"We are being visited."

Aliens Exist: Yes
Aliens Visit Earth: Nope
Aliens look anything like us:Nope

Probability of a fanatic religious group gaining power and enslaving the aliens should they visit earth by claiming they don't look like us therefore aren't sentient: 85.3%

Probability of world war due to aliens landing in say Russia and USA nuking Russia because America thinks that Russia now has technology that could threaten them. : 94:5%

Probability of war with Aliens should they land on earth: 74.3%

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Aliens look anything like us:Nope

Don't be so sure about that.
It may well be the case that only bi-peds with highly prehensile hands have
a high chance of developing as complex intelligence as us.

Originally Posted by Letum

Don't be so sure about that.
It may well be the case that only bi-peds with highly prehensile hands have
a high chance of developing as complex intelligence as us.

OR, we can't accept a non-bipedal life-form being as sentient as us.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

How can the Drake equation confirm anything when parts of it are unknown (and possibly unknowable)?

The point of it is to merely establish the likelihood of extraterrestrial civilizations within our own galaxy which we may come into contact with. It's really not hard to make conjectures on the subject, when all you need do is model it off our own planet.

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

There may very well be other life in the universe,

There definitely is. Just use common sense to reach that conclusion.

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

but the Drake equation does nothing to confirm or deny it.

Again, though, this is where you use common sense. Do you really think that all this:



. . .has no life in it whatsoever? There are 10,000 galaxies in that photograph alone, and it doesn't even cover a fraction of the visible sky.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Rilder

OR, we can't accept a non-bipedal life-form being as sentient as us.

That is certainly a possibility, but it seams more likely that other intelligent
beings would be bi-peds if we assume that the conditions required for
intelligent life are somewhat universal i.e. Earth-like.

At various times on earth completely separated groups of animals in similar
environments have followed similar evolutionary paths. Nature tends to tackle
the same problems in the same ways.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

The point of it is to merely establish the likelihood of extraterrestrial civilizations within our own galaxy which we may come into contact with. It's really not hard to make conjectures on the subject, when all you need do is model it off our own planet.

The formula establishes nothing. One of its factors is totally impossible to calculate (the odds of a planet sustaining life) and several of the other factors are easily fudged to generate any possibilities that you care to.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

There definitely is. Just use common sense to reach that conclusion.

One mans common sense is another mans folly. Your common sense is folly. You have no way of knowing whether there is any other life in the universe or not. It seems that a "scientific" person, such as you claim to be, would demand proof (or at least evidence) of said life.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Again, though, this is where you use common sense. Do you really think that all this:



. . .has no life in it whatsoever? There are 10,000 galaxies in that photograph alone, and it doesn't even cover a fraction of the visible sky.

Again, this is where you use common sense. Do you really believe that all of that just came from nowhere? If I used that kind of "common sense" in a debate regarding the existence of God, I'd be laughed out of the room by the so called "scientific" types (I believe you fall into that category). Why should I accept that "logic" when you're attempting to argue your point?



Having said all that, I do believe that there is probably life out there, but I don't know it to be a fact and your formula doesn't prove it to anyone.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Clearly we can't give a precise probability to claims that aliens are visiting
Earth, but we can decide if it is more likely than not, even if we are working
with very little evidence one way or the other.

How?

[Task Force]

I wonder... If on anouther planet... in anouther galaxy... if they are haveing a conversation like this one.:rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Task Force

Well you see they tryed visiting once... but found no sign of intelegence.

Obviously....if it was your school spelling book that they read

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Task Force

I wonder... If on anouther planet... in anouther galaxy... if they are haveing a conversation like this one.:rotfl:

Most assuredly so, and accomplishing just as much as this one

[TDK1044]

What's interesting is that you can apply all the logic you want to this subject, but everything changes when you actually see one of these things. At that point, your life changes and logic goes out the window.

In my case, I wasn't looking at some distant object in the sky through a grainy quality domestic camcorder, I was looking at a huge, silent object, hovering about 500 feet from me and about 100 feet in the air.

I had two choices; become part of the whole UFO thing by reporting it, or simply take it as an incredible personal experience. I chose the latter.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Letum

Clearly we can't give a precise probability to claims that aliens are visiting
Earth, but we can decide if it is more likely than not, even if we are working
with very little evidence one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Skybird

How?

The same way we get all good knowledge.
We look at the refutable evidence for the hypothesis and use various tools of
reasoning to decide if the evidence makes the hypothesis more than likely.

Either:
A) There will be enough evidence for us to reason that the hypothesis is
more likely than not. In this case we can say that we know the hypothesis
to be true to some degree of certainty, however small.
or
B) There will not be enough evidence for us to reason that the hypothesis
is more likely than not. In this case we can say that we know the
hypothesis to be false to some degree of certainty, however small.

I can't imagine a situation in which the evidence we have makes it
impossible to reason one way or the other. Only refusal to do so would
result in a 'I don't know' answer.

[Task Force]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Obviously....if it was your school spelling book that they read

Howd ya know.:rotfl:

Jim... did they try to beam you up and take you home as a pet also.. lol:rotfl:

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Letum

The same way we get all good knowledge.
We look at the refutable evidence for the hypothesis and use various tools of
reasoning to decide if the evidence makes the hypothesis more than likely.

Either:
A) There will be enough evidence for us to reason that the hypothesis is
more likely than not. In this case we can say that we know the hypothesis
to be true to some degree of certainty, however small.
or
B) There will not be enough evidence for us to reason that the hypothesis
is more likely than not. In this case we can say that we know the
hypothesis to be false to some degree of certainty, however small.

I can't imagine a situation in which the evidence we have makes it
impossible to reason one way or the other. Only refusal to do so would
result in a 'I don't know' answer.

In other words, you make an educated guess.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Task Force

Howd ya know.:rotfl:

Jim... did they try to beam you up and take you home as a pet also.. lol:rotfl:

Of course