What do you guys think of UFO's?

[Your Computer]

But that's the point. We are speaking for our current physics. Saying that our knowledge may be denied or that there is something we miss is in my opinion not logical. If is hypothetical. I am not speaking with hypothesis. You have to accept that our knowledge is correct even IF it MAY be proved that at some extent it isn't.

I explained that no planet in our solar system except earth is habitable. An alien can only come from outerspace.

I only have to assume it correct as far as it is practical. That is no different a position than what scientists are said to take. And it is logical to assume that it may be proved wrong. Are you going to deny me the aircraft i've seen? If every human is going to deny that they've built it, should i then go around believing that a human built it? Whatever was flying that aircraft is none of my concern. I only wish to know who (or what) built it.

And while you may have stated that the Earth is habitable, you also clearly emphasized (i.e. with underlined and bold words) that there is no possible way that an alien can live in this solar system, even though you knew better than that.

[Ghieri]

I only have to assume it correct as far as it is practical.

It IS practical. We use it in everything and it works.

While it is arrogant to say that we have a perfect understanding, you have yet to provide a viable alternative.

We have to work within the boundaries of what we understand otherwise we are making unfounded assumptions. That's how we used to work, we don't do that anymore.

[Macgyverthehero]

"Habitable" is defined by our experience. There are assumptions attached to it that wouldn't necessarily apply to every possible organism in existence. Even if a "habitable" planet existed billions of light years away, if in fact these aircrafts are driven by aliens from outerspace, you would have to accept that it is in fact possible to travel at humanly-impossible distances and our knowledge of physics may be denied. Unfortunately, we don't know who drives these aircrafts, but that may be revealed some day.

Well actually no. The basic substance of EVERY organism is water H2O. Water above 373 Kelvin becomes gas and bellow 273 Kelvin it becomes ice. So there is not any organism who can live in a temperature higher than 373 Kelvin and not in a temperature bellow 173 Kelvin(that's because some organisms are more resistant). Also half of the planets in our solar systems are made by gas (have no ground like Earth) and have strong gravitational forces. The other planets have way too high or way too low temperatures (you can confirm that in wikipedia). There is no possible way an alien can live in a planet in our solar system. I cannot deny that there could be aliens light years away from us,but there is no point. The max speed limit in nature is the speed of light. So far so good, that means even if they were travelling nearly with the speed of light it would still take them several years to come here on earth and even more years to come back to their planet. Let's also calculate the possibility of choosing another direction to explore on the universe (not the one leading to our planet which is on of the many possible directions) and the possibility of reaching our solar system.

Given all that. The possibility of us seeing an alien is 0,00000000000001%

---

It's possible we don't meet them RIGHT NOW, but maybe in a few centuries or a couple of thousand years we meet them.

Maybe millions of years, and more possibly never. The universe is too huge and I don't think the aliens will just travel A STRAIGHT line to Earth. It is almost certain they will go somewhere else in the universe. And that' IF they exist and IF they have advanced technology and IF they can travel WAY TOO FAST. Too much if's.

---

Or maybe in decades, because technology right now is advancing quite fast and I'm hoping in around 20 to 30 years we will be able to revolutionize space travel. First contact with aliens might take abit longer then that, but I'm sure we will meet E.Ts at some point in our future.

Anything is possible, because Impossibility is only an opinion.

You are completely incorrect. There is no chance we are going to meet and allien in around 20-30 years. However fast the technology is advancing there is a a limit nature decided to apply and it's called "speed of light".

Did I say we would be meeting aliens in 20 to 30 years? I said that First Contact with E.Ts would take abit more than that.

[Your Computer]

It IS practical. We use it in everything and it works.

While it is arrogant to say that we have a perfect understanding, you have yet to provide a viable alternative.

We have to work within the boundaries of what we understand otherwise we are making unfounded assumptions. That's how we used to work, we don't do that anymore.

I never said it isn't practical. However, practical is relative. I don't have to provide a viable alternative to any scientific theory, law or similar; that kind of burden of proof is not on me. And why should we seek to understand what we already understand? You have to work from unfounded assumptions in order to progress and from things that we don't yet understand. We do indeed still work like that. Intuition and insight breed theories. Whether unfounded or not, theories are still widely put into practice today.

