Aliens/Demons/Angels and Science

File: 552 KB, 1064x1920, 1356506502278.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Aliens/Demons/Angels and Science Anonymous Sat Apr 27 11:21:28 2013 No.5714200 [DELETED]

I'd go on /x/ but I'd prefer to discuss this topic with people who are not delusional. I do not believe all the things on /x/ are automatically bullshit but at least 90% of it is just people writing stories and people wanting to believe probably.

What are your opinions on Aliens, angels, or demons? Do you think there is any proof they exist? Are you firmly of the opinion any spirituality or that type of thing is bullshit and that's that? Or are you open to the idea it may exist? Or do you think it does exist?

I am sure Aliens exist. I don't see how it's possible some things were built in ancient times unless some secrets of physics were lost over the years. And how some themes appear in every ancient culture almost around the world. And the fact, if we exist, why is it so hard to believe another type of being with sentient thought exists too?

I don't believe in spirituality currently, but I am open to the possibility. Is there any proof at all or evidence that demons, angels, or spirits in general exist or any of the sort? Angels/Demons referring to malevolent/benevolent spirits not something from the bible. Not necessarily anything from any religious book or organized religion, due to the fact those were made to control people.

But, just anything.

a few hundred years ago electricity and such things such as the internet, or etc... were a completely foreign and many technological advancements today were beyond comprehension.

So...why is it impossible some of those things yet, we simply have not developed the tech to test for/see yet?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 11:25:13 2013 No.5714208 File: 136 KB, 625x424, evidence.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 11:37:42 2013 No.5714231 >>5714200 You're probably one of those pseudo-intellectual dicks that posts faulty philosophy to Facebook because you know the bitches eat that shit up, aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 11:39:57 2013 No.5714236 Angels are particles and demons are neutrino bodies

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 11:40:13 2013 No.5714237 >>5714236 No, wait, this is gay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 11:42:29 2013 No.5714240 Why does /sci/ get so hostile about this topic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 11:43:58 2013 No.5714241 Aliens: >exist by probability of life in universe, no evidence however of their existence Angels/Demons: >existence is not testable, nor is there any evidence OP's post: >'i can't explain it, thus aliens/angels'

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 11:45:12 2013 No.5714245 >>5714241 Op's Post: >Furthermore, why haven't we come up with the technology to prove what I decided five minutes ago?!

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 11:57:42 2013 No.5714261

>>5714200
Angels and demons are made up by christian believers. They were invented by some pope to scare the non-believers and possibly convert them. Previous bibles and writings never mention something like that.
Aliens most likely exist but definitely not on our planet. The speed of light limit can't allow them to travel to our planet. Moving faster than the speed of light breaks causation. In other words it's impossible for them to get to earth even if they've began their journey before a million years. (suggesting that neighboring stars are lifeless)
Gods are invented by humans to explain phenomena that they don't understand. Be it the god of thunder, the god of time or the god that created the universe.

sage for not science and don't you dare bump this shit thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 12:16:12 2013 No.5714278 >>5714261 But particles have been proven to move faster than the speed of light.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 12:19:14 2013 No.5714282 File: 24 KB, 316x341, ohthisshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5714278 >faster than light 10 points if you understand the term 'rest mass'

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 12:21:28 2013 No.5714284

>>5714200
Hey buddy. Hold my hand. We're going to do something call "rational thinking" and "skepticism."
Scary I know, but take a deep breath, it'll be okay.
You see, humans are full of flaws and cognitive fallacies, we much easily believe something than disbelieve, we only look for evidence for things we support for, we're really bad at estimating probability and tons more.
When you say "I am sure Aliens exist. I don't see how it's possible some things were built in ancient times unless some secrets of physics were lost over the years" You're absolutely dead wrong. That sentence is filled with incorrect assumptions and feelings. But that's okay, you're human, it's easy to watch Ancient Aliens once or twice and go "hmm, that kind of makes sense."
First, because you can't see "how it's possible" can't lead you to making those ridiculous and grandiose assumptions. Many people can see it's possible to build those things just fine. There are primary documents that have hiring of people to build the pyramids in egypt. Engineers understand that the basic premise and construction of pyramids, although complex, require no highly advanced technology and so on. But you don't hear about that, you don't look for information that counteracts your world view. Of course not. But you should. That's called "being skeptical." You should consciously look for opposing view points and their credibility. Did you know that until recently no one had thought about ancient aliens? It's a modern phenomenon. Crazy right.

I'm done writing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 12:24:57 2013 No.5714287 >>5714208 Cancer 1 Hitchens 0

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 12:27:58 2013 No.5714293 >>5714278 NO! if you are referring to the FTL neutrinos detected by the OPERA researchers, it was a timing error if you're referring to tachyons they're strictly theoretical, have never been observed and contradict causality no short, NO!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 12:28:13 2013 No.5714294 >>5714293 Ware's muh Tachyons?

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 13:30:58 2013 No.5714398

>>5714284
9.5/10, new copypasta for me:

Hey buddy. Hold my hand. We're going to do something call "rational thinking" and "skepticism."
Scary I know, but take a deep breath, it'll be okay.
You see, humans are full of flaws and cognitive fallacies, we much easily believe something than disbelieve, we only look for evidence for things we support for, we're really bad at estimating probability and tons more.
When you say [...] you're absolutely dead wrong. Your statement is filled with incorrect assumptions and feelings. But that's okay, you're human, it's easy to read some rubbish once or twice and go "hmm, that kind of makes sense."
First, because you can't see "how it's wrong" can't lead you to making those ridiculous and grandiose assumptions. Many people can understand why this is complete nonsense just fine. But you don't hear about that, you don't look for information that counteracts your world view. Of course not. But you should. That's called "being skeptical." You should consciously look for opposing view points and their credibility.
Crazy right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 13:39:12 2013 No.5714417 >>5714398 nice, thanks

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 14:21:28 2013 No.5714504 Didn't the astronauts who landed on the moon claim there was an extraterrestrial vehicle alongside them but they said nothing till after to avoid being called back? And Buzz Aldrin claims there is a Monolith on mars moon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 14:29:13 2013 No.5714523 >>5714241 >>5714521 And how does probability imply existence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 14:29:43 2013 No.5714521 >>5714241 >>exist by probability of life in universe What is the probability of life in the universe (excluding earth)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 14:30:42 2013 No.5714529 >>5714521 33.34%, it's more or less a game of luck

