10 rules for true believers to follow

[exchemist]

So they discovered what's happening. And the aliens had another agenda, a different set of volunteers they wanted to visit with. What's anti-science about it?

Anti-rational.

My beef with the film is it showed nothing of humanity's rational response to this amazing event. Just dorks making mountains out of mashed potato and crashing police cars. No ideas. no intellectual engagement with the challenge it obviously presented.

 

[spidergoat]

The scientists were rationally trying to establish a method of communication using pure tones.

 

[exchemist]

The scientists were rationally trying to establish a method of communication using pure tones.

Ballocks. They had a whole programme developed and ready, as I have described. The crap with the tones made no sense, given that they had already made extensive preparations to meet the aliens when they landed and had even got a team of people ready to to go aboard the flying saucer. You don't do all that when you haven't even worked out to communicate. It made no sense, at any level. Great effects, for the time, but zero plot coherence.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Ballocks. They had a whole programme developed and ready, as I have described. The crap with the tones made no sense, given that they had already made extensive preparations to meet the aliens when they landed and had even got a team of people ready to to go aboard the flying saucer. You don't do all that when you haven't even worked out to communicate. It made no sense, at any level. Great effects, for the time, but zero plot coherence.

Yes, but three years after that film came out, Carl Sagan's - Cosmos aired. Chill.

 

[spidergoat]

You don't do all that when you haven't even worked out to communicate.

The aliens had no problem communicating their general intentions through some kind of telepathy. The government reaction seemed improvised.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, but three years after that film came out, Carl Sagan's - Cosmos aired. Chill.

I know, I know, I have my tongue in my cheek slightly. After all, it was only a film.

But I DID come out of the cinema feeling a bit swindled and depressed, especially given all the hype. And it has made me view Spielberg's other productions with a jaundiced eye. Though I admit I like Duel. It had no plot either, but it was an unpretentious virtuoso exercise in creating an atmosphere. Which was OK, once.

 

[exchemist]

The aliens had no problem communicating their general intentions through some kind of telepathy. The government reaction seemed improvised.

Well, all I can say is I'm glad you were able to rationalise it to your satisfaction. I could not.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I know, I know, I have my tongue in my cheek slightly. After all, it was only a film.

But I DID come out of the cinema feeling a bit swindled and depressed, especially given all the hype. And it has made me view Spielberg's other productions with a jaundiced eye. Though I admit I like Duel. It had no plot either, but it was an unpretentious virtuoso exercise in creating an atmosphere. Which was OK, once.

I guess I'm glad I never saw the movie then, lol.

 

[exchemist]

I guess I'm glad I never saw the movie then, lol.

Expect you're too young, eh? 1977 was a bloody long time ago now. It was all sideburns and flares then. Marc Bolan had only just seventied himself by crashing his mini into a tree.

 

[spidergoat]

Well, all I can say is I'm glad you were able to rationalise it to your satisfaction. I could not.

I doubt humanity could muster a better response if it really happened today. Part of the realism was the incompetence.

 

[river]

I see , so the true believers of UFO's , are believers of UFO's in the first place ? silly.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I see , so the true believers of UFO's , are believers of UFO's in the first place ? silly.

You lost me there.

 

[river]

You lost me there.

belief comes before the evidence.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

belief comes before the evidence.

In what?

Like QM defied common sense and people like Einstein believed it shouldn't but couldn't tackle
it's evidence.

 

[river]

In what?

Like QM defied common sense and people like Einstein believed it shouldn't but couldn't tackle
it's evidence.

irrelevant .

what we talking about , discussing is UFOs . what is true and what is believed to be true , and what came first , the belief in UFOs or the evidence of UFOs .

evidence , obviously.

 

[DaveC426913]

Unless you actually observe a UFO , you will never understand the experience of a UFO.

Which is why it's not science.

But if you trust

Something we don't do in science.

 

[river]

Which is why it's not science.


Something we don't do in science.

really

we trust science everyday .

 

[DaveC426913]

really

we trust science everyday .

No.
Anything we're not sure of, we re-test (repeatability).
We have independent third parties test it to see if they get different results (independent verification).
And when we see something that doesn't fit, we modify our models, or discard them (adaptability).

These are the pillars of science. They mean we don't have to have faith in anything.

While UFO sightings are intriguing, they so far are too ephemeral to be a very effective subject of rigorous scientific analysis. So they attract believers instead.

Edit per users request - Kittamaru