad explanations that can never be disproven, but which have been demonstrably unhelpful in explaining the world.
If we find some Bigfoot like civilization living underground, but that's different to how we think of Bigfoot, we've "explained" Bigfoot and disproven "the wrong version" of Bigfoot.
If Thor lands on Earth and say, "I'm back," but says, "btw my name is "Bor". We've disproved "Thor". If we discover people with some disease which makes them live indoors, drink lymph fluid and live for hundreds of years, we've disproved "vampires" but explained the stories around that.
At the level of speculation we're operating at, these things can be argued both ways. It's not truth that brings you down on one side or another, it's your preference. You're blind to that.
It's the same deal with space aliens visiting Earth. The evidentiary basis for that is no stronger than that for aliens. You're correct that it's preference that leads some to favor aliens over angels, etc. But that's all it is.
It's an exact mirror of the practice you see of people who don't want to believe in aliens visiting Earth, inventing new ways to avoid the evidence, whether it's sensor data, witnesses whatever.
"The evidentiary basis for that (fairies and ghosts) is no stronger than that for aliens."
That's an objective sounding statement, but it's just your interpretation and preference. By what standard? If we had hundreds of thousands of people around the world saying they'd been raped / kidnapped by a gang of roaming miscreants dressed up as pirates, and these people had missing time, missing clothes, and then we had the EU maritime agency come out and say, "We've captured what seem to be swarms of pirate ships on radar". Would you still not believe them?
Possibility Prior probability
No aliens 0.55
Aliens at the perceptual limit 0.1
Completely invisible aliens 0.2
Obviously visible aliens 0.15
Possibility Posterior probability
No aliens 0.55 / 0.85
Aliens at the perceptual limit 0.1 / 0.85
Completely invisible aliens 0.2 / 0.85
Obviously visible aliens 0
Which if I understand; would go like this on explaining UFOs:
Naive Approach:
P(ALIENS) = 50% p(~ALIENS) = 50%
Time elapses and I find some new evidence that looks like this:
P(Evidence | ALIENS) = 30% P(Evidence | ~ALIENS) = 90%
Which gives my hypothesis (Its Aliens) a posterior probability of 25% => (50% X 30%)/(50% X 30% + 50% X 90%).
I want it to be aliens so I say that they're conducting studies on us which juices P(Evidence | ALIENS && Studying Us) = 100%. But because I have no evidence to back that up, the odds are no better than 50/50; and I have to drop the prior of my new hypothesis (UFOs are Aliens who Study us) to 25% (50% X 50%). This nets out a new posterior probability of around 27%.
P(ALIENS AND They Study Us) = 25% p(~ALIENS) = 75%
P(Evidence | ALIENS & They Study Us) = 100% P(Evidence | ~ALIENS) = 90%
I'm new to Bayesian logic and am still shaky with it, so there could totally be glaring errors I'm overlooking, but as I understand it that's what I was trying to get across - Every new caveat you add to explain away a poor data fit shouldn't juice your odds.
Fool me once, shame on you; ok I know the last 892 times we told you it was different but it turned out not to be different - BUT THIS TIME ITS REAL...
Aliens could be actively trying not to be detected. It would be quite reasonable if they're monitoring us for them to disturb us as little as possible and not to leave any evidence behind. That's how humans study nature after all.
You're not the first to suggest that, but it just doesn't pass a smell test. I mean, why and how? And with such consistently liminal results? Always on that edge.
It's an exceedingly "extraordinary claim".
They _could_ but it's pretty ridiculous.
Why is simple. If they're monitoring us they probably wouldn't want to affect the result of their observations. That's exactly why people studying nature on Earth try not to have an impact on what they're observing. It affects the outcome and it results in bad science. Or maybe they're shy.
As for how ... we're talking about hypothetical aliens who have crossed galaxies to watch us. Speculating about how they might hide from us when they get here in an HN post is beyond futile. How the heck would anyone know?
Utterly absurd, though.
If you're trying to fuck with the humans though...
i.e. it not only has to not be natural/dumb, it has to choose this pointless course of action, and execute it without failure.
It's a very extra-ordinary claim that that point. With only perpetually liminal proof. We can't rule it out, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354904
Those videos got leaked, and then tentatively confirmed, but is the military releasing all the other gubbins they have, like radar tracks and voice transcripts? Are they heck.
It does. The xkcd comic below says it best. In recent decades the number of available sensors (cameras) have radically increased. So too has the quality of those cameras. But have we seen more and better pictures? No. The quality of evidence is not tied to the increasing quality of the signal source. If anything, the signal is increasingly pointing towards 'not real'.
But it's also true that something that remains liminal while sensors radically improve, is actually retreating fast. And that is a signal.