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 14:32:43 2013 No.5714530 >>5714529 It is. Do you want what's behind door number three? Or would you like a new 100 dollar bill?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 15:04:27 2013 No.5714589 am i banned yet?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 15:12:58 2013 No.5714612 >>5714200 >I don't see how it's possible some things were built in ancient times Slaves. Lots and lots of slaves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 15:29:13 2013 No.5714635 According to cuantum mechanics everything is possible. If cats can be dead and alive at the same time, I don't see a reason why aliens and demons shouldn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 15:38:13 2013 No.5714653 >>5714635 Bad troll. I give you a Rasputin/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 15:43:13 2013 No.5714665 >>5714653 Rasputin was pretty awesome

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 15:48:28 2013 No.5714675 >>5714653 fuck off with your rap battle shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 15:49:12 2013 No.5714676 >>5714200 >>>/x/ Science does not comment on the supernatural.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 16:09:28 2013 No.5714709 File: 55 KB, 550x391, Einstein-Godel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5714200 Gödel thought angels and demons existed

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 16:53:13 2013 No.5714780

I don't want to seem like an asshole, but frankly, anyone who believes that aliens don't exist anywhere in the universe and we're the only ones out here, is stupid. The universe is composed of hundreds of quadrillions of planets—maybe even more. If you think Earth is the only one that supports life then you are truly ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 16:54:27 2013 No.5714782 >>5714780 Show me an alien. Without evidence they are just as non-existent as unicorns or fairies. Your childish emotional attachment to your kindergarten level fantasies doesn't make them less retarded. Please grow up and learn some science and math.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 16:55:58 2013 No.5714786 >>5714676 >Science does not comment on the supernatural. Science should get out of the comfortable zone every now and then. Maybe then we will change the term "demon" for a much more realistic one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 16:56:13 2013 No.5714791 >>5714780 >the universe is huuuuuuuuge, therefore EVERYTHING MUST OF HAPPENED The real numbers are infinite. How many of them have the value 3?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 16:57:58 2013 No.5714792 >>5714782 Many people have seen aliens, and then government has covered up evidence of their existence. Do the research yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:05:57 2013 No.5714810 >>5714792 Ah, yes, the wonderful government conspiracy that allows the lack of evidence to be evidence.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:08:28 2013 No.5714826
File: 2.68 MB, 400x225, 1364406404076.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5714791
>Implying this comparison is valid
>implying it hasn't been confirmed already that life is more possible than we initially thought.
>Implying there are not billions of planets with similar or better conditions than earth.
>implying the conditions of earth are required for these beings to survive.
>implying extraterrestrial life would mean intelligent extraterrestrial life.
>implying we can't make hypotheses before an experiment because that would be philosophee

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:08:28 2013 No.5714827

>>5714810
There are thousands of UFO sightings every year. No, not just vague lights in the distance, some people (who were non believers at first) actually see them clearly, performing movements that human aircraft can't do. So are these thousands of people all crazy schizophrenics, even the respected scientists?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:08:57 2013 No.5714824 >>5714792 The US government is terrible at covering things up. I mean look at their track record, they suck at secrecy. You'll feel like an idiot when documents get declassified in 50 years and there's still nothing to do with aliens.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:11:58 2013 No.5714836

>>5714826
>implying the comparison wasn't valid
>implying you're not grasping at straws
>implying you aren't trying to cover up your lack of evidence
>implying you understand probability
>implying your fallacious pseudo-argumetns aren't based on non sequiturs and appeals to emotion
>implying you understand science
>implying "muh childish fantasies" is more convincing than the lack of scientific evidence

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:12:42 2013 No.5714837 >>5714827 That's a false dichotomy. Are the "respected scientists" experts in what human aircraft can do? Why should, say, someone who specializes in pharmaceuticals have any more credibility in what aircraft can do than a kid who works in McDonald's?

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:15:44 2013 No.5714843

>>5714786
>Science should get out of the comfortable zone every now and then.

The fact that you would say something so asinine only indicates that you don't even fucking know what science is.

Science deals with empirical evidence observed from natural phenomena.

The idea that you can observe or experiment on something that is supernatural (something that is literally beyond what is natural or unexplainable by natural law or phenomena) is absurd. The very act of observing something you claim to be "supernatural" would make whatever phenomena you were observing natural, since you were able to observe it in the first place.

Supernatural = beyond reality and observation.
Natural = observable reality.

Fuck off back to /x/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:16:14 2013 No.5714848 File: 28 KB, 400x400, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5714826 >it is possible, therefore IT MUST OF HAPPENED

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:17:59 2013 No.5714850

>>5714837
Any sane person with an ounce of rational thought knows how human aircraft with current technology can fly. Airplanes fly in a straight line. Helicopters, however, can hover and maneuver like airplanes cannot. However, no human craft can travel in a straight line at 500 mph and then go in the opposite direction in 2 seconds, and make bizarre movements that would be impossible with our technology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:20:12 2013 No.5714864 >>5714848 Nuh-uh! Because ... uhm ... quantum theory! CHECKMATE!!

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:20:42 2013 No.5714867

>>5714836
It is not valid. The conditions of life are not that specific. In fact, they are much more diverse and there are even some microorganisms OF EARTH able to survive in space so why not on other planets? The possibility of life outside earth has been mathemathically proven, do some research. By possibility it does not mean that it actually IS, but that it is an option we can not deny for now.

You grasp my straw.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:22:27 2013 No.5714871 >>5714848 >it is possible, but still fuck it! PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN I'm not claiming it's possible, but that it is likely.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:23:43 2013 No.5714876 >>5714871 What is your probability measure? Can you write down the math?

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:23:58 2013 No.5714873

>>5714867
You still have no evidence. Appeal to possibility is a retarded fallacy and you know it. You could use the exact same non-argument when talking about the existence of ghosts, unicorns or demons and it would be just as valid, i.e. not valid at all. Please grow up.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:27:57 2013 No.5714881

>>5714850
Not piloted craft. But drones can do interesting things. Why do you assume everything being observed has to adhere to what's commonly seen? Experimental craft are tested all the time. How do you know people are seeing craft? I've seen plenty of videos of ghostly "orbs" that were very clearly dust particles or bugs, it's just that the people claiming it was paranormal weren't experienced photographers to recognize that. People could be making similar mistakes with your supposed UFOs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:32:27 2013 No.5714895 >>5714867 >some microorganisms OF EARTH able to survive in space >space is not earth. >surviving in space, very harsh conditions. >not the evidence that life can exist outside earth. Wat?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:32:27 2013 No.5714897 >>5714894 He didn't make any argument. I called him out for his use of retarded fallacies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:32:58 2013 No.5714894 >>5714836 >attacking the person instead of the argument you shouldn't talk about straws

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:34:58 2013 No.5714901 >>5714881 Supposed UFOs?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:36:57 2013 No.5714906 >>5714897 see this >>5714895 life from earth outside earth confirmed. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:37:42 2013 No.5714909 >>5714906 >life from earth That's not what we were talking about. Please learn to read.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:38:29 2013 No.5714911 >>5714901 Well, I guess of course it's a UFO if we don't know what it is. What I should have said was "supposed alien craft."

