Personaly I'm not sick of this crap.
I think it's good fun. Otherwise I wouldn't do it.
I am trying to illicit a logical arguement for the claims by questioning the hypotheses directly and specificaly.
I am not here to close my eyes to the truth and show everyone here how much I can close my eyes to the truth.
Instead of dancing arround the actual claims I have gone straight for the crux of them. Questioning the claim itself instead of questioning individual motives or individual integrity, I tried to make this clear.
It has nothing to do with vision. It has to do with logical reality. (On a side note, I am well aware that logical reality isn't neccesarily reality initself. Reality for the individual is the subjective experience.)
Logical reality is in essence the language we use to describe what we call the known world. We have agreed upon rules for this language (Or rather we have had these rules imposed on us). And to make statements using this language you need to follow these rules. The rules are logic.
The statement of "They can't see what has not been proven, thus nothing can be proven, untill it has been proven." is clearly absurd. (please correct me if I am wrong!)
I'll use and example, obviously anyone with eyesight can see the light, you don't need a formula to explain it in order to see it. In a way it is absurd to empirically test wether it exists or not (But we do it anyway for some reason). The existence of light is just that, the existence of light. However what the testing acheives is an attempt to explain the existence of light. It's the explenations that are either accepted or rejected not the light itself.
What we have in this case is the existence of craterchains, we all accept that we have seen photographs of this phenomenon. Now we look to reasearchers and experts to tell us the reason for why they exist. The reasearchers draw from their work and observations explenations for the phenomenon. Then they make claims about their explenations.
We as the uneducated mass look to the claims and see which are more feasible according to our own knowledge. And to some extent we also look at who is making the claim, do they have the expertise and training to make the claim?
In this case the 'tidal disruption theory' is much more feasable. Because it is well documented, well founded and seems to fit with observed phenomenon.
However so far, in the case of the 'ETI theory'. We have minimal documentation, no substantial foundation besides speculation and no substantial observed phenomenon for it to fit with.
By questioning this theory of ETI, we are calling for evidence that would convince us to believe otherwise. Or atleast logical explenations for why we should consider the minimal evidence of photographs as adequate.
Furthermore science is not the new God. Science is not a replacement for God (only sublingual advertising is that). Science is in essence a language for talking about our world. A very methodical and strict language.
I am not dumb enough to think that the great and holy Science has all the answeres or will explain everything some day. Far from it. Theories and even scientificaly accepted axioms change all the time. Science is always changing it's mind when something better comes along. And to be innovative in the field and thinking outside the box (like Einstein) is the way of progress and revolution in science. A paradigm shift requires a revolutionary new perspective on the world, this comes through innovation and new discoveries.
BUT to be revolutionary something has to be damn well founded. So in a sense we are doing the Norval-Gail duo a great favour by pointing out the gaps in their theories.
Because as long as there are huge gaps in a theory it can not be accepted. This means that the faithfull duo, IF they want to be taken seriously, should find ways of filling these gaps. They should go out and find the evidence. Then they can come back and tell us all about it, instead of making unfounded premature claims.
It's not a matter of simple belief in the possibility of ETI. It's a matter of faith in the language of logic.
I think it's good fun. Otherwise I wouldn't do it.
I am trying to illicit a logical arguement for the claims by questioning the hypotheses directly and specificaly.
I am not here to close my eyes to the truth and show everyone here how much I can close my eyes to the truth.
Instead of dancing arround the actual claims I have gone straight for the crux of them. Questioning the claim itself instead of questioning individual motives or individual integrity, I tried to make this clear.
It has nothing to do with vision. It has to do with logical reality. (On a side note, I am well aware that logical reality isn't neccesarily reality initself. Reality for the individual is the subjective experience.)
Logical reality is in essence the language we use to describe what we call the known world. We have agreed upon rules for this language (Or rather we have had these rules imposed on us). And to make statements using this language you need to follow these rules. The rules are logic.
The statement of "They can't see what has not been proven, thus nothing can be proven, untill it has been proven." is clearly absurd. (please correct me if I am wrong!)
I'll use and example, obviously anyone with eyesight can see the light, you don't need a formula to explain it in order to see it. In a way it is absurd to empirically test wether it exists or not (But we do it anyway for some reason). The existence of light is just that, the existence of light. However what the testing acheives is an attempt to explain the existence of light. It's the explenations that are either accepted or rejected not the light itself.
What we have in this case is the existence of craterchains, we all accept that we have seen photographs of this phenomenon. Now we look to reasearchers and experts to tell us the reason for why they exist. The reasearchers draw from their work and observations explenations for the phenomenon. Then they make claims about their explenations.
We as the uneducated mass look to the claims and see which are more feasible according to our own knowledge. And to some extent we also look at who is making the claim, do they have the expertise and training to make the claim?
In this case the 'tidal disruption theory' is much more feasable. Because it is well documented, well founded and seems to fit with observed phenomenon.
However so far, in the case of the 'ETI theory'. We have minimal documentation, no substantial foundation besides speculation and no substantial observed phenomenon for it to fit with.
By questioning this theory of ETI, we are calling for evidence that would convince us to believe otherwise. Or atleast logical explenations for why we should consider the minimal evidence of photographs as adequate.
Furthermore science is not the new God. Science is not a replacement for God (only sublingual advertising is that). Science is in essence a language for talking about our world. A very methodical and strict language.
I am not dumb enough to think that the great and holy Science has all the answeres or will explain everything some day. Far from it. Theories and even scientificaly accepted axioms change all the time. Science is always changing it's mind when something better comes along. And to be innovative in the field and thinking outside the box (like Einstein) is the way of progress and revolution in science. A paradigm shift requires a revolutionary new perspective on the world, this comes through innovation and new discoveries.
BUT to be revolutionary something has to be damn well founded. So in a sense we are doing the Norval-Gail duo a great favour by pointing out the gaps in their theories.
Because as long as there are huge gaps in a theory it can not be accepted. This means that the faithfull duo, IF they want to be taken seriously, should find ways of filling these gaps. They should go out and find the evidence. Then they can come back and tell us all about it, instead of making unfounded premature claims.
It's not a matter of simple belief in the possibility of ETI. It's a matter of faith in the language of logic.
