Have ET's Already Discovered Earth?

[Advenix]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

LoL.  It's really simple- look at what I quoted. 

"Every Analogy Limps" is a well known idiom.

Studying a culture is not analogous with studying wildlife. 

Simple.

 Like I said before look at what I quoted. 

Man hasn't been around 200 Million years, let alone NASA. So your fantastic, hypothetical question could have any answer. 

Whatever prevents us from finding ET could just as easily prevent them from finding us. 

Since when are idioms used in logic? Firstly, get familiar with the meaning of the word "analogy."

"Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make decisions."

It follows that if every and each analogy "limped" human beings wouldn't use this type of comparison. But they do. They do it because they know that analogy can be true in its conclusion, but not necessarily so. It depends on the way analogy is constructed. There are 5 parts - the proposition and its explanation, the statement, the principle, and the conclusion - and here is an example of analogy which is false in its conclusion:

Analogy: Dogs are analogous to cats
Explanation: Both share feature x, where x = furriness. That is, both are furry.
Statement: Dogs bark.
Principle: Anything that is furry, barks.
Conclusion: Therefore, cats bark.

And here is an analogy which is true in its conclusion:

Analogy: Water is analogous to wine.
Explanation: Water and wine share the specific property of being liquids.
Statement: Concerning water, if you carelessly step on a floor with water on it, you will slip.
Principle: For all liquids, if you carelessly step on a floor with a liquid on it, you will slip.
Conclusion: Therefore, if you carelessly step on a floor with wine on it, you will slip.

As you see, in this case it is the formulation of Principle that makes the difference between right and wrong. The declaration For all x in set S (∀ x ∈ S) must be true.

Now use the same structure to show that your analogy "Whatever prevents us from finding ET could just as easily prevent them from finding us," is true and cannot be false. Don't use the idiom that every analogy limps, because you would again shoot yourself into your own foot.

When you are done, show that "Studying a culture is not analogous with studying wildlife."

Edited July 4, 2018 by Advenix

[stereologist]

In case you are not reading the ancient histories forum, Advenix was asked to leave that forum for a string of gibberish postings.

Please be aware that the same behavior could be appearing here as well.

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Advenix said:

 

Since when are idioms used in logic? Firstly, get familiar with the meaning of the word "analogy."

"Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make decisions."

It follows that if every and each analogy "limped" human beings wouldn't use this type of comparison. But they do. They do it because they know that analogy can be true in its conclusion, but not necessarily so. It depends on the way analogy is constructed. There are 5 parts - the proposition and its explanation, the statement, the principle, and the conclusion - and here is an example of analogy which is false in its conclusion:

Analogy: Dogs are analogous to cats
Explanation: Both share feature x, where x = furriness. That is, both are furry.
Statement: Dogs bark.
Principle: Anything that is furry, barks.
Conclusion: Therefore, cats bark.

And here is an analogy which is true in its conclusion:

Analogy: Water is analogous to wine.
Explanation: Water and wine share the specific property of being liquids.
Statement: Concerning water, if you carelessly step on a floor with water on it, you will slip.
Principle: For all liquids, if you carelessly step on a floor with a liquid on it, you will slip.
Conclusion: Therefore, if you carelessly step on a floor with wine on it, you will slip.

As you see, in this case it is the formulation of Principle that makes the difference between right and wrong. The declaration For all x in set S (∀ x ∈ S) must be true.

Now use the same structure to show that your analogy "Whatever prevents us from finding ET could just as easily prevent them from finding us," is true and cannot be false. Don't use the idiom that every analogy limps, because you would again shoot yourself into your own foot.

When you are done, show that "Studying a culture is not analogous with studying wildlife."

I did.

[Advenix]

13 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I did.

No, you didn't. You just used an idiom saying that every analogy limps in connection with my argument, but you somewhat forgot that it must also apply to your own contra-arguments, which were two analogies.

Your argument/analogy saying that the cause, which keeps hypothetical ET civilizations from discovering Earth is similar to the cause that prevents us to discover them, is biased in the Principle. You mean ALL hypothetical ET civilizations. But there is a difference between ALL and SOME. By selecting only ALL, you believe in the uniform evolution and development of life in the universe. Where does such a believe come from?

To use the local and most favorite way of explaining things, you pulled it out of your ass.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Advenix

[Advenix]

19 hours ago, Horta said:

Why is it the right time? 

How could they possibly know?