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:46:28 2013 No.5714928 >>5714926 >likely Please tell me about your probability measure. You're jumping to unjustified conclusions.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:46:43 2013 No.5714926

>>5714909
You really want me to think for you, don't you?

Life from earth outside earth confirms that life can survive in the outer space.
If life can survive in outer space, with these deadly conditions, then life can exist in not so harsh conditions.
If life can exist in not so harsh conditions, then life on other planets is not only possible but likely.
Some biologists claim that life may be naturally generated under certain conditions. Do we know it yet? No. Should we stop investigating? No.
There you go.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:49:28 2013 No.5714937 >>5714926 Do you believe in unicorns? I mean they are definitely possible. And considering how the universe is huuuuuuuuuge, they are even very LIKELY.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:50:27 2013 No.5714941

>>5714926
Brilliant! You've established that life probably exists somewhere else in the universe. Terrific. I doubt there are many people who would disagree with that. Now the real question: how technologically advanced are they and could they be visiting us? Ah, those would be much MUCH more difficult. The possibility of life existing elsewhere is NOT the same thing as them visiting us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:51:14 2013 No.5714945 >>5714942 No, I'm a scientist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:51:59 2013 No.5714942 >>5714937 Dammit are you one of those creationists?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:52:57 2013 No.5714947 >>5714941 >probably By what probability measure? Please stop talking out of your ass.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:53:13 2013 No.5714954 >>5714945 You disappoint me....I thought you would be open-minded.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:53:43 2013 No.5714951

>>5714928
>Math or it didn't happen.
I don't know. The previous mathematical explanations about life outside earth were low, but it has been recently said that they were WRONG because muh biology experiments. Math is only right when we consider all factors, if new values are added then the results change greatly.

I guess the discussion is over for me since I can't find the math of the experiments I read about. Who was right or wrong? We will eventually know

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:54:42 2013 No.5714956 >>5714942 Seriously? Is this your argument? You get called out for your retarded fallacies and your response is to denigrate and malign the person who refuted your nonsense? You are truly anti-intellectual cancer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:55:13 2013 No.5714961 >>5714956 You call me retarded for believing in extraterrestrials?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:55:14 2013 No.5714963 >>5714941 >The possibility of life existing elsewhere is NOT the same thing as them visiting us. Absolutely. I don't think it's possible.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:55:44 2013 No.5714964

>>5714947
>By what probability measure?
By the logical "probability measure" that simple Earth organisms can exist in conditions far more harsh than any present on Earth... by the "probability measure" that simple organic compounds are abundant throughout the universe... by the "probability measure" that exoplanets are known to exist within habitable zones of other stars.

Just because life can exist in extremely harsh conditions does not mean that that life is intelligent though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:55:58 2013 No.5714960 >>5714954 I am open-minded. You on the other hand are dogmatic. You keep believing in things without evidence and you want to force these believes onto others.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:56:57 2013 No.5714966 >>5714947 42, obviously. But you're right, since I don't have a probability measure it must mean aliens have come to earth and are probing our butts. In fact, one's probing your butt right now with 200% probability.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:56:57 2013 No.5714967 >>5714951 Thanks for admitting that your statement about "probability" was baseless and nothing but an expression of wishful thinking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:57:57 2013 No.5714972 >>5714961 Yes, I do. Believing in things without evidence is retarded. Do you believe in fairies and ghosts as well?

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:59:28 2013 No.5714978

>>5714964
>By the logical "probability measure"
That's not how math works.

Do you agree with the following?

A probability space is a triple \left(\Omega , \mathcal{A} , P\right)[/spoiler] with \Omega [/spoiler] being a set, \mathcal{A}[/spoiler] a \sigma[/spoiler]-algebra on \Omega[/spoiler] and P[/spoiler] a probability measure on \mathcal{A}[/spoiler]?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 17:59:58 2013 No.5714977 >>5714967 >Thanks for admitting that your statement about "probability" was baseless While also proving that math can be wrong if we don't consider the rest of the factors.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:00:12 2013 No.5714979

>>5714972
You're like the Europeans in the Middle Ages. They believed the earth was flat. It was, right? If it was round then we would fall off. Anyone who disagreed with this was executed. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you, but calling me retarded for believing in aliens is ignorant and uncalled for.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:00:58 2013 No.5714980 >>5714977 >math is wrong 0/10, too obvious

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:02:13 2013 No.5714983

>>5714979
Calling you a retard is very called for. You are promoting a belief which you cannot back up with evidence. "What if" and "I want to believe" are not valid arguments in the scientific context. This is a science board. Scientific theories are based on factual observations. >>>/x/ is the right board for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:05:59 2013 No.5714989 >>5714980 Let's state it like this: the calculations are ALWAYS right. what they imply is not, since sometimes there are missing variables which are not taken into account. >being this dense

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:06:13 2013 No.5714990 >>5714989 What calculations? You didn't present any calculations.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:06:13 2013 No.5714991

>>5714983
Scientist and mathematicians have calculated that there is a 99% certainty that life exists somewhere else in the universe. There are hundreds of quadrillions of planets, if not 1000x more, and you think NONE of them support life, not even bacterial, except for earth?? I hope you're trolling, for if people like you still exist in today's society then there really is no hope for humanity. What's the point of exploring space if there's nothing to see? Lets just stay confined to earth and stay ignorant......

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:07:14 2013 No.5714995 >>5714991 >Scientist and mathematicians have calculated that there is a 99% certainty No, they didn't. You're making up nonsense.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:07:14 2013 No.5714997

>>5714983
So unless we have an example of alien life in hand it's meaningless to discuss or even look for alien life (since the worth of something is so dependent on proof)? I guess we should tell all those idiots looking at exoplanets to stop wasting everyone's time and money. Actually, they shouldn't have bothered looking for those planets until they'd already found one.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:08:14 2013 No.5714998

>>5714979
This is common misconception. Most classical civilizations accepted the earth was spherical very early on after aristotles death.
Textbooks from the middle ages confirm that the general consensus among the scientific community was that the earth was a sphere.
Another common misconception is that columbus thought the earth was flat, he did not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:08:14 2013 No.5714999 >>5714978 Measure theory is overly complex shit only needed to work around the problems introduced by working in a theory of infinite sets that gives rise to "unmeasurable sets" that nobody can give an example of.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:08:43 2013 No.5715000 >>5714995 Drake Equation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:09:58 2013 No.5715001 File: 119 KB, 1062x642, temp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] /x/ does really get uppity when told that the boogeymen aren't real >>>/x/12511626

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:10:42 2013 No.5715002

>>5714999
>Measure theory is overly complex shit
What's your problem? Is is too hard for you, babby?

