Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Hi TazI'll change the topic title. ... like mass ... Or the rotation of galaxies?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thank you Otto Tellick, Curiously, it seems the only argument people are making is to redefine A (your "C") to being absurd or unbelievable or contradictory first. Thus they have already made up their mind that B is absurd or unbelievable or contradictory and don't need to use the comparison with other concepts.These pre-judgments are subjective conclusions, and based on your world view rather than on evidence or logic.In other words the argument goes like this:Person 1: A is an example of B (A=B) (where B is the class of things we don't know)Person 2: No, A is an example of C (A=C), just like D is an example of C (where C is the class of things that are absurd or unbelievable or contradictory)Person 1: No A is an example of B (A=B), we don't have enough information to conclude that it is or is not C (A?=?C), as B is the class of things we do not know, because there is no evidence pro or con for them.Person 2: But D is an example of C and you have not shown that B is not like D (B=D) ... and around we go again.Where = means "is like" versus == which means "is the same as" identity)Note: I've edited previous posts to add a ps for clarity on this meaning.I've also change IPU to immaterial pink unicorn) for Taz. But I don't think you can make that deduction either. Logically all you can deduct is that currently we don't know. It does not matter how much we know or how much we think we know, what matters is that at this current point in time A consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceWhere "evidence" can be qualified to mean "sufficient or convincing evidence" which then means that the acceptance of evidence is itself subjective and based on your world view rather than deductive, because what is "sufficient and convincing" to one person can be "insufficient and unconvincing" to another, resulting in curious debates involving pens on desks and the like. Accepting any concept for which you have no evidence either way is accepting it on subjective grounds. That is not disputed. And again, it does not matter how much we know or how much we think we know, what matters is that at this current point in time we don't know, so the acceptance is subjective rather than deductive.Likewise concluding that an idea is absurd or unbelievable or contradictory without evidence of this is also a subjective conclusion based on your world view, rather than a deductive one based on evidence. In the original post "C" is defined a "something without evidence" so this consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidence So rather than the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, it is the logical fallacy of ridicule (ad lapidem)? Curiously, this is another reason I dismiss the IPU concept. When one employs the Reductio ad absurdum argument one should make sure that what you start with is actually comparable. When we look at "something without evidence" as meaning:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceThen we can eliminate IPU as a self-contradictory concept, while that has not been shown for a belief that meets (1) and (2). So if we eliminate IPU from the class of "something without evidence" due to intrinsic contradiction, you are correct, they are not comparable.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thank you shalamabobbi, So Otto Tellick and I are not alone in seeing this.Thus, in addition to the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, it is the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack and ridicule (ad lapidem)?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Rahvin, I'll answer some other people too, to save multiple posts saying the same thing. The implication of the typical IPU argument is that you are an idiot, because you can't see that C is just like B, not that you are wrong.So far we've gone from
B is an example of A
C is an example of A
∴ B = CWhich is accepted as a logically flawed argument to
B is an example of A
C is an example of A
C is wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc.
∴ A is the class of things that are wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc.
and ∴ B is wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc.This is evident in people redefining A to be something other than the class of things that consists of "concepts without evidence," which is refined to be:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceNow maybe I am uneducated in the matter, but it seems to me that this includes a LOT of concepts that don't involve deities in any way, and that range across a spectrum of believability. Again, the logical position is that "we don't know" and yet we see all kinds of people believing in several of these concepts. Thus it seems to me that we should be able to discuss this without involving religion/s.We've seen a range of responses on the issue of alien life in the universe, from Mark to Ned to Straggler, and what it comes down to is how well the concepts fit into the jigsaw puzzle that is your personal world view (your collective opinions and deductions you've made based on evidence, experience, education, training and knowledge). Is it a virus infecting a cell (to be battled) or is it nourishing sustenance for part of the cell (to be welcomed), or is it a sperm fertilizing an egg (causing a growth of the cell into a new form)?To answer Straggler's persistent tangential question - the believability is related to how much we think we know about the question, when we think we know a lot, we have a high confidence in our conclusion, and when we think we know little we have a low confidence in our conclusion, no matter what that conclusion is. This is part of the world view, not independent of it. Different people have different world views (their collective opinions and deductions they've made based on evidence, experience, education, training and knowledge) and will come to different (and necessarily) subjective conclusions. Once you have moved away from the area of scientific knowledge where