ufos and aliens

Originally posted by karoly aczel
(or are you just going to keep doubting?)

I am likely to keep doubting unless you can provide very convincing evidence that the source of the phenomena was aliens. But you should have no problem with my doubts. You have no real motivation to be believed on faith do you? I am not accusing you of lying or being deceptive, so my doubts about the origin of the phenomena does not reflect badly on you.

The reason for my doubts are simply that my knowledge of science leads me to believe that the ability of anyone, alien or otherwise to travel from star to star is highly unlikely, and based on my knowledge of common sense it seems even more unlikely that they would then choose to communicate telepathicaly with a select few humans with a rather cryptic message. What do you think they are trying to achieve by doing so?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am likely to keep doubting unless you can provide very convincing evidence that the source of the phenomena was aliens. But you should have no problem with my doubts. You have no real motivation to be believed on faith do you? I am not accusing you of lying or being deceptive, so my doubts about the origin of the phenomena does not reflect badly on you. ...[text shortened]... humans with a rather cryptic message. What do you think they are trying to achieve by doing so?

of course, i should've known you would keep doubting. how silly of me.
No I dont have any hard evidence.
My evidence is that it happened and I couldn't attribute it to antyhing else

Originally posted by karoly aczel
My evidence is that it happened and I couldn't attribute it to antyhing else

Thats a perfectly reasonable position. However, my recomendation is that in addition to studying the literature on 'aliens' and listening to other peoples similar experiences, you consider also looking into alternative explanations. I also caution you not to use as literature fictional novels about aliens.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats a perfectly reasonable position.
I'm not sure that it is. I don't think it is an objectively rational position, so the question turns to whether it could be a subjectively rational one, but that also seems unlikely based on the account given.

Or you might want to argue that a position can be perfectly reasonable without being rational.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I'm not sure that it is. I don't think it is an objectively rational position, so the question turns to whether it could be a subjectively rational one, but that also seems unlikely based on the account given.

Or you might want to argue that a position can be perfectly reasonable without being rational.

I see it as possibly perfectly reasonable and even objectively rational if he has limited scientific knowledge (which is probably the case). It is my belief that it he got a good science education he would no longer hold the same position and it would no longer be a rational position to maintain. From my position, with my knowledge it is not the most rational position (and I have stated as such), but he does not know what I know and cannot necessarily be faulted for that. If however he is given a good argument against his position but refuses to hear it, then he becomes irrational.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what reasons do you have for believing that the communication came from aliens and not some human with a telepathy machine? From my own knowledge of science, a human with a telepathy machine is a more probable explanation unless there are specific characteristics ruling that out. For example, did the 'aliens' give you any information that it would by highly unlikely that a human would know or would be able to make up?

Are you really calling a "telepathy machine" science ? Would anything even remotely resembling one exist outside of some secret laboratory ? Of course anything is possible, like the "death ray" or "earthquake machine" invented by Nikolai Tesla in the early 20th century (that is science).

twhitehead,

I think we agree that what is to be considered rational for an agent depends on the evidence pool available to said agent.

I think we might be talking at crossed purposes and the fault is mine because I didn't define my terms. By 'subjectively rational', I mean that a belief p is subjectively rational for an agent S, if S rationally ought to believe p given the evidence available to S at the time S formed the belief p.

By 'objectively rational' I mean it is objectively rational to believe p if anyone rationally ought to believe p, given the evidence generally available at the time.

Now suppose I say to you that I have been contacted by the Intergalactic Council, and my evidence for this claim is my experience of that contact. It would have been nice if the Council had found some way of validating their contact of course. Perhaps they could have dictated a proof of one of the solvable mathematical problems that attract a million dollar prize (assuming there are any), but no doubt they have their reasons for just appearing as an unvalidatable phenomenon in the head of a nondescript like me.

Now, is my position objectively rational, subjectively rational, or bonkers? My claim is that it is not objectively rational and that the conditions under which it would be subjectively rational would include my ability to assimilate available evidence. If I am unwilling even to engage in discussion regarding contrary evidence, I'd say my position is not subjectively rational either.

In summary, I think it is reasonably clear that we are not dealing here with a rational position of either sort.

update:
1.i would say i am at least average in science( i got all a's in highschool scienceie.chemistry,physics,maths1,maths2,biology)
2.my position is irrational but reasonable given the evidence i had to work with.
3.I have zero fictional novels about aliens
4.evidence:crop-circles
5.Yes it may not be aliens from another planet. it may be aliens from this planet i suppose.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
update:
1.i would say i am at least average in science( i got all a's in highschool science.)
2.my position is irrational but reasonable given the evidence i had to work with.

I contend that since you think that your position is irrational and yet despite realising this you are manifestly resistant to contrary evidence, your position is also unreasonable.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I contend that since you think that your position is irrational and yet despite realising this you are manifestly resistant to contrary evidence, your position is also unreasonable.

and if it is...then what? should i just drop it? or admit it had to be something else like a dream or a telepathy machine?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
and if it is...then what? should i just drop it? or admit it had to be something else like a dream or a telepathy machine?

Well that's an interesting question, because there are two aspects to it that potentially conflict. The first is my use of 'ought' when I said that S rationally ought to believe p. This hints at the normative dimension of how we conduct ourselves when acquiring belief. On the other hand, ought implies can, and I think most people recognise that we cannot just choose what we believe.

What do you think?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Well that's an interesting question, because there are two aspects to it that potentially conflict. The first is my use of 'ought' when I said that S rationally ought to believe p. This hints at the normative dimension of how we conduct ourselves when acquiring belief. On the other hand, ought implies can, and I think most people recognise that we cannot just choose what we believe.

What do you think?

i think we live behind "veils" of reality. you will have different points of view from different veils.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
and if it is...then what? should i just drop it? or admit it had to be something else like a dream or a telepathy machine?

...although the short answer is probably 'yes'.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
...although the short answer is probably 'yes'.

probably😴

Originally posted by karoly aczel
i think we live behind "veils" of reality. you will have different points of view from different veils.

That's all very well but it just seems to boil down to the fact that we have different vantage points from which to view reality. If we accept that, we must concede the possibility that some vantage points afford a clearer view than others.