>"unmeasurable sets" that nobody can give an example of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_set

>>5715000
Please come back when you graduated high school.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:13:28 2013 No.5715012

>>5714990
I could only find the previous calculations. The ones which stated that life outside earth was highly unlikely.

These calculations, however, were wrong since there have been several discoveries in biology that show that there are much more factors to be used.

I just stated that what math implies is not always right and proved it. It's like trying to understand physics with Descartes' findings. We have moved on, we just don't know where.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:13:59 2013 No.5715010

>>5715000

>implying you understand the Drake Equation
>implying we have enough data to begin to do an honest calculation of the equation

>are people really this dumb?
>Do they just look at a bunch of symbols accompanied by an assertive statement "therefore 100% garble chance" and then accept it as fact?
>where is my cyanide pill?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:13:59 2013 No.5715011 >>5715002 >axiom of choice >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:15:13 2013 No.5715020 >>5714200 >Posting a shooped pictures Cmon bro, you dont really believe that image right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:15:42 2013 No.5715016 >>5715002 >What's your problem? Show us an infinite set.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:15:57 2013 No.5715018 >>5715001 >lurking on /x/ lel

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:15:57 2013 No.5715019

>>5715000
The drake equation is a probabilistic argument. Not an equation in the sense that actual scientists would use.
It is an estimate to the probability of the number of radio capable intelligent civilizations in the milky way.
It does not take into account the rest of the universe.
Nor do we have any reliable data regarding the variables in that so called equation.
It's a pseudo-equation. a gess

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:16:58 2013 No.5715022 >>5715019 jus LIK e(VIL)ution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:17:27 2013 No.5715026 >>5715018 Scared of reading fiction mate? It's okay, it'll rot your brain - stay away.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:19:42 2013 No.5715028 >>5715019 It is not an argument at all, just pure anti-mathematical bullshit. This Drake person doesn't understand probability theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:22:27 2013 No.5715033 >>5714995 They did. Google it.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:22:43 2013 No.5715031

>>5715028
You're fucking arguing, based on some sort of deluded mathematical concepts, that life cannot exist in the entire fucking universe beyond Earth. That is literally what you are saying. The people you are arguing against aren't even saying anything about intelligent aliens visiting Earth, or any such nonsense. Stop being such an incredible sperg and fuck off.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:23:42 2013 No.5715036

>>5715031
>that life cannot exist in the entire fucking universe beyond Earth
No, that's not what I'm saying. Thanks for showing that you're illiterate. Did you drop out of kindergarten? I agree that life on other planets is possible. Nothing more can be said. Talking about it being "probable" or "likely" is retarded and anti-intellectual and only proves your failure of understanding basic probability theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:24:13 2013 No.5715038 >>5715031 At no point have i said that life cannot exist elsewhere in the universe. I just pointed out that the drake equation is not an equation.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:25:13 2013 No.5715040

>>5714200
>I am sure Aliens exist.
Learn the difference between the statements of 'exist' and 'have or do visit Earth.'
It's a vast distinction that is very important.

>a few hundred years ago electricity and such things such as the internet, or etc... were a completely foreign and many technological advancements today were beyond comprehension.
But we can never be nearly as ignorant as we were in the past. It is simply not possible for those large differences and massive jumps to happen any more.

>So...why is it impossible some of those things yet, we simply have not developed the tech to test for/see yet?
We can only move toward better understanding; being MORE accurate about the world and its limits.
Most of what we know is going to be very close to true, because we constantly investigate and criticize it.
Do not assume that we will eventually be able to do things that we believe today are totally impossible -- almost every single aspect of the impossible will be proven right.
Only small parts will be corrected, ever.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:25:13 2013 No.5715042

>>5715002
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_set
>the axiom of choice guarantees the existence of a subset of [0, 1] containing exactly one representative out of each element of R/Q. A set formed this way is called a Vitali set
I repeat: "unmeasurable sets" that nobody can give an example of

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:25:42 2013 No.5715044 >>5715038 It certainly is an equation, but it is fucking meaningless and does not prove anything.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:27:13 2013 No.5715049

>>5715038
You were right about all of it, up until you said it was a guess.
It is nothing remotely like a guess.
A guess is made absent of data of information -- the entire point of the Drake estimate is to avoid that.

Please, NEVER equate 'guess' with 'estimate.'

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:28:28 2013 No.5715056 >>5715036 >Talking about it being "probable" or "likely" Holy fuck, could you be any more of an autist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:28:57 2013 No.5715050 >>5715042 An not Lebesgue measurable set can be constructed without the axiom of choice. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/42215/does-constructing-non-measurable-sets-require-the-axiom-of-choice

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:28:57 2013 No.5715051 >>5715049 It's actually a bit of both. It's a guesstimate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:28:57 2013 No.5715052 >>5715049 >gesstimate(tm) by /x/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:29:12 2013 No.5715058 >>5715056 It isn't my fault that you are too coginitively impaired to understand mathematical terminology.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:30:12 2013 No.5715061

>>5715044
>It certainly is an equation, but it is fucking meaningless and does not prove anything.

What does it 'equate'?
It is supposed to provide an estimate; it does NOT show two values equal to one another.
('Equation' does not just means there are calculations in it.)

And, of course it doesn't prove anything -- proof is an ENTIRELY different process, in this case having nothing to do with mathematics or values of estimation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:31:43 2013 No.5715065 >>5715050 >axiom of infinity >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:31:58 2013 No.5715066 >>5715058 Would the word "possibly" appease your incredibly ass-holish shit-picking nature? Jesus fuck, get a life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:32:13 2013 No.5715070 look at all these semantic faggots

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:32:13 2013 No.5715071

>>5715061
>What does it 'equate'?

The LHS and the RHS. Syntactically it is an equation. As I said it is meannigless and in the context of probability is even invalid.

>It is supposed to provide an estimate
It fails to do so. Any estimate given by that equation would be wrong.

>And, of course it doesn't prove anything
I was not the person who posted it claiming it was a proof.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:33:29 2013 No.5715075 >>5715066 No need to be upset. I corrected your abuse of terminology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:35:12 2013 No.5715080 >>5715050 >An not Lebesgue measurable set can be constructed without the axiom of choice. No it can't, as explained by the page you linked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:35:43 2013 No.5715082 >>5715075 No, you're just shit picking for the sake of being a little bitch. You knew full well what was meant, and if you didn't then you really are autistic and I feel bad for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:37:58 2013 No.5715088 >>5715082 If people use terminology incorrectly, I will correct them. That's how it's done in science and math.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:39:13 2013 No.5715095 File: 45 KB, 632x511, fbsadsonic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5715088 The hero science needs, but not the hero /sci/ deserves. Stay strong and evar vigilant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:40:42 2013 No.5715097 If deities don't exist, then who created the sets? Checkmate, noncognitivists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:41:44 2013 No.5715098 >>>/x/12511626

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:41:44 2013 No.5715099 >>5715088 Sorry, but this isn't some fucking review board. We're not publishing a goddamn article here. Get over yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:42:58 2013 No.5715103 >>5715099 This is a science and math board. Feel free to leave if you don't like these topics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:43:57 2013 No.5715105 >>5715000 The drake equation is true.. The only thing you can contest is the assumption is makes (number of earth like planets, number of earth like planets with life, etc).

