Harvard & Montana Academics On The Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, -Horta said:

Isn't the point of a hypothesis that it can be tested in at least some way to see if it has any legs? Without that, all you've got is just another "string theory" (just joking string theorists lol). Which doesn't doesn't mean it can't be relevant or interesting. I read a presentation once long ago that proposed modern humans were the result of genetic manipulation by another species (aliens?) based on certain HAR regions of the genome, from memory. Found it fascinating and if nothing else, helped me learn a lot more about the subject.

The problem with all of these things is that they don't seem to have supporting evidence sufficient to make them more than interesting speculation. Though I agree with the principle of academic freedom that would allow at least some resources devoted to these subjects. 

 

Hi and welcome to the site. I think you are new and haven't see you around.

I agree with you on the point you made about academic freedom and academics should be free to say what they think and write articles or papers without censorship applied. I was in academia for many years as my field is mathematics and physics and my research was in theoretical physics.

I don't think they had a grant for writing this paper as it only reflect their personal opinions (but I could be wrong).

I brought up the string theory example if you have read my posts because of this reason. This area of theoretical physics is speculative, a mathematical theory with no supporting experimental evidence. A dead end as we say and yet people can study string theory and even do a PhD on the field and have a career. But nothing much is there to support string theory.

The paper produced is speculative and the argument put forward is made at a philosophical level. The paper is not a scientific publication and the authors themselves say it and agree that their view is very likely false but the hypothesis should be made and be examined (apparently by other academics or even the public?)

When you put forward an idea/hypothesis you don't need much evidence (but if you have some evidence it will help the case). But you need evidence to support your hypothesis (at a scientific level).

A few good examples were given by other posters on fringe ideas or ideas that had little supporting evidence.

[Piney]

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

Hi and welcome to the site. I think you are new and haven't see you around.

😄 Not hardly. 

 

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

A few good examples were given by other posters on fringe ideas or ideas that had little supporting evidence.

Projecting? The cryptoterrstrial hypothesis has zero evidence. 

[MrAnderson]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

😄 Not hardly. 

 

Projecting? The cryptoterrstrial hypothesis has zero evidence. 

The authors never claimed they had evidence for their hypothesis and the paper is not a scientific publication. It has been explained many times. They are putting this idea forward at a speculative and philosophical level. Do you want to reply again by stating they had no evidence? I can reply back by saying the same thing.

Edited July 13 by MrAnderson

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

The authors never claimed they had evidence for their hypothesis and the paper is not a scientific publication. It has been explained many times. They are putting this idea forward at a speculative and philosophical level. Do you want to reply again by stating they had no evidence? I can reply back by saying the same thing.

It is not a hypothesis with no evidence and you suggested it should be investigated further....with no evidence.

I did fieldwork for George Howard on the YDI hypothesis which is wrong. It never happened.

Yet there was some evidence it might of happened.

[MrAnderson]

10 minutes ago, Piney said:

It is not a hypothesis with no evidence and you suggested it should be investigated further....with no evidence.

I did fieldwork for George Howard on the YDI hypothesis which is wrong. It never happened.

Yet there was some evidence it might of happened.

You don't need evidence to make hypothesis. You need evidence to support your hypothesis. Anyone can make a hypothesis especially at a philosophical level.

Edited July 13 by MrAnderson

[Piney]

Just now, MrAnderson said:

You don't neee evidence for making for making a hypothesis. You need evidence to support your hypothesis. Anyone can make a hypothesis especially at a philosophical level.

Mathematical level maybe. But philosophical concepts are simply opinion. 

[MrAnderson]

17 minutes ago, Piney said:

Mathematical level maybe. But philosophical concepts are simply opinion. 

 

17 minutes ago, Piney said:

Mathematical level maybe. But philosophical concepts are simply opinion. 

A hypothesis is based both on opinion and some evidence. Not having evidence you can still make a hypothesis at any level (although it won't help your hypothesis)

In mathematics for example, string theory is mathematical speculation and there is no physical and experimental evidence to back up the theory. But nevertheless a great field for academic research until now. In philosophy a hypothesis is different to the hypothesis someone will make if he/she was an experimental physicist or engineer.

Edited July 13 by MrAnderson

[godnodog]

On 7/12/2024 at 12:10 PM, MrAnderson said:

Yes, and I said it in my OP that they have said their hypothesis is likely not to be true but nevertheless it should be examined. That's what they have said. They never said this is factual but just a hypothesis.

The great thing about it is that they seem to entertain a possibility that looks very unlikely.

I am quoting my link above (CBS article)

 

well they are discussing an hypothesis not defending the hypothesis to become a theory,

[Piney]

7 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

 

A hypothesis is based both on opinion and some evidence. Not having evidence you can still make a hypothesis at any level (although it won't help your hypothesis)

In mathematics for example, string theory is mathematical speculation and there is no physical and experimental evidence to back uo the theory. But nevertheless a great field for academic research until now. In philosophy a hypothesis is different to the hypothesis someone will make if was an experimental physicist or engineer.

There's a lot of nervous spelling mistakes in your posts. 

Are you taking something for that? 

[MrAnderson]

4 minutes ago, godnodog said:

well they are discussing an hypothesis not defending the hypothesis to become a theory,

It can't become a theory because it's not a scientific hypothesis. You are right if it was a scientific hypothesis. Their work is speculation and personal opinion.

Edited July 13 by MrAnderson