The only obvious and realistic answer would be that they'll probably have a much better idea of that in another 200 million years. lol.

The question is implicative. Can NASA rule out that Earth has been discovered by some ET's within past 200 million years?

The SETI is also waiting for a type of signal similar to the Arecibo Message, but it will hardly come from someone who already knows that we are here.

NASA is being dismissive of UFO for no apparent reason. The organization is clutching at straws trying to preserve its views the same way the Church has been trying to preserve the Adam and Eve story as told.

[Golden Duck]

4 minutes ago, Advenix said:

No, you didn't. You just used an idiom saying that every analogy limps in connection with my argument, but you somewhat forgot that it must also apply to your own contra-arguments, which were two analogies.

Yes I did.

It's just as justifiable to say participant observation is more likely.

4 minutes ago, Advenix said:

Your argument/analogy saying that the cause, which keeps hypothetical ET civilizations from discovering Earth is similar to the cause that prevents us to discover them, is biased in the Principle. You mean ALL hypothetical ET civilizations. But there is a difference between ALL and SOME. By selecting only ALL, you believe in the uniform evolution and development of life in the universe. Where does such a believe come from?

It's not an analogy.  I said what affects us, can affect them.  Its a consequent based on the antecedent if the laws of the universe are universal.

4 minutes ago, Advenix said:

To use the local and most favorite way of explaining things, you pulled it out of your ass.

I've never owned a donkey.  Maybe I've encountered some on forums

[Advenix]

22 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Yes I did.

It's just as justifiable to say participant observation is more likely.

It's not an analogy.  I said what affects us, can affect them.  Its a consequent based on the antecedent if the laws of the universe are universal.

 

You are deeply wrong: "What affects us can affect them," is a conclusion irrefutably based on analogous comparison.

You previously didn't mention the limiting condition "If the laws of the universe are universal." Now you do.

 

[Golden Duck]

8 minutes ago, Advenix said:

You are deeply wrong: "What affects us can affect them," is a conclusion irrefutably based on analogous comparison.

You previously didn't mention the limiting condition "If the laws of the universe are universal." Now you do.

 

It's kind of trivial to need to mention that.

Anyway you're talking about an amorphously hypothetical ET. With no restrictions you can't have a reasonable discussion.

[ChrLzs]

May I suggest godlikeproductions, Advenix?  I think I've seen the audience you are looking for, there.....

[Rlyeh]

6 hours ago, Advenix said:

The question is implicative. Can NASA rule out that Earth has been discovered by some ET's within past 200 million years?

The SETI is also waiting for a type of signal similar to the Arecibo Message, but it will hardly come from someone who already knows that we are here.

NASA is being dismissive of UFO for no apparent reason. The organization is clutching at straws trying to preserve its views the same way the Church has been trying to preserve the Adam and Eve story as told.

Speaking of clutching at straws, can you show that Unidentified Flying Objects are from another planet?

If you can answer that, you can answer why NASA doesn't accept UFOs as evidence of ETs.

[Advenix]

6 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

It's kind of trivial to need to mention that.

Anyway you're talking about an amorphously hypothetical ET. With no restrictions you can't have a reasonable discussion.

Of course there is no need to mention anything - especially when the Dark Ages don't appear to be over yet. Just spill your judgement based on the very virtue of your infallibility, right? What keeps the ET's around here is very likely the saying You got to see it to believe it...

Well, I'm not one of those trigger-happy NASA experts. Remember? "Are we alone in the universe? Top NASA scientists say the answer is almost certainly "no.""  When you take them to the task, they try to find all possible excuses to avoid the answer.

 

[Advenix]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Speaking of clutching at straws, can you show that Unidentified Flying Objects are from another planet?

If you can answer that, you can answer why NASA doesn't accept UFOs as evidence of ETs.

It suffices to show that Boeing doesn't make them. On the other hand, NASA has a sort of excuse for dismissing the UFO as a manifestation of ET life, if it considers just the material gathered by the majority of so called UFO researchers.

[Rlyeh]

24 minutes ago, Advenix said:

It suffices to show that Boeing doesn't make them. On the other hand, NASA has a sort of excuse for dismissing the UFO as a manifestation of ET life, if it considers just the material gathered by the majority of so called UFO researchers.

That's a no.

Ignoring that fact you still don't know what "UFO" means, no one has been able to show UFOs are from anywhere else besides earth.

