Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
Look, I'm not trying to change opinions here. I know it seems that way due to how articulate I can state my opinions. You're going with the odds and that's a fair position, that's why I don't play the lottery, because I understand odds. But this is science, not vegas and it's odd to me to hear you describe the fact that scientists/anyone who gives the slightest plausibility to us being alone are lacking critical thinking because they don't apply vegas odds rules to studying science.
by applying new critical thinking to the fact that there is an overwhelming LACK of evidence allows science in its entirety to learn more about us, science, our world, the visible universe and more. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by exploring the question from both sides.
By asking why hasn't the question been answered at all allows science to investigate the issue in new light, ask new questions, rephrase questions, look elsewhere, look differently. In other words, learn more.
In short, being open to the answer and investigating the issue from another angle is the essence of critical thinking.
|
I'm going to put my position aside for now, humans are no more able to prove mine or any other at the moment.
However, consider the odds of intelligent life in the universe to humans current ability to answer the question.
Consider some basic variables and limitations:
Equipment we use to search (what it can tell us, what it can't)
Time we've actually spent searching for those signs specifically
Our imposed search limitations (scope, distance/time, frequencies, etc)
Funding or lack thereof to tackle the task in earnest.
Consider the size of the task at hand. Distances we cant travel, things we cant see, assumptions we have to make, things we don't understand etc
If you were to award a score out of 100, what would it be to first describe our technological abilities to perform the task ?
and a second score out of 100 to describe our efforts ?
Just curious basically.