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:44:27 2013 No.5715109 >>5715103 I like the topics fine. I don't like raging autists who shit pick over semantics such as yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:44:27 2013 No.5715111 >>5715105 >The drake equation is true.. No, it isn't. It is a collection of garbage meant to syntactically resemble an equation. To any person who knows something about probability it is obvious that the equation is flawed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:46:28 2013 No.5715116 >>5715111 In what way is it flawed?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:47:13 2013 No.5715117 >/sci/ >Believe string theory >Don't believe in intelligent life somewhere among the infinite number of galaxies this place

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:47:43 2013 No.5715118 >>5715116 If you don't see it, there's no point in explaining because you definitely lack the education. Please take an introduction to probability theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:49:58 2013 No.5715124 >>5715117 >you >believing in the existence of mystical creatures without evidence >dismissing established and consistent theories with lots of evidence >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:50:59 2013 No.5715126 >>5715117 It's not even that... just someone getting a stick up their ass over the use of words such as "likely", "probable" and "possible"...

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:51:42 2013 No.5715130 >>5715126 "Possible" is fine, but "likely" and "probable" imply a estimation of probability. Using these words as emotional expressions of wishful thinking is degenerate.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:51:42 2013 No.5715131

>>5715118
>If you don't see it, there's no point in explaining

You are making a massive error here:
if you want to make a justified statement about the flaw,
say something to suggest the flaw.

Anything.
saying it's flawed and giving NOTHING AT ALL is just a completely empty statement, of no value or substance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:53:42 2013 No.5715132 >>5715131 Do you know what a probability space is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:54:13 2013 No.5715135 >>5715131 Yes, _I_ do, but I wasn't making the statement. I also wasn't the person you were writing to. I know how _I_ would criticize the Drake -- but _you_ were the one writing.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:54:59 2013 No.5715134

>>5715130
Who ever said anything about using these words as emotional expressions? People use these words almost interchangeably all the fucking time. You're just shit picking over these words and pissing off everyone without even trying to actively correct their word usage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:56:13 2013 No.5715138 >>5715134 >People use these words almost interchangeably And that's not how these words are to be used. "Likely" and "probably" are supposed to refer to an estimate of probability, not to a childish expression of "I want to believe".

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:57:13 2013 No.5715144

>>5715134
>People use these words almost interchangeably all the fucking time.

They do, but that is a massive mistake, revealed as soon as you start discussing any topic.
I agree with you that discussion can use colloquial terms here, but some colloquial terms are just plain wrong.

Using wrong terms fouls up the conversation right away; they need to be avoided.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:57:59 2013 No.5715142 >>5715135 I am not his high school teacher. I am not obliged to explain fundamental concepts to him.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:58:28 2013 No.5715147

>>5715138
>And that's not how these words are to be used.
We're not editing a Master's thesis here you cunt.
This isn't being written up for Nature.

>"Likely" and "probably" are supposed to refer to an estimate of probability,
>not to a childish expression of "I want to believe".
You're putting words in people's mouths now. Congratulations.

Keep being a complete dick.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 18:59:58 2013 No.5715149 >>5715147 This is a science and math board. Keep your colloquial abuse of terminology to whatever pleb board you came from.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:01:27 2013 No.5715152

>>5715142

No, but that's not the point:
You wanted to express something; I know because you tried to write it.
But your statement is entirely empty, meaningless, and without value if you do not suggest what is wrong.

It's like someone telling you your favorite movie is 'stupid and awful' -- without hearing if they have seen it, or what they thought was awful or stupid in it, the statement has no value.
You have to get more information before their statement can have any value.

It is not about 'not his teacher' -- because communication -IS- about being expressing to the other person something you want them to know.
It's unavoidable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:01:27 2013 No.5715153 >>5715149 >pleb board >posting on 4chan where do you think we are.jpg >>5715144 So then why be so anti-constructive?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:01:59 2013 No.5715154 >>5714979 Eratosthenes. Mere observation. No one has believed the Earth was round since Classical Greece you ass.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:02:43 2013 No.5715157 >>5715152 redacting 'being'

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:03:58 2013 No.5715158 >>5715152 It is not my fault that he doesn't understand babby math. I will not waste my time writing an explanation he won't understand because he is lacking knowledge of the basics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:05:13 2013 No.5715161 >>5714635 the only funny thing to ever happen on futurama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqcaaUtPdAo

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:05:13 2013 No.5715162

>>5715158
Holy fucking shit. Autist confirmed.

Look here, it's this simple. (And you can still do it while being a dick to somebody)
"Saying something is 'probable' or 'likely' is not the same thing as being 'possible'. If you said 'possible' I would agree with you." <insert "lrn2probability theory" remark here>

It's not my problem that you are genetically influenced to be anti-social or anti-constructive. I shouldn't have to waste my time teaching you etiquette.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:07:13 2013 No.5715167

>>5714979
>You're like the Europeans in the Middle Ages. They believed the earth was flat. It was, right?
Your understanding of the statement is completely wrong.
At that time, the statement applied only locally -- overall, the ground is flat.
If they considered astronomy, they knew that there was a scale on which that was not true -- they just didn't conceive it like we do.

>If it was round then we would fall off. Anyone who disagreed with this was executed.
Anyone who ran around being an ass and denouncing the statements of the local law, the State, or the common belief system was punished -- but not just because of that statement, ever.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:07:42 2013 No.5715166

>>5715162
>"Saying something is 'probable' or 'likely' is not the same thing as being 'possible'. If you said 'possible' I would agree with you." <insert "lrn2probability theory" remark here>

That's what I said at least thrice ITT. Thanks for showing off your illiteracy. Never read a book?

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:09:12 2013 No.5715169

That picture is terribly silly.
>Officials found the corpses relatively untouched by any sort of animal
Just look at the picture
>stench was unbearable, this is somehow strange
What do you expect in a place where they literally leave corpses in the open air until they're nothing but bleached bones?
>Several feet of blood
Considering that nobody examined the pit very closely this is just speculation. Could have been a mixture of fluids such as water [rain] or even that the pit wasn't as deep as they assumed.
>Rest of the story
/x/ doing what /x/ does

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:10:58 2013 No.5715172

>>5715162
>Autist confirmed.
Advising: You'll never win if you keep this crap up.
Any stupid reference to things common only to 4chan just make you look stupid in here.
"Babby's first' and 'can not into' and 'autist' and all other such insipid references lower your credibility, a lot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:10:58 2013 No.5715174 >>5715166 No, you didn't. Not until someone pointed out that you aren't explaining yourself and being a massive dick, and just throwing probability theory in people's faces. Never leave your room to socialize with anyone ever?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:14:58 2013 No.5715181 >>5715174 Why do you blame me for your illiteracy? You are too stupid/uneducated to understand my posts. That's YOUR fault, not mine. You shouldn't insult me, you should insult yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:14:58 2013 No.5715182 >Aliens Almost certainly exist. Almost certainly haven't visited us or even know we exist. Almost certainly will never meet us or know we exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:18:12 2013 No.5715199 >>5715182 >Almost certainly Please stop abusing vocabulary of probability theory, you cancerous piece of shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:19:28 2013 No.5715203 >>5715181 Thanks for your lucid contribution. I'll take your heartfelt, inspired comments into consideration next time I'm scratching a particularly annoying pimple.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:21:29 2013 No.5715209 >>5715199 You should probably just leave. Make a different thread about probability so you can discuss such vocabulary with people who give a shit, because nobody else in here does, or at least, not nearly as much as you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:23:30 2013 No.5715217 File: 50 KB, 500x647, 1367068900827.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The description of that photo is a complete lie. Although it has probably been mentioned already.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:23:59 2013 No.5715215 >>5715203 What a pointless post. Please keep your butthurt to yourself. >>5715209 This is a science and math board. Your anti-intellectualism is not welcome.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 19:24:58 2013 No.5715218 >>5715215 >What a pointless post. Please keep your butthurt to yourself. Ditto

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:09:37 2013 No.5715428 >>5714782 Came over here from the internet just to tell you, you're a dumbass

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:18:42 2013 No.5715436 >>5715428 I'm a "dumbass" because YOU can't into science? Cool story.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:19:12 2013 No.5715439 >>5714782 >Show me an alien. Move to the Mexico-US border

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:29:43 2013 No.5715461 >>5714635 This

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:30:59 2013 No.5715468 >>5714782 Copy pasta from /pol/ alien thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:31:13 2013 No.5715471 >>5715468 Nope. I've typed it on my own and I've never been to your ledditor role playing board.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:34:13 2013 No.5715479 >>5714782 >Without evidence they are just as non-existent as unicorns or fairies. No

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:35:58 2013 No.5715483 >>5715479 Hitchens' razor. Do you deny rationality and science? Please go back to >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:38:27 2013 No.5715487 >>5715483 Unicorns and faries lack theoretical evidence. >Hitchens' razor Not a proof or refutation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:39:15 2013 No.5715490 >>5715487 >Unicorns and faries lack theoretical evidence. So do aliens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:42:28 2013 No.5715498 >>5715483 An absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:44:12 2013 No.5715503 >>5715471 You are lucky that thread in /pol/ on 4chan (/pol/ - What is the "Black Knight" satellite? ) 404'd you lying faggot, or I would have given you a screenshot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:44:12 2013 No.5715504 >>5715498 Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Did you fail to understand modus tollens?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:44:58 2013 No.5715501 >>5715490 No, aliens are allowed by chemistry. Unicorns and fairies aren't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:45:14 2013 No.5715508 >>5715503 Someone copypasted my post for reposting on /pol/? Why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:45:42 2013 No.5715509 >>5715504 Now someone will say something about a teapot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:45:42 2013 No.5715510 >>5715504 arguing from ignorance

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:46:27 2013 No.5715512 >>5715509 >teapot Nobody cares about that tripfag. >>5715510 >can't into logic

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:47:14 2013 No.5715515 >>5715510 You cannot prove that you exist, and yet you do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:48:14 2013 No.5715518 >>5715512 >can't into the type of a predicate

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:49:27 2013 No.5715522 >>5715521 Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:49:42 2013 No.5715521 >>5715515 cogito ergo sum

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:50:12 2013 No.5715526 >>5715522 why? please prove Descartes wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:50:58 2013 No.5715525 >>5715512 I see no tripcodes it is you who is the faggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:51:12 2013 No.5715529 >>5715521 So a rock does not exist?

>>	Father Afroduck Sat Apr 27 21:52:57 2013 No.5715532 >>5715498 There are known knowns and there are known unknowns!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:53:44 2013 No.5715535 >>5715526 Descartes was a dualist. Therefore he was wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:53:58 2013 No.5715536 >>5715526 You have not proven that you think

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:55:13 2013 No.5715544 >>5715529 no, it's a figment of my imagination. >>5715535 argumentum ad hominem >>5715536 why do I need to prove that to my hallucination?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:55:13 2013 No.5715545 >>5715504 >Before telescopes existed >There are no planets beyond Saturn because I see no evidence of them. And yet the outer planets exist. Explain, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:56:13 2013 No.5715547 >>5715512 >Nobody cares about that tripfag. who said anything about a tripfag, idiot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:57:28 2013 No.5715549 >>5715547 We had a shitposting tripfag going by the name of "teapot". Lurk more, newfaf.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:57:28 2013 No.5715550 >>5715544 >Descartes was a dualist. Therefore he was wrong. >argumentum ad hominem ...what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 21:59:12 2013 No.5715554 >>5715549 >somebody says the word "teapot", referencing the teapot orbiting Mars example >thinks he was referencing some tripfag named "teapot" that nobody gives a shit about Get out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:00:57 2013 No.5715557 >>5715549 When I made the original post>>5715509 I was referring to Russell's Teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:01:13 2013 No.5715559 >>5715550 Someone is wrong because of a particular worldview they have? That's attacking the person, not the argument they make.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:03:14 2013 No.5715560 >>5715532 And hence unknown unknowns

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:04:59 2013 No.5715563 >>5715559 Said world view is known to be retarded and disproved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:05:28 2013 No.5715569 >>5715566 Then why has it been falsified by neuroscience? Checkmate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:05:42 2013 No.5715566 >>5715563 Dualism is unfalsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:05:59 2013 No.5715567 >>5715559 That's not attacking the person, that's attacking his argument, since it's the argument he tried to defend, but which we know to be unfalsifiable. I don't think you know what ad hominem means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:06:42 2013 No.5715571 >>5715566 Thus, cannot be scientifically proved, thus wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:07:12 2013 No.5715573 >>5715569 It hasn't. Has neuroscience found qualia? Are you mentally challenged?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:08:43 2013 No.5715575 >>5715571 >>5715574 More arguments from ignorance. It's like I'm really on reddit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:08:57 2013 No.5715574 >>5715573 >Has neuroscience found qualia? Of course it hasn't because they don't exist. Checkmate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:20:43 2013 No.5715597 >>5715575 >More arguments from ignorance. you keep using that word.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:20:57 2013 No.5715596 >>5715574 Let's all take a wonderful trip to /x/ >>12513491

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:35:12 2013 No.5715623 >>5715501 >chemistry cant into horses with horns in what world a horse with a horn is something impossible biologically?