[Golden Duck]

7 hours ago, Advenix said:

Of course there is no need to mention anything - especially when the Dark Ages don't appear to be over yet. Just spill your judgement based on the very virtue of your infallibility, right? What keeps the ET's around here is very likely the saying You got to see it to believe it...

Well, I'm not one of those trigger-happy NASA experts. Remember? "Are we alone in the universe? Top NASA scientists say the answer is almost certainly "no.""  When you take them to the task, they try to find all possible excuses to avoid the answer.

 

Show us your hypothetical ET

[Essan]

15 hours ago, Advenix said:

The question is implicative. Can NASA rule out that Earth has been discovered by some ET's within past 200 million years?

The SETI is also waiting for a type of signal similar to the Arecibo Message, but it will hardly come from someone who already knows that we are here.

NASA is being dismissive of UFO for no apparent reason. The organization is clutching at straws trying to preserve its views the same way the Church has been trying to preserve the Adam and Eve story as told.

You are playing with straw,  That's never a good sign ....  

[ChrLzs]

9 hours ago, Advenix said:

When you take them to the task, they try to find all possible excuses to avoid the answer.

CITE this.

 

9 hours ago, Advenix said:

NASA has a sort of excuse for dismissing the UFO

CITE this.

(is the hint getting thru, handwaver?)

[Advenix]

On 7/4/2018 at 2:42 AM, Horta said:

Why is it the right time? 

How could they possibly know?

The only obvious and realistic answer would be that they'll probably have a much better idea of that in another 200 million years. lol.

How could NASA possibly know what is going to happen within the period of 200 million years? You gotta be kidding me. They are scientists and as such, they can project their wisdom much farther than that; they can look not 200 million years into the future, but 22 billion - yes, 22 billion years - ahead in time. Well, the view is slightly obscured, so the end of the universe isn't explained just by one theory. Here are the possible ways it will go down...

Big Freeze or heat death

The Big Freeze is a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature. This scenario, in combination with the Big Rip scenario, is currently gaining ground as the most important hypothesis...

Big Rip

In the special case of phantom dark energy, which has even more negative pressure than a simple cosmological constant, the density of dark energy increases with time, causing the rate of acceleration to increase, leading to a steady increase in the Hubble constant. As a result, all material objects in the universe, starting with galaxies and eventually (in a finite time) all forms, no matter how small, will disintegrate into unbound elementary particles and radiation, ripped apart by the phantom energy force and shooting apart from each other...

Big Crunch

The Big Crunch hypothesis is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the universe. Just as the Big Bang started as a cosmological expansion, this theory assumes that the average density of the universe will be enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting...

Here is more of that funny crap...

Big Bounce

The Big Bounce is a theorized scientific model related to the beginning of the known universe. It derives from the oscillatory universe or cyclic repetition interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe...

False vacuum

In order to best understand the false vacuum collapse theory, one must first understand the Higgs field which permeates the universe. Much like an electromagnetic field, it varies in strength based upon its potential. A true vacuum exists so long as the universe exists in its lowest energy state, in which case the false vacuum theory is irrelevant...

The theories appear to be quite diverse, so why, upon you suggestion, don't the scientists  assume the realistic wait-and-see  approach?

Here is an important note :Each possibility described so far is based on a very simple form for the dark energy equation of state. But as the name is meant to imply, very little is currently known about the physics of dark energy.

So, very little is now about the dark energy, but the concept is important to the scientific musing about what will happen 22 billion years from now. The cosmologists are lucky not to publish their theories on this forum, because the local debunkers would tear them apart, talking about pulling the dark energy out of their ass and so forth.

So why is it that NASA doesn't want to take a look a mere 200 million years into the future?

Well, human scientists are known to see only what they want to see.

 

[Horta]

That is so utterly irrelevant to the quetion you originally posed as to be verging on "looney tunes".

Edited July 7, 2018 by Horta

[Advenix]

11 hours ago, Horta said:

That is so utterly irrelevant to the quetion you originally posed as to be verging on "looney tunes".

Your understanding of the term "utterly irrelevant" must be a complete chaos. Don't you understand that two prognosis looking into the future are relevant outlooks where the relevancy is assured by the same direction the  observers are looking?

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, Advenix said:

Don't you understand that two prognosis looking into the future are relevant outlooks where the relevancy is assured by the same direction the  observers are looking?

sorry-i don't understand that

[Advenix]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

sorry-i don't understand that

rel·e·vant - closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.

It means the cosmological theories about what will transpire when 22 billion years ticks away cannot be "utterly irrelevant" from the question whether some ET civilization has discovered Earth within the past 200 million years.

[Dejarma]

16 minutes ago, Advenix said:

rel·e·vant - closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.

It means the cosmological theories about what will transpire when 22 billion years ticks away cannot be "utterly irrelevant" from the question whether some ET civilization has discovered Earth within the past 200 million years.

I didn't know what that word meant- so thanks... A great word I will use in future.

In fact, I'll use it now:

could you put forward something that would be <relevant > with regards to your statement?

Edited July 7, 2018 by Dejarma

[Minimalists]

On 7/4/2018 at 8:51 AM, Advenix said:

 

Since when are idioms used in logic? Firstly, get familiar with the meaning of the word "analogy."

"Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make decisions."

It follows that if every and each analogy "limped" human beings wouldn't use this type of comparison. But they do. They do it because they know that analogy can be true in its conclusion, but not necessarily so. It depends on the way analogy is constructed. There are 5 parts - the proposition and its explanation, the statement, the principle, and the conclusion - and here is an example of analogy which is false in its conclusion:

Analogy: Dogs are analogous to cats
Explanation: Both share feature x, where x = furriness. That is, both are furry.
Statement: Dogs bark.
Principle: Anything that is furry, barks.
Conclusion: Therefore, cats bark.

And here is an analogy which is true in its conclusion:

Analogy: Water is analogous to wine.
Explanation: Water and wine share the specific property of being liquids.
Statement: Concerning water, if you carelessly step on a floor with water on it, you will slip.
Principle: For all liquids, if you carelessly step on a floor with a liquid on it, you will slip.
Conclusion: Therefore, if you carelessly step on a floor with wine on it, you will slip.

As you see, in this case it is the formulation of Principle that makes the difference between right and wrong. The declaration For all x in set S (∀ x ∈ S) must be true.

Now use the same structure to show that your analogy "Whatever prevents us from finding ET could just as easily prevent them from finding us," is true and cannot be false. Don't use the idiom that every analogy limps, because you would again shoot yourself into your own foot.

When you are done, show that "Studying a culture is not analogous with studying wildlife."

Quote

When you are done, show that "Studying a culture is not analogous with studying wildlife."

I don't see how this can work...Fact is it won't...If he can show this I too would like to see it.

[Advenix]

4 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

I don't see how this can work...Fact is it won't...If he can show this I too would like to see it.

Donald Duck, like most of others, claim something without bothering to provide some backing for his claims. It's better to leave things alone and let them wallow in their own ignorance.

I already explained the steps an analogy proceeds to its conclusion. Since that comparison thrives on similarities, here is one. If you study wildlife, you study a culture of animals, and here are two of them:

1. http:// https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/chemistry-scientist-19529954.jpg

2. https://comps.canstockphoto.com/chimp-stock-images_csp0511665.jpg

Both share their taxonomy from Kingdom down to Tribe.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammmalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Homini

From the prospect of a very advanced ET civilization, whose members may not even be animals anymore, the difference between Man and a chimp virtually doesn't exist and so the members of that civilization would likely employ the same rules in observing the natural habitat of Homo sapiens as Man observes the monkeys in the wild.

If someone expects the ET's land in the White House and shake hand with the president, then such a person suffers from chronic naivete.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Advenix

[Minimalists]

1 minute ago, Advenix said:

Donald Duck, like most of others, claim something without bothering to provide some backing for his claims. It's better to leave things alone, and let them wallow in their own ignorance.

I already explained the steps an analogy proceeds to its conclusion. Since that comparison thrives on similarities, here is one. If you study wildlife, you study a culture of animals, and here are two of them:

1. http:// https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/chemistry-scientist-19529954.jpg

2. https://comps.canstockphoto.com/chimp-stock-images_csp0511665.jpg

Both share their taxonomy from Kingdom down to Tribe.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammmalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Homini

From the prospect of a very advanced ET civilization, whose members may not even be animals anymore, the difference between Man and a chimp virtually doesn't exist and so the members of that civilization would likely employ the same rules in observing the natural habitat of Homo sapiens as Man observes the monkeys in the wild.

If someone expects the ET's land in the White house and shake the hand with the president, then such a person suffers from chronic naivete.

Quote

If someone expects the ET's land in the White house and shake the hand with the president, then such a person suffers from chronic naivete.

No actually I was thinking more like Times Square no one there would even notice them.