concepts can be tested against reality, all you have are subjective conclusions. Actually the implication is that belief in anything where we have no evidence one way or the other (A), is silly at best, clinically delusional at worst. This, of course, also applies to any conclusion other than "we don't know" so if this is a reductio ad absurdum argument, it applies equally to belief (+) as well as any belief (-) for any item in the class A, where A consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceSo if you reach a conclusion on the issue of alien life in the universe, pro or con, you are "guilty as charged" of the IPU belief to the same degree that deists\theists are guilty, or do we hear special pleading here? As does, or so it appears, pointing out the logical fallacies of people making these arguments make them angry. The evidence is the people wanting to turn this into deism/theism bashing instead of discussing whether or not we have a logical fallacy here at the start.So we started with
B is an example of A
C is an example of A
∴ B = CWhere A is the class of things\concepts which are defined by:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceIf the IPU argument is self-contradictory then it would not be a class A concept and should be discarded when discussing class A concepts. Which also includes the issue of alien life in the universe.It's an attempt at applying a straw man of theistic reasoning. Faith is based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational. Faith is non-reasonable\rational: it is belief without evidence. Faith does not make conclusions based on evidence, it makes conclusions about evidence based on faith. This same kind of faith applies to many concepts for which we have no evidence, such as the existence of alien life in the universe. If you have (+) faith, you will conclude (as many have) that the existence of life is between possible and highly probable. If you have (-) faith, you will conclude (as some have) that the existence of life is between impossible and highly improbable.The fact that nobody seems to be able to deal with the topic issue without drawing deism\theism into it, means they are not really considering the class of concepts involved, or think that it is limited to only deism\theism.The class of concepts is "things we don't have evidence for" and this consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceWhich also includes the issue of alien life in the universe. Which is false because faith is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational. It is belief without evidence. Again the logical answer is "we don't know" and some people go with "there are (maybe) no gods" and some people go with "there are (maybe) gods" and BOTH of these positions are based on something other than evidence while neither is reasonable\rational.You may think that it is unreasonable and ridiculous, but that is your opinion, based on a lack of evidence pro or con. How do you reconcile that you are asking me to agree to your opinion (based on a lack of evidence pro or con) while criticizing me for believing something (based on a lack of evidence pro or con)? And yet you just generalized them as being the same class or silly and ridiculous beliefs, with emphasis on a silly and ridiculous over-extended self-contradictory straw man, while not considering all the other concepts that belong to the class of concepts for which there is no evidence, pro or con, and the class of concepts that are "things we don't have evidence for" consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceWhich also includes the issue of alien life in the universe.Thus the issue of the validity of the IPU argument comes down to whether or not it can be logically applied in a logically consistent manner to the issue of alien life in the universe.I say it can't, and that the reason it can't is that it doesn't represent all members of the class "things we don't have evidence for" and that any attempt to use it guilty of making the logically flawed argument thatB is an example of A
C is an example of A
∴ B is like C∴ Belief in alien life in the universe is like belief in the IPU/sEnjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : ending Edited by RAZD, : missing ∴ added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Have at it. In the mean time please stop with the snide attacks that do not add anything to the contents of this thread.Enjoy.ps {abe} For the record, I would not be arguing the Fideism position, as that is not my position {/abe}Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Worldview - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung (De-Weltanschauung.ogg [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] (helpinfo)) Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is the German word for "view" or "outlook." It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as the translated form world outlook or world view.
...
A worldview describes a consistent (to a varying degree) and integral sense of existence and provides a framework for generating, sustaining, and applying knowledge.
...
The 'construction of integrating worldviews' begins from fragments of worldviews offered to us by the different scientific disciplines and the various systems of knowledge [5]. It is contributed to by different perspectives that exist in the world's different cultures.
...
The term denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen as an organic unity, about the world as the medium and exercise of human existence. Weltanschauung serves as a framework for generating various dimensions of human perception and experience like knowledge, politics, economics, religion, culture, science, and ethics.
...
Some forms of Philosophical naturalism and materialism reject the validity of entities inaccessible to natural science. They view the scientific method as the most reliable model for building an understanding of the world.
...
A worldview can be considered as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for[15]. However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically, and if two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them[16]

