Belief in alien visits to Earth is spiralling out of control – here’s why that’s so dangerous

Wizard of Whatever said:
Can you prove it false when there is testimony to its truth. You may not belief the testimony but that does not make it false.
Click to expand...
Testimony is worthless without evidence so if you can't prove something true, then what's the point of trying to prove it false?
 
(Q) said:
Testimony is worthless without evidence so if you can't prove something true, then what's the point of trying to prove it false?
Click to expand...
Testimony is evidence in any court in the USA and elsewhere. Only among stupid people, are testimonies of personal experience not at least seriously considered.

Godel proved that for a complete system there are unprovable truths, and is extendable to partial systems using 'may be'.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
Testimony is evidence in any court in the USA and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
We are not in a court room. Testimony in a court room is under oath so you can't spew your irrational beliefs.
Wizard of Whatever said:
Only among stupid people, are testimonies of personal experience not at least seriously considered.
Click to expand...
That would depend on if the experience was rational or irrational.
Wizard of Whatever said:
Godel proved that for a complete system there are unprovable truths, and is extendable to partial systems using 'may be'.
Click to expand...
That's only about math.
 
(Q) said:
We are not in a court room. Testimony in a court room is under oath so you can't spew your irrational beliefs.

That would depend on if the experience was rational or irrational.

That's only about math.
Click to expand...
Testimony is testimony, you either believe it or not, both in and out of court.

Personal experience has nothing to due with rational or irrational. It is what it is.Those terms only exist in others opinions.
No, it can apply to any system symbolizable by some form of mathematics.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
Testimony is testimony, you either believe it or not, both in and out of court.
Click to expand...
Testimony out of court is not under oath.
Wizard of Whatever said:
Personal experience has nothing to due with rational or irrational. It is what it is.Those terms only exist in others opinions.
Click to expand...
If the person was delusional, they wouldn't know their experience was rational.
Wizard of Whatever said:
No, it can apply to any system symbolizable by some form of mathematics.
Click to expand...
If you say so.
 
(Q) said:
Testimony out of court is not under oath.

If the person was delusional, they wouldn't know their experience was rational.

If you say so.
Click to expand...
Under oath or not one either tells the truth or lies.
Experiences don't care about your opinion of them.
 
billvon said:
Scientists, by definition, always consider new possibilities - and then follow those possibilities supported by evidence and experimental results.
Click to expand...
Most only consider new forms of the same paradigm. If something appears to superceed the present paradigm it is usually rejected by most. Things were different in the past. Today one must get funding from those who expect a return or from government.
 
This thread was in suspended animation for 9 months bofe being reawakened with the apparently throw-away comment "It's only dangerous to the status quo, not to the evolution of knowledge."

Is there something more to be said? I mean, that's on-topic? Perhaps the more-to-be-said should be stated explicitly, so as to provide a firm foothold from which to launch a new, constructive avenue for discussion?
 
DaveC426913 said:
This thread was in suspended animation for 9 months bofe being reawakened with the apparently throw-away comment "It's only dangerous to the status quo, not to the evolution of knowledge."

Is there something more to be said? I mean, that's on-topic? Perhaps the more-to-be-said should be stated explicitly, so as to provide a firm foothold from which to launch a new, constructive avenue for discussion?
Click to expand...
Throw away to you. I guess you don't like the direction it has engendered.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
Most only consider new forms of the same paradigm. If something appears to superceed the present paradigm it is usually rejected by most.
Click to expand...

Not if there is actual data to support it.

Things were different in the past. Today one must get funding from those who expect a return or from government.
Click to expand...

Scientists are no different today. What IS different is that people's access to misinformation make them feel that their misinformation is equal to actual scientific research. Witness the rise in flat Eartherism, anti-vaxx, and chemtrail conspiracies, believed by people who do "research" by watching Youtube while they poop.

Do you know any scientists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top