[HN Gopher] The Alien-Haunted World
___________________________________________________________________
The Alien-Haunted World
Author : CapitalistCartr
Score : 18 points
Date : 2021-02-15 13:59 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (m.nautil.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (m.nautil.us)
| maxharris wrote:
| After listening to his interview with Lex Fridman, I'm with Dr.
| Loeb on this one: Loeb's position is scientific. He's not saying
| he's certain that Oumuamua was sent by aliens; it is a distinct
| possibility, with just enough evidence that we should take the
| possibility seriously, rather than ruling it out as the orthodox
| inquisitionists posing as scientists do.
| kkoncevicius wrote:
| For me it went into the opposite direction after listening to
| 'omuamua is not aliens' video [1]. I think Dr. Loeb, contrary
| to what he says, is exploiting this a bit for some personal
| gain and fame.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wICOlaQOpM0
| XorNot wrote:
| As I keep saying everytime this topic comes up: resulting in
| _what_ new experimentation, that is meaningfully distinct from
| what would be done normally?
| xherberta wrote:
| One that Loeb has mentioned: the status quo 10-year plan
| involves searching exoplanets for oxygen, which could arise
| without life, and which organisms would not necessarily need
| or produce. Instead, Loeb thinks we ought to look for
| industrial pollutants. A positive result on that would be
| extremely interesting.
| mynegation wrote:
| Possible venues for experimentation and research: 1. Do we
| have or should we develop a technology to detect incoming
| bodies like that earlier? 2. Do we have or should we develop
| a propulsion technology and/or spacecraft that is able to
| intercept these bodies at some point in their trajectories
| and send back some useful information
| XorNot wrote:
| We are doing both those things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
| ki/%CA%BBOumuamua#Hypothetical_sp...)
|
| We were doing those things before we even detected
| `Oumuamua. Whether or not `Oumuamua specifically is
| extraterrestrial - which is _not_ worth considering based
| on weak evidence - didn 't change anything.
|
| This is the problem: the evidence doesn't make the case,
| and "considering the possibility" doesn't lead anywhere
| interesting in terms of actual experimentation.
| ThalesX wrote:
| What a thought!
|
| Billions of billions of stars, with planets and
| civilizations, pushing technology to new heights, but
| ultimately realizing that the best way to leave your
| handprint on the galactic cave wall is a Universe-wide
| message in a bottle.
|
| I'm afraid we have more chances of making ourselves known
| by randomly throwing these bottles, than by answering back
| to where it came from.
| ffhhj wrote:
| Or it could be a civilization-in-a-bottle artifact with
| carefully programmed trajectory between several stars. If
| the message sender blew itself to nuclear ashes, its
| frozen siblings could have a new opportunity in a new
| system.
| jrowen wrote:
| From the article:
|
| _This is precisely why an agency like ESA is developing
| its Comet Interceptor Mission, to be ready to chase future
| interstellar visitors._
|
| This is basically the thesis of the article and the person
| you're responding to: the "orthodox inquisionists" are
| already doing this stuff, because they're not actually as
| close-minded as Loeb is making them out to be.
| lrossi wrote:
| We could prepare better for similar occurrences. Such as
| funding better the astronomers and the labs so that we have
| instruments able to at least detect and take pictures of such
| objects, if not probe them.
|
| Not to mention the possibility of one hitting the earth, for
| which we are completely unprepared. Even if it's just a rock
| and not an UFO.
|
| The main reason for having this debate is that we weren't
| even capable of taking a good picture of it. The best thing
| we have is a white dot with varying brightness over time. We
| have no clue what it was and we probably will never know.
|
| The state of the tech we have would be understandable if it
| was 1990, but in 2021 it's starting to look pathetic.
| imglorp wrote:
| Another apt religion metaphor: a deist insists there must be a
| god and an atheist insists there must not be. Neither position
| has any information or falsifiable claim. An agnostic admits
| ignorance until observations can be made.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| It is just that there are no observations that would suggest
| any deity. Scientific ones that is, because we are talking
| rationality.
|
| So anything else than atheism is purely faith-based. Until
| the moment it does not incommodate me ona personal level (by
| teaching "equivalent theories" in schools, or forcing me to
| wear thisor that) I am fine with that.
| XorNot wrote:
| Presumably the agnostic is then worshipping Christianity,
| Islam and Judaism, as well as the entire Hindu pantheon,
| various African gods, the Rainbow Serpent...
|
| Claims for the defense of agnosticism always seem to be
| bizarrely certain about _which_ god they can 't be sure
| doesn't exist.
| undoware wrote:
| Having read both this and the NYT Opinions Manjoo article,
|
| I found the argument in this article a bit weird. Seems to go
| like:
|
| - There was an Opinion column in a newspaper, focused on a book
| review, that had a headline that was clickbait-y and slightly
| misleading (TRUE)
|
| - This opinion column (meanwhile recalling that opinion columns
| are effectively arguments-for-and-from-perspective) was not
| 'balanced' with opinions like mine; (TRUE)
|
| - It's frustrating that there is a book about this that does not
| mention my preferred explanation [n.b. I have bought but not yet
| read this book, so I cannot myself comment, but for the sake of
| argument, let's say, TRUE]
|
| - There are some other scientists who have also done excellent
| work in this field and they are not being mentioned and they may
| or may not have different opinions, however I will hereby
| insinuate that they share my view (possibly, TRUE? I don't know
| e.g. Jill Tarter's view; haven't had a chance to google around.)
|
| So, this article seems to say a bunch of plausible things, but
| none of which are terribly well-motivated or compelling.
|
| - Opinions columns are allowed to be cases for/against a view,
| and are not expected to both-sides any given issue;
|
| - The book itself _just is_ a principled, accessible,
| scientifically-informed argument for the position opposed by
| Scharf; it's not clear why Scharf needs to write an article
| apparently decrying both the book and the review of it --- as if
| the articulation of the position itself was somehow beyond the
| pale
|
| - Recalling that writers seldom get to pick their headlines, I
| still worry that the title of this piece (riffing on Sagan's
| _Demon Haunted World_) implicitly associates demons and aliens as
| equivalently fanciful. Now, they may well be, but given that
| *this is the question presently under consideration*, I cannot
| help but feel a question begged, or at least, prejudiced.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-15 23:02 UTC)