---

Bold added for emPHAsis (although I could have bolded the whole quote).You will note that all of this is consistent with what I have argued."There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."Hamlet to Horatio in Act I, Scene V when Horatio complains about the ghost.It is what you have, whether you think so or not.Enjoy.ps{abe} Your worldview includes scientific knowledge, it is not something made up or added on arbitrarily to dodge an argument, it is part of your reality.
{/abe}Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

So claim victory and leave then.Meanwhile I will continue to argue that the IPU is one of many, but not a necessarily representative, example of things where we don't have evidence pro or con, and that the discussion on alien life has shown that there is a spectrum of beliefs in regards to things we don't have (conclusive, convincing, etc) evidence pro or con, and that in fact the IPU falls into a subcategory of self contradictory concepts and doesn't really compare to other concepts.And for the record, you talk about having sufficient convincing evidence to believe or not believe something. What you consider sufficient or convincing is subjective, so other people will make different subjective conclusions about what is sufficient and convincing arguments. If what I subjectively consider to be sufficient and convincing arguments differs from what you subjectively consider to be sufficient and convincing arguments, then your position is also special pleading, as the only difference is the conclusion. And neither does this refute the position that using the IPU involves a logical fallacy or two, as has been demonstrated by the variety of responses concerning alien life - responses that all -- according to you -- amount to special pleading because they involve the same class of concepts as the IPU. Seeing as I am not proposing fideism, have at it. Go start a thread for theism bashing, it appears that many posters would prefer that to dealing with the topic.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

But what you are saying is that the believability is related to how much we think we know about the question, when we think we know a lot, we have a high confidence in our conclusion, and when we think we know little we have a low confidence in our conclusion, no matter what that conclusion is.You think you have a lot of evidence in one case, and that you don't have a lot of evidence in another. Perhaps if you read what I write, rather than what you think I write you wouldn't get all angry about it. Except that I have not said that. What you are engaged in is making extrapolations from existing evidence to reach conclusions that you think are logical. The fact remains that this is a subjective conclusion and not based on actual evidence of actual alien life on actual other planets.The fact is that Mark24 uses the same evidence and makes an equally logical extrapolation from the existing evidence and reaches an entirely different conclusion.The reason is because of different perceptions of what is a logical extrapolation from the known evidence, and that different perception is not based on facts or scientific theory, it is based on assumptions found in your world view:

quote:

---

... it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.

---

Seeing as that is not my position it is irrelevant. If you don't understand that there is an interaction between what you perceive as evidence and your world view, then you have something to learn.The plain fact, is that many people reach many different conclusions regarding the feasibility of alien life on other planets, and this is evidence of belief without sufficient convincing objective evidence, so people are making subjective conclusions.Now, does the IPU argument apply to such beliefs in the existence of alien life?Or does the fact that many people consider belief in the existence of alien life, and that they consider it rational, demonstrate that the IPU argument is a false straw man?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Rrhain. But the IPU is C, not A, the fact that it is absurd is due to it being a self-contradictory, designed argument, designed to ridicule beliefs.You were the first to refer to A as being absurd. Thus you are arguing that A is absurd because C is absurd. Then don't redefine A. Message 85
But claiming that A is necessarily "absurd" from the start is begging the question.A is the class of things where we don't have evidence pro or con.No evidence for
No evidence againstThere are many examples of A, including the concept of alien life in the universe.Some people have added "unfalsifiable" to the concept category in an attempt to make the IPU more representative of the class (again redefining A to suit your argument)The argument that alien life is different because it may be possible to determine that it is valid, while remaining unfalsifiable until then, is just special pleading on what you consider possible future evidence. This is the subtext to what you consider evidence, and the subtext to what you consider possible support for a claim that is a member of class A. Message 86
So your education and experiences, philosophies and deductions, beliefs and opinions, are not part of reality the reality that is Rrhain? It should be obvious that I've answered this several times. The perception of the number of planets is part of the information you process when deciding on the likelihood of life on another planet, as is your knowledge and the evidence of life on earth.However, in spite of considering that the number of possible planets may well be unknown and unknowable, even approaching infinity, we have a range of people with different responses to the question from highly unlikely to almost a foregone conclusion, so the conclusion is that the resulting opinion is more a function of individual world views, not on the concrete objective reality of planets. Thus the worldview trumps the issue of how many planets exist in forming an opinion.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Straggler,I begin to wonder if you understand my argument at all. I feel that the answers I have given several times deals with this issue. Does the increase in the number of planets alone increase this likelyhood? Obviously not, because Mark24 argues against the likelihood of life on other planets, and he is looking at the same number of planets as you are.So far all the increase in knowledge about planets has been to increase the number of planets without life. How does that change your equation? Correct, but what one person regards as supportive evidence when another person regards the same evidence as negative or inconclusive is not objective evidence. The Drake Equation gives significantly different results depending on your initial assumptions, and all those assumptions involve things we don't know, which are then multiplied together. Frankly I consider your worldview and Mark24's, Ned's, Mod's, Rrhain's, etc., worldviews of equal value, which is why I can state with a high degree of confidence that worldview trumps the evidence when there are different conclusions reached from the same evidence.And no, all worldviews do not need to be of equal value, for a worldview that is massively at odds with the evidence of reality is of quite a different value in being able to deal with reality than one that has no known issues with reality. However when two worldviews disagree on concepts where there is no evidence pro or con, AND where neither of those worldviews is in conflict with any known issues regarding reality, THEN if feel that this shows the conclusions to be subjective and not deductive. And on how much we think we know the truth. According to your world view, which also claims: You can't have it both ways or you are guilty of special pleading.So far, what I have seen is that