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:39:42 2013 No.5715633

>>5715597
>An argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is an inference that a proposition P is false from the fact that P is not proved to be true or known to be true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:41:00 2013 No.5715638 >>5715623 >The horn itself and the substance it was made of was called alicorn, and it was believed that the horn holds magical and medicinal properties.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:41:12 2013 No.5715639

>>5715633
>Argument from ignorance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Absence of evidence" redirects here, also see Evidence of absence and Argument from silence
John Locke (1632- 1704) who introduced the term Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.[1]
An argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is an inference that a proposition P is false from the fact that P is not proved to be true or known to be true.[2][1] Arguments from ignorance are based on the absence of evidence and may fail because the lack of evidence for P does not prove P to be false.[3][4]

As an example scenario is of a man sitting in a warehouse with a tin roof and when he hears no sound of raindrops, he assumes that it is not raining, without looking outside for any evidence of rain.[5] Here ignorance about a particular form of evidence for rain (the noise) is used to assume a lack of rain; but the conclusion may fail if it is raining so softly that no noise is heard by the man.[5]

The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has been used in fields such as epistemology, medical research, archeology and criminalistics, where it is taken as an axiom that the lack of evidence that a person was present at a scene does not imply that they were not there.[6][7][8][9]
GUYS,SOMEONE SAID I DIDNT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING AND I COPYPASTED THE ARTICLE FROM WIKIPEDIA, SUCK IT!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:44:59 2013 No.5715643 >>5715638 >medicinal properties in a living thing dear god, what a crazy idea

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:45:57 2013 No.5715645

>>5715639
>I DIDNT UNDERSTAND
Cool argument, dude

>>5715563
>disproved

>>5715569
> falsified by neuroscience

>>5715571
>Thus, cannot be scientifically proved, thus wrong.

I guess you don't know what wrong, falsified, or disproved means. Are you like 15?

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:49:59 2013 No.5715653

>>5715645
Idiot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Idiot (disambiguation) and The Idiot (disambiguation).
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/an ignorant), neither of which refers to someone with low intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:50:59 2013 No.5715655 >>5715643 >magical and medicinal >logical conjunction

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:51:14 2013 No.5715657 >>5715653 So now you're going to insult me? Go back to /b/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:51:14 2013 No.5715658 >>5715653 Ah, the Dawkins approach >You're losing! Tell him he's retarded!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 22:51:42 2013 No.5715656 >>5715639 He references an article that shows why that term is appropriate for this. Showing that he understands the term wasn't the point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 23:20:57 2013 No.5715717 >>5714876 Can you to prove him wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 23:25:45 2013 No.5715732 >>5714941 Depends how evolved or technologically advanced they are. Also, how much time they have had.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 23:31:27 2013 No.5715759 >>5714240 Because people dont like getting out of their comfort zones, and the subject of alien visitation tends to send people over board, for some reason.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 23:35:12 2013 No.5715775

>>5714504
There is something on Phobos that looks like a monolith, but it could and most likely is just be a rock.

But the whole conspiracy about Phobos, aliens, and a Russian probe is for the most part, one of the most interesting and disturbing out there, considering theres actually meat to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 23:48:13 2013 No.5715805 >>5715759 Or just, you know, because it's ridiculous and has been debunked many times over.

Anonymous Sat Apr 27 23:50:59 2013 No.5715809

>>5714843
Fuck people like you.

Let me say something right now. About 5% of "ufos" sightings/reports are by definition, ufos. We truly dont know what that 5% is. Its a long stretch, but with that little stat, the possibility of alien visitation is possible and not deniable. Close minded, easily frustrated fucks like you rape the whole subject over. Wanna know why you do? Heres why:

People like you criticize people that have anything to do with the subject to hell. You ruin any scientific lives they have. You make them outcast. Obviously, no real scientist wants that. Any scientist that wants to come out and say "Hey, there might be more to this," will be fucking ripped apart. Anybody that wants to study video/photos/reports cant come out with a actual report that hints at the possibility of aliens without being scrutinized to hell and back. People that want to legitimately come out in any kind of support to the subject cant, because assholes like you will ruin them.

Want to know what that does? Not having scientist/good reports come out leave the door open for the retards. People like david icke (the guy that made up the reptilian conspiracy theory) fill in the gap made by you, and then they fuck the subject over even more. This is where you get the shit like abductions, alien bases on earth and the dark side of the moon, ect.

People like you are are making a small scientific dark age. There is meat to this, and if you ignorant fucks keep closed you will never get the evidence you want.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 27 23:56:27 2013 No.5715821 >>5715809 Here we go again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:01:13 2013 No.5715829 >>5715805 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMETA >dat 5% percent of sightings >dat actual report by scientist and government officials, not nutters >debunked Debunked what?

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:04:59 2013 No.5715835

>>5715809
Let me see if I grasp your logic here...

So because we don't know what it is... we need to buy in to the ludicrous possibility that it's an alien visitor? The proposal only raises more questions than it answers. I'm sorry, but vidoes can be faked or edited. Photos can be cropped and doctored. Reports can be completely fabricated. Ask any psychologist, or cop for that matter, about the reliability of eye witness testimony. Come to me with some real physical evidence before I entertain that fucking notion.

/x/ is that way --->

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:21:12 2013 No.5715868

>>5715809
Also:
>Not having scientist/good reports come out leave the door open for the retards.
What the fuck do you consider a "good report" or a good "scientist" in this matter? Someone who comes out and says "I'm not saying it's aliens, but..."? Would that satisfy your fantastical thinking? Sorry if the reality of things is too dull for your delusional mind.

>People like david icke ... fill in the gap made by you, and then they fuck the subject over even more.
Isn't what you're doing essentially filling in the gaps?

Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:25:12 2013 No.5715878 >>5714521 >>5714523 Probability is equal to 0 or 1. It is currently impossible to say. With a sample size of 1 case where life has been observed in the universe, its impossible to say whether or not life can exist elsewhere.

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:29:13 2013 No.5715883

>>5715829
>Immediately afterward, a French weekly news and leisure magazine called VSD referred to it as an "official report", though technically this wasn't the case since COMETA was the work of a private, non-profit, ufological study group.
Sure seems credible to me brosef.