[Ghieri]

I don't have to provide a viable alternative to any scientific theory,
law or similar; that kind of burden of proof is not on me.

If you are prepared to make a claim, then yes it is.

Intuition and insight breed theories.

As I have said, Experimentation is the only thing that breeds theories. It takes insight to create those experiments, but little is left to the imagination at that point.

Whether unfounded or not, theories are still widely put into practice today.

Scientific theories are never unfounded. Gravity, Evolution, and the Big Bang are all theories, and all heavily supported by fact.

We have a set scientific method for a reason, because it works almost universally.

[Your Computer]

If you are prepared to make a claim, then yes it is.

What claim did i make against a specific scientific theory, law, etc, that places the burden of proof on me?

As I have said, Experimentation is the only thing that breeds theories. It takes insight to create those experiments, but little is left to the imagination at that point.

Theory comes before experimentation. The reason why anyone would experiment is to test a theory. Therefore experimentation does not breed theory.

Scientific theories are never unfounded. Gravity, Evolution, and the Big Bang are all theories, and all heavily supported by fact.

We have a set scientific method for a reason, because it works almost universally.

Following from fact doesn't necessarily make them supported by fact or true. After all, you wouldn't require things like the scientific method if they were never unfounded. Yet, even if experimentation allowed for shaping a theory to follow from more facts, in the end it is still an interpretation of evidence. Evidence can only support itself; it can only declare its own existence and nothing further. Theories merely expound on evidence, never vice versa.

[BAndrew]

What claim did i make against a specific scientific theory, law, etc, that places the burden of proof on me?

You claim that our current theories are not correct, without having any proof. I am not saying that they are 100% correct, but you can't just go on and shake them down. A logical claim consists of the following:

Accept some things as facts (theory) --> proccessing with logical steps (such as proving theorems or making experiments or in our case supporting your opinion with evidence) --> end up with a conclusion ---> Judge whether the conclusion is logical ---> renew your theory with more details

You are skipping the first step.

[Your Computer]

You claim that our current theories are not correct, without having any proof.

When did i make such a claim? What post in this topic bears evidence of that accusation?

[BAndrew]

Even though i said the very existence of an alien visitor has a good chance of contradicting a lot of what we know about physics and therefore biology, from our discussion on what time is i know that you have difficulty accepting that our knowledge of physics and biology could be denied. What good is probability if the very existence of a specific aircraft creates implications that would deny the assumptions used to measure said probability?

And how can you say an alien would have difficulty living in our solar system? If i were to assume that an alien is indeed the kind of organism that depends on water, wouldn't that mean that we, all living organisms on planet Earth, would all the more cease to exist? Would it be any wonder why an alien from deep outerspace that enters our solar system would ever seek to enter the Earth's atmosphere?

I only have to assume it correct as far as it is practical. That is no different a position than what scientists are said to take. And it is logical to assume that it may be proved wrong. Are you going to deny me the aircraft i've seen? If every human is going to deny that they've built it, should i then go around believing that a human built it? Whatever was flying that aircraft is none of my concern. I only wish to know who (or what) built it.

And while you may have stated that the Earth is habitable, you also clearly emphasized (i.e. with underlined and bold words) that there is no possible way that an alien can live in this solar system, even though you knew better than that.

[BAndrew]

I'm out, you refuse to admit there is even a possibility of you being wrong so arguing is obviously pointless, and your logic is so flawed it's not even funny.

I didn't say that I am right. I said that you must rely on evidence if you want to discuss something. What you are doing is saying hypothetical claims like aliens MIGHT exist, they MIGHT have better techonology, they MIGHT be more clever, they MIGHT know better physics, we MIGHT be wrong about something in physics, aliens MIGHT be able to live on high/low temperatures, they MIGHT don't consist from water like every organism known to man, they MIGHT can travel millions of years away with their technology, and so on.

These statements are not supported by evidence at all and therefore we cannot reach a conclusion.