• IPU is an example of intentionally ridiculous concepts
• The flying spaghetti monster is an example of intentionally ridiculous concepts
• Green toilet bowl goblins are an example of intentionally ridiculous concepts
• Face hugging jellyfish are an example of intentionally ridiculous concspts
• Your Wagwah is an example of an intentionally ridiculous concept
• etc etc ad absurdum ... are examples of intentionally ridiculous concepts

And what they prove is that (1) they all belong to the class of intentionally ridiculous concepts, (2) comparison of them to concepts that are of the class of things that we don't have evidence for pro or con can only be an attempt to ridicule the concept.Then you have (your claim - correct me if I'm wrong)

the possibility of alien life is not an intentionally ridiculous claim because we have a logically extrapolated conclusion based on our subjective interpretation of evidence that makes it scientifically rational, in spite of no objective evidence pro or con, and in spite of the concept not being falsifiable.

​

That's all I have time for tonight. I've got a week of ten hour days to look forward to as well, so my ability to go into detail is limited.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I don't have time to deal with the side issue people keep raising, especially the ones that avoid the issue or try to redefine it.To restate the topic one more time: I would like to deal with three and only three points:(1) the class of things being discussed is those where we have no (convincing\conclusive) evidence FOR a concept and where we have no (convincing\conclusive) evidence CONTRADICTING the concept.(2) the use of the "immaterial pink unicorn" argument as a "typical" member of this group.(3) the question of whether alien life exists in the universe belongs in this group or not.I would appreciate those several individuals that have posted on this thread would look back at your posts and see if you have really treated this topic fairly.I would also appreciate, that if you cannot keep to just these three issues within the topic, that you hold off until this issue is resolved.I'm sorry, but I just do not have my usual time to devote to answering every side issue, misunderstanding and redefinition. Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Straggler,Let's see if we can settle the alien life issue before adding other arguments that are not on topic. The absolute probability is the argument. The fact of increased numbers being offset by the fact of uninhabitable planets being the vast majority is important to the final conclusion. And that's only two factors in the equation.I find it curious that you so quickly dismiss Mark24's argument as wrong without addressing the issue on non-habitability. I think he has a valid point, even though my personal position is that life is highly probable given the preponderance of pre-biotic molecules in space (and thus the result may be organic life similar to ours, rather than the silicon etc life of so many SF stories). Curiously, my "flawed" world view philosophy is born out by scientific research in the field of psychology, particularly on how people make decisions. I think you really need to back down on this issue: once you are outside the field/s of scientific knowledge the scientific process no longer works.The fact remains that you and Mark24 reached contradictory conclusions, based on the same evidence, and the same basic scientific knowledge, and the same basic logic, and the difference is how you each perceive the relative importance of different evidence to the final answer. Strangely, disagreement of the relative importance of different evidence leads to different conclusions, and this is where different scientific theories begin. So yes, I believe how you personally interpret information is very important to the conclusions you will reach and it is why they will be different from Mark24 or Modulus or me. We will take your assertion that the existence of alien life in the universe is highly probable.Given this as a true basis for making more logical conclusions, I believe we can safely say that human life is not the most advanced life form. There are likely much older histories of life that also developed intelligence as a necessarily emergent property of evolution, and it would not take many million years to substantially exceed our poor capabilities and knowledge. With the earth being 4.55 billion years old, in a 13.7 billion year old universe, there is substantial opportunity for much older life forms, even if you start after the production of iron or uranium by second and third generation stars. We have also had several false starts on the path to an intelligent dominant life form capable of space travel, so some other planets may have taken a shorter time to the same result. Thus there should be some that have proceeded much further.This is, of course all supported by your objective evidence. There are lots of claims of UFO's, and as you say, there are "no claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence," so there must be a logical basis for such claims. I cannot speak for them, as I have never had any personal experience with UFO's.Now, are these people seeing immaterial pink unicorns instead of aliens, or is your assertion that "No claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence" invalid? (as much as I would like to use it).Where do I draw the line?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I'm duplicating my response from the other thread here to save me some work:Which leads us to the question of if (a) there is a probability of life, then (b) are the claims of UFO peoples valid, as they are based on a level of objective evidence that you say makes alien life probable?If not, then where do you draw the line in the logic train?Where does the probability end?single cell life
multicell life
life with differentiated tasks
life with organs
life with skeletons
life that can manipulate objects
life that can manipulate it's local environment
life that can make objects
life that can make local environments
life that can send objects into space
life that can send life into space
life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundariesThese are all equally probable based on our sample of one out of all known planets.One can also ask how much a million years head start on technology would affect the equations - and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that alien life had such a head start, unless you want to plead that human life is special.Does this make UFO's reasonable to believe in? So there is evidence of UFO visits?Or is belief in UFO's similar to IPU's and why?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