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:33:13 2013 No.5715891
File: 19 KB, 600x450, 131106162910-Rockman_beyond_mad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5715835
You really believe that? You really believe that all photos, videos, and reports have been fakes? Would you care to explain the Belgian UFO wave then? Would you care to explain the radiation at so called landing sights? Would you care to explain why the Mexican army has dispatched jets to chase so called ufos, and end up releasing the chase videos? Would you PLEASE explain the Battle of Los Angeles? Would you care to the explain the 5% of sightings that are truly ufos as claimed by the COMETA report, and give evidence to why none of said encounters are by extraterrestrials?

Please, enlighten me, you ignorant ass. You people are bringing the lack of evidence on yourselves. Only by opening your minds and being more accepting will you get what you want. Until then, go fuck yourself and keep your mouth shut.

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:35:12 2013 No.5715896

>>5715878
>hurr wat r similar condishunz
See
>With a sample size of 1 case where life has been observed in the universe, its impossible to say whether or not life can exist elsewhere.
sentence looks pretty unique to me. A sample size of 1 almost. It is certainly possible to say it whether not not it can exist elsewhere. Protip - it can.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:37:43 2013 No.5715900 >>5715891 Photos. Check. Videos. Check. Reports. Check. Radiation. Check. Army jets. Check. Sightings. Check. Absence of evidence of everything aforementioned. Check. >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:37:43 2013 No.5715901 >>5715891 >i can't explain it, thus aliens

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:39:43 2013 No.5715905 >>5715891 we /x/ now

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:43:58 2013 No.5715915 >>5715900 Being a egotistical, closed minded, retard: Check.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:46:42 2013 No.5715927 >>5715915 >ad hominem >>>/x/

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:49:15 2013 No.5715932
File: 104 KB, 624x354, oh_wait_you're_serious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5715891
>You really believe that all photos, videos, and reports have been fakes?
I didn't say all of them have been "faked". No doubt most of them were taken without any dubious intention of the photographer, doesn't change the fact that they are completely explainable in mundane terms that require no extra terrestrial intervention.

>Belgian UFO wave, radiation at "landing sites", Mexican army jets chasing UFOs, Battle of Los Angeles, COMETA report

Not everything you read on the internet is true broheim. Keep being mad though. Your delusional conspiracy theory bullshit makes me giggle.

Come back with real physical evidence that isn't some poor quality resolution photo/video, that isn't an eye witness account, or can't be explained by mundane, well understood phenomena. Maybe then I'll believe you.

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:52:29 2013 No.5715937

>>5715915
>Being a egotistical, closed minded, retard: Check.
Yet you are the one claiming with some certainty that it really is aliums, making you the one who is closed minded. Also egotistical, since you seem to think of yourself as having some sort of special knowledge that is being "suppressed by da evil gubment cover up". I suppose retard to boot, since you actually believe this tripe. I'll bet you'll buy anything you see in a commercial too.

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:55:58 2013 No.5715941

>>5715900
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMETA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Mexican_UFO_incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dDqrbyUrm8 (footage of Mexican UFO incident)

>being to lazy to search anything up

Also, before you start screaming that its wikipedia, take use of the sources.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 00:58:12 2013 No.5715949 >>5715941 You mean sources that state that these were not UFOs?

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 01:02:42 2013 No.5715952

>>5715941
>COMETA
Some report by froggys employed by a known ufologist group who claim that US govt. is covering up existence of aliums in UFO sightings reports. Nice appeal to authority, but no.

>Battle of Los Angeles
Easily explainable as a false alarm triggered by a weather balloon, or some such nonsense, as described in the wiki link. But I guess that explanation isn't fanciful enough for your addled mind.

>Belgian UFO wave
There's a triangle thing in the sky that we don't know what it is. It's in our airspace and it's not responding. Scramble some jets to intercept. Pictures we have of it are of poor quality. No physical evidence. Only eye witness reports remain. Must be aliums.

>Mexican UFO incident
See above.

Try harder, nutjob.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 01:05:58 2013 No.5715956 >>5715952 Actually let me amend that after watching more of the Mexican footage: >Mexican UFO incident It's a fucking comet or meteorite breaking up as it enters Earth's atmosphere. >>5715941 Jesus fuck, be more gullible.

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 01:33:42 2013 No.5716018
File: 176 KB, 1024x830, loonney.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Well i was abducted by aliens when i was 12 years old. Had many scaring of tissue and health problems since then. even found a implant in my arm.

However, I never told anyone about that night for fear of losing my job.

It kinda a double standard, that people can say they heard the voice of God and be perfectly fine in high ranking positions but the minute someone mentions alien abductions it is off to the lunnybin with them

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 01:35:13 2013 No.5716026 >>5716018 Yeah, people who say that they've heard the voice of God are on the same level of craziness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 01:35:42 2013 No.5716023 >>5715956 >citation needed

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 01:42:27 2013 No.5716046

>>5715952
>Battle of los angeles
What you are trying to tell me is that of the thousands of rounds shot at the "weather balloon", not a single one took the balloon down? Jesus, if that is true, I dont know how the US beat Japan in WW2.

>Belgian UFO wave
Did you even read up on it? I know that the pic is fake, but disregard that one thing, and realize some 13,000 people saw strange things for months on end. When that many people report the same thing for months, its not exactly completely useless.

>Mexican UFO incidend
Source it was a comet or meteorite?

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 01:49:57 2013 No.5716065

>>5716046
>Did you even read up on it? I know that the pic is fake, but disregard that one thing, and realize some 13,000 people saw strange things for months on end. When that many people report the same thing for months, its not exactly completely useless.
Much more people believe in ghosts, god, qualia, unicorns, consciousness, devil, dreams, angels, tulpas and other non-scientific non-existent bullshit.
>Source it was a comet or meteorite?
Source it were aliens? He probably doesn't have a source that it was meteorite but it sounds more plausible for any sane person.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 28 01:51:13 2013 No.5716069 >>5715932 >>5715932 >Come back with physical evidence >Doesn't understand how the internets work

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 02:02:58 2013 No.5716089
File: 1.09 MB, 213x210, are you fucking serious.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5716065
>Belgian UFO wave
Are you serious? Are you for fucking real? What the fuck does that have to do with this? People actually saw something, and considering a massive amount saw the same thing for months, it says something that something actually happened, aliens or not.
>Mexican UFO Incident
FYI, meteorites streak across the sky. They dont show up as dots of light. They have "tails". I am not sure if the same goes for comets.

Anonymous Sun Apr 28 02:20:58 2013 No.5716113

>>5716065
Wow dude you're deluded you actually put consciousness there? How about that thing called Air or Gravity stops working, simply because you think its fantasy shit (because it can't be proven because you think non-existent fantasy shit because it's to close to being intangible). The utter levels or retardation is absolutely immense with this one.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math