Hacker News Reader

Comment by revscat | Hacker News Reader

West believes strongly that all reported phenomena will eventually be determined to have a prosaic cause. Further, ridicule and a discouragement of curiosity on the subject are of tantamount importance.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is similar. They both approach the subject with a very unscientific, bad faith attitude.

I disagree with them both. I have experienced something that I do not believe has a prosaic explanation. Further, I do not believe that relativity is the end of physics as Tyson or west so strongly imply.

Curiosity in this subject should be encouraged, not ridiculed.

View on HN

> I have experienced something that I do not believe has a prosaic explanation.

Many people have. I have a friend who credits God for helping her find the perfect pair of shoes for her wedding.

The range of what can be explained by a prosaic explanation is wider than most people like to admit.

how do you know He didn’t?

"God helped me find the perfect pair of shoes" is an untestable, unscientific claim.

Whether you believe or not in god (and that he will busy himself with finding shoes for you), everyone will agree this is firmly outside the realm of science. So if we're writing this kind of assertions in a conversation about UAPs/ETs, what does this say about the latter?

I don't think proponents of UAPs (especially UAPs-as-ETs) want them to be put side by side with "Jesus speaks to me".

Jesus doesn’t show up on radar.

Unfortunately for you I was responding to "how do you know [God] didn't help with finding your shoes?", so your statement reads like a non sequitur.

Sounds like a you problem.

I replied to something about God (that it's best not to conflate him with discussions about hard evidence for UAPs and/or ETs), you replied with a complete non sequitur and it's my problem? How, exactly?

I prefer not to believe in a deity that assists with shoe selection but not childhood cancer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com