The problem is, that our single sample has all these elements, and there is no comparison to other planets with life, only to planets without life, thus when we measure the probability of (x) occurring against the known evidence (1 out of all known planets) we end up with the same probability: 1 out of all known planets.It may be a little simplistic, but then the number of planets is still quite small. I thought of adding in a factor for when each event occurred in earth's history, however this assumes that the pattern on earth must be repeated to achieve the same end, and I don't think that is valid. For all we know, on once you have reached (a) then (b) to (z) is inevitable, and could take from a billion to 10 billion years depending on what steps, backsteps and such are taken.And it really doesn't alter the numbers:Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions

quote:

---

When it comes to known planets in our galaxy, however, around 200 are known to exist. Two Hot New Planets Discovered - Universe Today

---

The article cited is from Two Hot New Planets Discovered, Written by Fraser Cain, September 27th, 2006.All these planets are not capable of life as we know it, according to the experts, whether they have existed for 1/4 of earths existence or 4x's earths existence. The number of planets where single celled life developed is 1 out of 200. The number of planets where intelligent organisms have evolved - organisms capable of sending things out of their solar system, and capable of sending living organisms inside piloted habitable microenvironments into space and recovering them - is also 1 out of 200.So yes, practically speaking, all these events are of equal probability according to the information we know. Interesting. Just to be clear, you are claiming that this evidence, no matter how poor, likely to be erroneous, and possibly hallucination, separates the possibility of UFO's being evidence of actual alien life visitations - no matter how small that chance is - from the IPU construction.If we change "A" to the class of things actually believed by some people, but without (convincing) evidence, then the IPU argument doesn't meet the standard, while alien life passes? This also includes sasquatch, nessie, cryptozoology, etc. right?Of course, I don't see any reason to support the artificial IPU argument at all, as I don't think it can be compared to other cases of things where we have no (convincing) evidence pro or con.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

No, I won't confuse or conflate them, I'm just trying to add it up, and see where you draw the line between (1) alien life is probable, and (2) alien visitations "in UFOs" is highly unlikely.You say (loudly and positively) that no claim is made in a vacuum of evidence (except possibly the IPU claim, of course), so what is the difference between the evidence for the probable existence of alien life and the evidence for the likelihood of alien visits? Where do you draw the line?

• life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundaries
• life that can manage their microenvironment to exist in space for extended periods of time
• life that can travel out of their local system
• life that can travel to nearby stars
• life that can live (reproduce, survive) continuously in space

Where does the train of logic run off the extrapolated tracks of probability? So you prefer to believe. It does make it easier to reach conclusions when you exclude the possibility of evidence contrary to your belief eh? Mod seems to say that there is evidence, just that it is poor and inconclusive. There is much solid and objective evidence that shows people will deny evidence contrary to their beliefs (the world view and cognitive dissonance thing again). Start with a small organism pre-adapted for hibernation and with naturally slower metabolism than humans. Add a million years of technology over what we know. Consider an organism that has adapted to living in space ships permanently, that only needs occasional contact with systems that have readily available resources (asteroids).That's all I have time for tonight.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : the train

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •