The scientific method merely requires a question, background research and then the formulation of a hypothesis upon which data will be collected and analyzed to seek to disprove. The null is dull for example. The conclusions based on the data need to be backed up by the data collected. Is the earth round. Background in formation contains many volumes on flat and round earths including religious fervour. The hypothesis then could be the earth is a sphere. We collect data such as launching rockets, observation of astronomical bodies, observation of ships going over horizons and so forth. We.make a conclusion that yes the earth is round. Then get abuse of people who ignore the data and make up their own wild theory and hypothesis that cannot be observed but they then scream blue murder that you are a data ignorer
I find with this sort of thing, most of the time it's just to big a question to get your head around. I've watched and read quite a bit on religion, science, ufos etc and when it gets to the really hard part discussed by people much clever than me, it just gives me a head ache, trying to fit it in my little head just becomes to much. I'm quite happy to give credence to aliens, God, life after death, at the end of the day it makes about as much sense to me as life just spontaneously existing out of nowhere, suddenly creatures developing a consciousness.
It's a good question. I think it does if the 'how' raises the question of the 'why'. Or if the 'how' isn't enough. I'll give an example. When I was in secondary school and first heard the teacher talking about how chlorophyll which is green uses the sun to in effect feed the plant, I understood the how but it struck me to think why. I literally sat there and thought why that process? Same with certain animal characteristics over others. Cats for example won't just go and take a dump, they'll actively look to dig down in the earth, do their business and then make the effort of covering it up. The how we can see, but the why? It's not learnt behaviour that's for sure, it's not genetic, it's not a physical attribute. It raises the question that there must be a greater purpose and of course that then broadens thought to spiritual beliefs, faith, religion and things like the afterlife etc.
Second paragraph For me aliens are just logical - I just don’t see how given the size of the known universe that other life does not exist No idea about travel from planet to planet and system to system but some of the geological wonders on this planet do genuinely intrigue me. To such a point that, when I get time I am going to look at the Pyramids, Puma Punka and Easter Island Trying to figure out how civilisations created these massive creations is just mind blowing The ones that map the stars - amazing more to life than that green rectangular patch of grass it seems ftr I still really despise the international breaks
The size of the universe, and the number of stars, combined with what we know of biology would make it seem a statistical certainty that there is life all over the place. However that same scale and complexity would suggest it's highly unlikely that they are whizzing around here all the time for a quick joy-ride. Faster than light travel in normal space is not possible, and warp drives and hyperspace are no more than vague hypotheses devised to serve science-fiction dramas. Plus I doubt that we'd be important enough to interest any species that has solved the problem of breaking out of the space-time continuum. Of course I can't know any of this for certain, but I still think alien visitations are the stuff of fantasy - ghosts and demons for the technological age.
I tell you what though. If I were a space alien and saw man developing, I'd probably wipe them out before they became too technologically advanced. Why risk a sapient creature that willingly conducts warfare to develop into a potential future threat?
Theres.many a novel about aliens sweeping through the galaxy to destroy any and all civilisations who can produce specific emissions etc. I believe.empire from the ashes is one such by american author david Weber where an alien race now ruled by their ai computers sweeps through destroying all that they detect without knowing why. In this 3 part book the moon is actually a giant space ship lost to history after a revolt on board and the earth discovers the threat by accident and joins together the defeat it.
Theres no such thing as a statistic certainty. Only a.statisitic probability The chances that anyone can travel faster than light and chooses to visit a relative back water on the edge of the galaxy that's.barely produced a radio wave of note does seem rather remote. The more creative then bring in the extinction of the dinosaurs etc as evidence they wiped out prior civilisations of course
From a purely logical standpoint, it's the only correct decision if the goal is longevity of your own species. Sentiment, emotion, and a sense of right-and-wrong might prevent xenocide... But any species significantly advanced enough for interstellar travel would have advanced enough to turn all the major decision making over to AI (who won't have sentimentality). As an aside... I bet within 200 years our democracy won't be about voting for people, but about voting for algorithms to represent us.
Doubt that, once an algorithm is perfect why change it. Also an argument in said novel where aliens tech never changes in eons
Nothing is ever perfect and new routines can continually improve...and after all desired outcome can be subjective. People have different ideals. Some will vote for the Tory-Bot some will vote for the Labour-Bot, both algorithms tuned slightly differently with different intended outcomes (greater overall wealth vs greater equality perhaps). Also consider: If two people own an apple tree together and go to harvest the apples what is "fair and right". Both collecting all the apples and then dividing equally in two. Or each taking a basket and collecting what they can. (With potentially one man being better at picking apples, or having longer arms to reach more, etc). Same number of apples may get picked in total, but does one man get rewarded for being able to pick more than the other? Some would say that's fair, some would say it's not. I don't think either answer could be definitively said as being perfect. Either way someone feels gipped.
Perhaps for the same reasons that we study wildlife, despite our significant superior cognitive ability and technological advances? Just think, there's a limited unevolved multicellular life-form out there completely oblivious to the fact we'll be crowing about how we discovered it in our modest SpaceX rockets one day.
As an aside, I've met David Weber several times (never read any of his books though). He's a really odd character. Every time I met him he was wearing a fedora and a waistcoat covered in bizarre pins (I remember one was bright pink and said on it "Barney must die!) and carrying a cane, even though he clearly didn't need one. He wore this as his every day attire to walk around the mall.
I'd say he probably is and can never finish anything. BTW I've probably paid for his cane in books. He has done some great work and then lost interest a bit. The honor Harrington series started well but faded and twisted into a supposed planned deep state genetic supermen conspiracy. The safehold series stole the premise of the xenophobe aliens and brought it to a religious luddite scenario but again the earliest books a best and most details and he's again off doing the next thing not finishing
I reckon that it’s a statistical certainty that you will never show us the list and that we aren’t signing Robben
I did give you the list and it was entirely accurate! As usual you lot ignored it and kept asking for the list already given.
There's a series of books, I think by Stephen Baxter (a scouser, btw) that postulates a race that moves from one star system to another stripping them of all resources. A related theme was explored by American author Greg Bear, where all emerging technologies are routinely destroyed by an alien race as an extreme form of pre-emptive self preservation. Incidentally, Bear wrote Eon - one of the best sci-fi books I've read. Amongst a variety of mind-bending concepts, it incorporates the idea of living in a computer environment long before the Wachowskis got wind of it.
