Ah, the old can't prove a negative ploy, sorry you lose a turn try again next time.
Major new exoplanet findings to be announced next Monday
- Thread starter Wanderlust
- Start date
Ah, the old can't prove a negative ploy, sorry you lose a turn try again next time.
Same same try again, can't prove a negative. Spaghetti monster, teapots etc.
Sorry I've made my last post on the subject in this thread.
Thank God.
I think I explained pretty clearly what I was referring to, and it certainly wasn't the directness of the evidence. But if you insist to nitpick, I'll follow.
- Buildings are a direct evidence for a civilization.
- Atmospheric composition is an indirect evidence for a civilization.
- A civilization on one continent on a planet is indirect evidence for civilization on the rest of the continents, but it will never be cited as such, mostly because “evidence” is used refer to things beyond default knowledge, preferably closer to the subject. In particular, “there's no indirect evidence that we're not alone on the planet” would refer to something as the lack of pollution in the winds coming from these other continents. Yet it is still evidence, since any data supporting an assertion is. Everything slightly depends on the context, so if you really want to nitpick, we can go back to your initial assertion.
By the way “directness” is not really a boolean characteristic, so you do have more than two types, but it is completely boring to discuss that, and nobody cares about it.
- Atmospheric composition is an indirect evidence for a civilization.
- A civilization on one continent on a planet is indirect evidence for civilization on the rest of the continents, but it will never be cited as such, mostly because “evidence” is used refer to things beyond default knowledge, preferably closer to the subject. In particular, “there's no indirect evidence that we're not alone on the planet” would refer to something as the lack of pollution in the winds coming from these other continents. Yet it is still evidence, since any data supporting an assertion is. Everything slightly depends on the context, so if you really want to nitpick, we can go back to your initial assertion.
By the way “directness” is not really a boolean characteristic, so you do have more than two types, but it is completely boring to discuss that, and nobody cares about it.
Charming, you're such a lovely person. I especially love your avatar, it looks like she's imitating doing something that I'm too much of a gentleman to say that you do with pleasure.
That's enough of that. Drop the personal swipes and discuss the thread topic, or walk away. If I have to come in here again, I'll hand out infractions.
That goes for everyone else, too. This thread is way too vitriolic. Let's chill.
Never met Ms. Bachmann, but yes, if she wished to do that to me, I'd have no problem with it.
Relax, Robert, just trying to be neighborly.
Never met Ms. Bachmann, but yes, if she wished to do that to me, I'd have no problem with it.
Relax, Robert, just trying to be neighborly.
Yes, sorry Robert but I really didn't think stonester1 would take too much offense given that he had the sense of humour to use the avatar in the first place, it was just meant to be a small dig.
Never met Ms. Bachmann, but yes, if she wished to do that to me, I'd have no problem with it.
Relax, Robert, just trying to be neighborly.
Yes, sorry Robert but I really didn't think stonester1 would take too much offense given that he had the sense of humour to use the avatar in the first place, it was just meant to be a small dig.
Well, if I were you, I would avoid insinuating that male posters enjoy giving oral sex to other men, intending such a statement as an insult. Repugnant homophobia aside, that just ain't cricket around these parts (except for TNZ, which this forum is not.)
Now, let's get this back on topic.
What about those who have experienced alien visitations? Do we dismiss them, or they are also special?
Imagine yourself in the following situation – since birth you were locked in a room away from the rest of the world, perhaps your name was Rapunzel or perhaps you were flying alone in a spacecraft, but the only male person that you ever met was this boy. Eventually you, as time went by, you began to think of him as the most amazing man alive.
And I have a really simple question – is he really? Or do more amazing men live somewhere?
We won't know for certain, since the question doesn't say who that man is, which is not quite different from the situation in which we haven't seen the rest of the planets. Now, what is your guess? Is he?
And I have a really simple question – is he really? Or do more amazing men live somewhere?
We won't know for certain, since the question doesn't say who that man is, which is not quite different from the situation in which we haven't seen the rest of the planets. Now, what is your guess? Is he?
Knock it off. This kind of hostility doesn't belong here. It's not discussion of the topic at hand--hell, it's not discussion of anything. It's just meanness. Who knew an exoplanet thread would bring out the worst in people?
If I see one more nasty post in this thread I'm just going to lock it.
How many distinct species live on this rock? Go on, hazard a guess. How does that equate to one human? Not that humans aren't amazing. Familiarity breeds contempt and all that but from a purely objective POV humans are amazing too.
Well, the odds of finding a planet suitable for intelligent life are quite high in the galaxy.
There may be, but everything is relative. We can only work with what knowledge we have, so we can't really say that anything else is amazing without it being an appeal to ignorance.
"Amazing" is a completely subjective designation to begin with, so trying to constrain it into some empirical spectrum of absolute "amazingness" strikes me as a complete waste of time and effort.
If people want to say something is "amazing," let them. It's an emotional statement, not a scientific one.