Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Firstly any hypothesis that has not been confirmed (for whatever reason) must be regarded as speculative. But there is a spectrum here. Even an easily confirmed hypothesis must precede confirmation, and I do not think that the time between the proposal and the confirmation can itself be considered a qualitative difference. Thus we have something of a spectrum:
A hypothesis that can be confirmed immediately
A hypothesis that can be confirmed when the (existing) resources are available
A hypothesis that cannot be confirmed with current technology, but can be expected to be investigable in the near future.
and so on.A hypothesis that cannot, in principle, be confirmed is arguably outside that spectrum since there is no prospect of ever being able to investigate it.The other, related point is what are the grounds for believing the hypothesis to be true ? If the hypothesis is derived from a theory with strong confirmation, for instance, we should have far more confidence in it than if the ground were themselves speculative.The existence of extraterrestrial life, for instance, can be supported by quite strong arguments (which have nothing to do with UFOlogy). The existence of an "Intelligent Designer" on the other hand is supported only by weak arguments. And that is the primary difference between them (that the Intelligent Designer is put beyond investigation has more to do with the weakness of the arguments for it than anything inherent in the loose concept).

quote:

---

With my Devils Advocate hat on - At what point does in principle and in practise merge? If the alien life hypothesis were to be applied to those areas of the universe beyond the observable universe would that aspect of the hypothesis be invalidated on the grounds of being "unknowable"?

---

That's an interesting question. On one side if you just consider life beyond the observable universe it's not DEFINITELY impossible to find out in principle (e.g. we might find out that the observable universe is all that there is) So that's one way to hit the border.If you just add life outside the observable universe to the hypothesis of life somewhere else, then it makes it a bit less falsifiable, a little more probable but doesn't make a lot of difference otherwise. (And if we searched the observable universe without finding life I'd be pretty skeptical of the idea of life elsewhere).

quote:

---

Is alien visitation a legitimate hypothesis by the standards you are applying here? Not the specifics (like people being probed) just the hypothesis that this could occur.

---

I think that depends very much on the details. If the hypothesis is properly testable (which requires falsifiability) then it is "legitimate" (although I don't think that is a good word for it). If it's protected from falsifiability with the usual excuses you find in UFOlogy then I'd have to say that it isn't - much like ID.

quote:

---

Just to heap hypotheis upon hypothesis upon hypotheis to come up with total science fiction it is arguable that futute technologies or discoveries might expand what the "observable" universe actually is. I am thinking of wormholes and the like to shortcut to otherwise unreachable destinations.

---

The point is that even though those are themselves speculations that seem unlikely we can't absolutely rule them out. To say that an idea is untestable in principle means that we have ruled out any possibility of testing it.

quote:

---

No UFOlogy here. I guess I mean the possibility not just of alien life existing but of intelligent alien life with space travel capabilities not dissimilar to our own (although perhaps slightly superior to make the question more interesting). Is that a valid hypothesis by the standard you have suggested?

---

It depends a lot on the nature of the hypothesis. In it's most general form it's at the far end of those that can be investigated in principle - there's no chance of us doing it at any time in the forseeable future (although I'd say we've got good reasons to doubt that there is any anywhere near us - where "near" is measured on the scale of our galaxy).

Aside from questions of terminology and maybe a little improvement on the third - it does matter how difficult the problems are - I pretty much agree. I would like to see more emphasis on indirect support, too. (String theory has a lot of problems with testability, but a lot of good points, as well).

quote:

---

Yeah I would broadly go along with that. I think that the possibility that alien visitation could occur is both derived from evidence and testable in principle. By the above criteria it is a valid hypothesis. Just.

​

I also agree that other evidence (distances involved, the restrictions on speed implied by the laws of physics, the relative rarity of hospitable planets etc. etc. etc. etc.) suggest that this is incredibly unlikely and that this strongly negates any of the ridiculously weak evidence that is used to support the claim that alien visitation has actually already occurred.

---

Don't forget the Fermi Paradox and the failure of SETI to find anything but one possible - and unrepeated - signal. The sheer lack of evidence convinces me that there are at most a few species capable of space travel within our galaxy.