Jump to content

"Dissolving the Fermi Paradox"


Scotty99
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Scotty99 said:

https://www.sciencealert.com/three-of-the-world-s-greatest-minds-just-published-a-disheartening-take-on-the-fermi-paradox

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404

Well well would you look at that, people are starting to come around. For many years i was certain there had to be other life in the universe, but the more i studied our reality the more i realize how special of a circumstance we are likely in. Obviously this isnt some conclusive study but it is very interesting to see papers such as this coming out from the mainstream, i am impressed.

 

That's not what the article said (emphasis added)

Quote

In the end, the team's conclusions do not mean that humanity is alone in the Universe, or that the odds of finding evidence of extra-terrestrial civilizations (both past and present) is unlikely.

Instead, it simply means that we can say with greater confidence – based on what we know – that humanity is most likely the only intelligent species in the Milky Way Galaxy at present.

And even that conclusion is debatable, as the article admits.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

But that is so bizarre: on the one hand, you criticise science and say it doesn't have the answer while on the other you grab any bit of science you can twist to support your faith and say "See, science!". This is new level of cognitive dissonance.

 

Oh i love to use science, but im also not attatched to it at the hip like yourself. To get to the big questions (surprising you dont know what i mean by this one) we as a people are going to need to invoke science, philosophy, history, and just well common sense to come to some truths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

 If we want to answer the big questions you gotta invoke the gut, this i am 100% certain of and no one on this planet could convince me otherwise.

Talking out of your arse is a lot easier than learning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not what the article said (emphasis added)

And even that conclusion is debatable, as the article admits.  

Not sure what you are getting at, the article is clearly stating we are in a very special spot in the cosmos, i never said anything different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scotty99 said:

Is that not the goal of every scientist? To get their name somewhere on a plaque claiming they did something world changing? 

No, not really. Recognition is nice, (for most, perhaps) but I doubt it's the goal, nor what drives most scientists.

Just now, Scotty99 said:

Not sure what you are getting at, the article is clearly stating we are in a very special spot in the cosmos, i never said anything different.

No, it's not saying that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, it's not saying that. 

Oh, really? Guess my reading comprehension is lacking these days:

Quote

 

When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial {\em ex ante} probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it.


 

Are you reading the actual paper or just quoting the news article? Pretty sure ive seen you do this multiple times on this forum, shame shame moderator.

Edited by Scotty99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scotty99 said:

Oh, really? Guess my reading comprehension is lacking these days:

Are you reading the actual paper or just quoting the news article? Pretty sure ive seen you do this multiple times on this forum, shame shame moderator.

I very clearly said I was citing the article. If you did not wish the article to be discussed, you should not have linked to it.

I'm not sure what I should be ashamed of here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I actually dont care about any of the conspiracy theorist nutjobs that you speak of.

But the basis for your beliefs are indistinguishable. As is the certainty with which you cling to them.

24 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Like i said i posted here originally to see if smart people did exist on the internet

By "smart" you mean people who agree with you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I very clearly said I was citing the article. If you did not wish the article to be discussed, you should not have linked to it.

I'm not sure what I should be ashamed of here.

Is that a rhetorical question or are you trolling? The only reason i linked the article is because this is the "news" section of the forums on which ive seen the paper pop up on various sites so i just randomly picked that one. If you are trying to make some sort of point by reading a synopsis by a brain dead beat writer on some unknown website to make a point, i think you know what you are to be ashamed of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

To get to the big questions (surprising you dont know what i mean by this one)

I have no idea what you mean, because you didn't;t say. So I gave you my interpretation of what a big question is. Feel free to enlighten us as to what you think the big questions are.

14 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Oh, really? Guess my reading comprehension is lacking these days:

Yep.

1 minute ago, Scotty99 said:

If you are trying to make some sort of point by reading a synopsis by a brain dead beat writer on some unknown website to make a point

So what point were you trying to make by posting a synopsis by a brain dead beat writer on some unknown website?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Is that a rhetorical question or are you trolling? The only reason i linked the article is because this is the "news" section of the forums on which ive seen the paper pop up on various sites so i just randomly picked that one. If you are trying to make some sort of point by reading a synopsis by a brain dead beat writer on some unknown website to make a point, i think you know what you are to be ashamed of.

If that's the case, this shouldn't be in science news.  Furthermore, you haven't drawn anything from the paper, other than the abstract. You want to discuss it, then discuss it, but leave your agenda out of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, swansont said:

If that's the case, this shouldn't be in science news.  Furthermore, you haven't drawn anything from the paper, other than the abstract. You want to discuss it, then discuss it, but leave your agenda out of it. 

Then move it to the correct section? Its a paper that has gained traction and was picked up by numerous websites, where exactly is the right spot to post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scotty99 said:

Then move it to the correct section? Its a paper that has gained traction and was picked up by numerous websites, where exactly is the right spot to post it.

!

Moderator Note

I moved it, and will be closing it, because you are pursuing your agenda and have been previously told not to post any more on the topic. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.