This goes back to what I said a few pages ago. His argument is a straw man. He is attacking (fervently) a position no one here has taken.

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

Aye, precisely. And that's why I'm hoping, against all hope, that he'll actually read that part and realize. Maybe it'll sink in after a few posts.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

William, I am on your side believing that ETI (aside from us)is nonexistant in our galaxy. But you quickly deviate from my ideas on some major points.

William point #1: Human beings are not intelligent.
We couldn't even define intelligence if we weren't intelligent. Many of the human behaviors you say make us "non-intelligent" are things that we, as a species, would never worry about, talk about, analyze, or define if we weren't intelligent.

William point #2: NASA is hiding the fact that aliens DON'T visit us.

Hogwash and malarky. I've never heard any NASA statement that says either way. In fact, NASA stopped funding SETI and SETI now depends on private funding. NASA isn't for or against ETI. They want to find life in the universe, but even if we KNEW there was none, NASA would still get funding for missions to Mars, the next moonshot, the eventual manned Martian missions, explorations of how our solar system formed (Stardust missions), satellite experiments, you name it.

I don't have time to go in to any more now.

Laters.

__________________
My son is my universe.

Back peddle, back peddle, back peddle… 2.25 posts per day isn’t too hard, but having substance behind an argument… no time for that.

William do you understand why everyone is constantly challenging your point of view? It has much less to do with your actual opinion, rather the presentation of it. This has been a recurring theme in so many posts starting with the whole Sagan is a sith thread. When an opinion is expressed it is expected that you express it as an opinion. Stating as matter fact things like humans aren’t intelligent, there is absolutely no possibility of ETI in this galaxy, NASA is fraudulent in their spending. There is a distinct air of arrogance, and I don’t think I am alone in reading this into your posts, that is sometimes just plain offensive to the sort of folk who come to this site to blab, postulate, and express their own opinions. I don’t think I have read a single post of yours that wasn’t expressed in black and whites and absolutes, where the absolute is along the lines of

“(I think<never actually expressed>) this is true therefore you are all so silly in clutching to a wrong idea.”

This thread for example, the whole point is conjecture, and the entertainment about why one person thinks the answer is 1 and another 1000. Since your first post you’ve expressed your opinion as the ONLY possible scenario, and then gone on to make further outlandish statements and not back them up.

I was typing away when Faultline posted, glad he did, because I meant to mention above that he agrees with your opinion about the possible number of ETI, but I don’t see him almost banned for having an opinion that’s contrary.

__________________
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.
--Isaac Asimov

I still think Faultline is wrong though.

Oh, and Faultline: *Licks lips*

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Although I tend to side with rare, perhaps ETIs are extremely common, and they just don't want to have anything whatsoever to do with us.

Or maybe they are very, very afraid...

I'm waiting. I asked some questions way back here, on the seventh:

How many intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way?

and have twice posted reminders. You have been on BAUT, posted on this thread and others during that time. So how much time do you need?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

You might consider the following then: "That's a great* question {X}, thanks. It'll take me a while to answer it properly (approx {y days/weeks}), but I want to let y'all know that I'm on it."

or something similar.

"I will attend to the questions" is, of course, perfectly OK; adding a time estimate is helpful to your reader (in case the unanswered question seems really important to a reader, they'll be sure to remind you about it, on {day/week y}+1).

*good/difficult/very pertinent/interesting. If you think otherwise, perhaps something like "Thanks for that. However, it's not really relevant/a misunderstanding/... Unfortunately, I don't have the time to show how/why/... just now; give me {y days/weeks}, OK?"

Your suspicion is incorrect. Regardless of the subject matter, participants are not allowed to ignore or evade direct questions on this forum.

Well, my point was that there isn't a streamlined idea of "there is ETI out there, and it's common", or "There isn't ETI out there in this galaxy"

Quite frankly, we can speculate, postulate, calibrate, and thinkabrate (made-up word) all we want. In the end, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are, quite frankly, insofar unknown to us.

I doubt that Extraterrestrial Life would be unduly afraid of us if it was sufficiently advanced. If it is capable of traversing the stars in due order, then most likely ETI is more than advanced enough to fear us. However, once again, in the end, it is mere speculation.

Perhaps alien life is rare. Quite frankly, the idea that alien life in this galaxy is rare isn't really a far-out hypothesis. however, that is what it is; a hypothesis that has gone untested. It is not, and should not be, a direct and unshakeable conclusion.

I'm still waiting to eat up Faultline, though. He hasn't fattened himself up enough, yet. I mail-ordered him some butter cookies, which should help.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

So in other words, you're on the fence. Then why do you think I'm so wrong?

I'm die(ting).

__________________
My son is my universe.

Yes, some think the possibility of ETI to be unlikely, and others do not. My point was that NASA has not come to a conclusion (that I can find evidence of) on either side of this question. I illustrated this by linking here to their website, where there are descriptions of how they intend to investigate the question.

Your response to this was that I should "consider the source" and that "their jobs depend on it" This seems to indicate that you think that NASA is not being honest about the subject, and that this lack of honesty is due to motivations that are self serving.

Where does NASA fall into this? Is money their motive as well for continuing to investigate the question? Any evidence that this is what they are indeed doing?


So, NASA continues to investigate the question of life elsewhere in the galaxy because they a placating those who want to believe in ETI, but they really know better? For them, it's simply all 'bout the Benjamins'! Do you have any proof of this claim?

Your lab functions in this manner, so you're assuming that NASA functions in the same manner?

It has to be the money because the respectable source's opinions don't generate money...only the unrespectable source's opinions generate money?

Perhaps it's just me , but this reasoning seems to be rather lacking in evidence and fallacious as well.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Because I don't like you.

Seriously, it's more like, you're stating something as if it's an obvious fact, not as if it's an unknown variable. You aren't as bad as Thompson, but you do seem partly guilty of it. of course, then again, it's been a while since you and I have heavily debated the issue (for me, at least), so I probably have forgotten a few things about our debate.

And also, I still don't like you. So nyah. >:P


Yes. Yes you are.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

That's what I'd say about the bulk of Thompson's statements. However, let's focus on this. Thompson, do you have any REAL evidence, not just speculation and innuendo?

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

or the one that to my knowledge hasn't been tried yet: "I don't know the answer to that question so I can't answer right now."

__________________
And the "driving on the freeway on a scooter" analogy still holds true because the pilots are sitting in 7 to 30 ton aircraft o' doom and you are running around them in your very own Meatbody, Mark I. Beep, beep.
Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

I'd say that if ETIs are common, then they still haven't figured out how to bend physics to their will in order to tackle FTL travel or even FTL transmissions. In that case, even if they've got interstellar travel, they are taking their time to get there. With that in mind, we aren't going to see them for a long time, regardless of whether we find them or they find us.

What's to stop them from having a ten million year headstart on us? That's only 0.1% the age of our galaxy. If "they" had anything that could get them around faster than light, they could have set up a McAliens burger joint on every planetary body in the galaxy by now.

In fact, they could do it if they could only travel at 1% of lightspeed given 10 million years!

__________________
My son is my universe.