UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

When we are proposing possible explanatory hypotheses, what justifies excluding the possibility of alien visitations?

I would prefer to keep that hypothesis open as a possibility, however we might choose to weight it, absent a persuasive reason to exclude it. We shouldn't be stampeded into dismissing the possibility merely because a certain kind of person threatens to sneer at us if we don't. We need to be strong and smart.

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly with that. They clearly aren't the the only other option.

The way I see it, there's a whole bag of possibilities. The "skeptics" reach into the bag and pull out the possibility that UAPs are bullshit. Others reach into the bag and pull out the possibility that they are space aliens. The trouble is that not only are we not agreed on how to assign likelihood weights to the possibilities we pull out, we don't really have any idea what is still in the bag, or even how many other possibilities remain in there. Some of the things the bag might contain might turn out to be things entirely new to us, possibilities that it will be impossible for us to assign plausibility weights to until we learn something more of their proposed nature.

That would certainly be "extraordinary" in the way I use that word.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yea, didn’t mean to suggest excluding the possibility, but space aliens aren’t the only possibility. That said, we need to be pragmatic about these investigations and not leap to concluding or excluding anything. I think the frustration for hardcore skeptics (maybe there are moderate skeptics, as exists with Republicans and Democrats? lol) is that space alien believers often leap to “it’s aliens” without enough evidence to back up the claim. Not unlike the skeptic who isn’t open to discussing anything pointing to potentially extraordinary explanations.

Skeptics and “believers” sometimes talk past one another in that either side has unreasonable expectations, and to be fair, makes unreasonable assumptions perhaps about the other.

Sometimes I feel like science expects evidence first, before philosophical discussions can take place. I’m hopeful this “study team” that is coming together to look into UAP sightings more seriously, already knows this!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's also our prescriptive guidelines -- that "theory-laden" cognitive apparatus for interpreting what _X_ data slash situation is or alludes to (in general, not just with respect to science), that postmodern descended schools of thought and politics attacks in terms of Western biases, and the West's "systemic oppression" (a colonial past which opportunistically seems to reboot grudge-wise for new generations --> progressophobia).

Which is to say, it's probably applicable in this mild (UAP) context to batter the gate of that "a priori" domain a bit -- minus remotely coming close to breaking it down. But some of the aforementioned set of guilt-ridden, hand-wringing scholars and street militants fantasize about doing much more. (The "science wars" never really faded.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Historically, what we call science was called "natural philosophy". Isaac Newton thought of himself as a natural philosopher. He entitled his greatest book (in Latin) Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. The work of people like him resulted in what we today call the "scientific revolution", which consisted in the application of relatively simple mathematics to simple physical problems and resulting amazement at how well it worked. That amazement transformed European society in the 18th century with the Enlightenment. People started to believe that the methods of the new physics could be applied to any problem so as to sweep away obscurantism and "old regimes", and usher in a new utopia.

That success led to the institutionalization of the new way of investigating nature. Professional societies were founded such as the Royal Society in Britain and similar bodies elsewhere in Europe. Journals appeared. And young scholars started specializing in the new ways of investigating nature. By the 19th century, the more avant-garde universities had created science departments, that wanted to distinguish themselves and their subject matters from each other and from the philosophers. So the distinction between science and philosophy began to be emphasized. Though the more traditional European universities continued to include what today we call 'science' departments in schools of 'natural philosophy' well into the 20th century. (One or two might still do it for historical reasons.)

And the meaning of the word "science" changed. It had long been in use to mean any complex subject that had to be learned. People spoke of the "science" of cooking or blacksmithing. But as the social impact of the scientific revolution took hold, 'science' changed its meaning to mean these new methods of natural philosophy. The word 'scientist' didn't appear until it was coined in 1833 by the philosopher William Whewell in response to a challenge by the poet Coleridge to invent a better term for the new specialists than "natural philosophers".

So over the centuries the practice of the new methods of investigating the physical world became separated both intellectually and institutionally from philosophy. Some of the 'scientists' developed an attitude problem, dismissing philosophy in the apparent blissful confidence that they could continue to do whatever they learned to do in graduate school without thinking too much about why they do it.

And 20th century philosophy developed something of an inferiority complex, trying to invent new roles and reasons to exist after natural philosophy had been taken away. (Ordinary language philosophy! Phenomenology!)

I personally think that it would probably be valuable for science and the philosophy of science to grow closer together again and for each to stop trying to proceed in ignorance of the other. I strongly believe that a philosopher can't do the philosophy of science competently without some professional training in one of the sciences. The reverse might arguably be true as well, particularly when scientists find themselves in situations where problem cases appear. Like UAPs for instance.

 

Depends. Anti-western philosophical orientations are inevitably the enemy of science as we know it, in terms of what they'd incrementally do to it (boiling frog).

I'm not saying that "indigenous science" or whatever options being spawned out there would not be equal, better replacements, etc (heh) -- but it's not the methodology and output that we're traditionally familiar with.

 

Noone in this thread is really discussing philosophy apart from you, though.

Is it? Or is it about the best interpretation of the evidence that is presented on a case by case basis, the best theory that fits that evidence?

And this requires philosophers to tell us?

Really? And does it require philosophers to advise us on that? Or practical experience, common sense, etc?

How are philosophers any better suited to that than, say, an actual scientist? What does the philosopher actually bring to the table for that?

One doesn't need to be a philosopher to "best employ" either of those. Scientists will have gotten to their status through actually doing those things.

One doesn't need philosophers for that, either. Science already has a process in place for the application of skepticism. It comes under the review process.

You don't need philosophers for this, either. All you really need is a mutual understanding with the person you're engaging with, or an agreed definition for the purposes of the review. I never sought the advice of a philosopher in any of the reports I wrote: I simply defined the term for purposes of the document, so that those who subsequently read it understood what was meant.

You don't need philosophers for this, either.

Look, while much of what may be discussed has philosophical overtones or undercurrents, that doesn't mean you need philosophers to advise on them. People can get together and decide on a way to use a knife and fork without an expert in etiquette telling them how.
Furthermore, if philosophers can not agree on something - and if there is no disagreement then there is no philosophy in the matter - why bring any philosophers to the party to advise as they will simply disagree about the adivce to give. Unless you want to go through the process of seeking advice on which philosophers to seek advice from? And then it's just a metaphorical reductio ad absurdam.

They address it through their experience, common sense, and through subsequent discussion. The point is that they bring sufficient understanding of those matters to cover the need, that specific recourse to "experts" in philosophy are simply not needed. It's like asking an expert in the biology of lobster to know the best way to cook them.

They do examine the preconceptions and assumptions, far more than you are making out. Especially when confronted with someone who does things differently and gets results. Sure, if you have a committee with only one type of scientist, from a single discipline, then you're probably on to something. But take scientists from multiple disciplines, put them in a room to discuss such matters and you will have the issues discussed. No philosopher need apply.

They are scientific questions. Almost entirely. Because it will be scientists who will be using that data, who will be analysing it, concluding on the data. If the data is not scientific then it is not of value to answering the scientific questions. As to what data, sure, get as broad a range of input as possible. But, again, philosophers are simply not needed.

Honestly, I think you're overplaying the importance of philosophers simply because the subject matter has philosophical currents, whereas I contend that such philosophical matters will be covered by people who actually make practical use of philosophy, assuming a reasonably wide range of disciplines. As said, sure, if only one discipline is invited it will be hamstrung by the a priori assumptions of that discipline. But that will not be the case, and philosophical matters will be covered, to a level of practical relevance, by the disciplines involved.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think there is much need for philosophers where science is concerned. I do understand that there are fields of study called something like "the philosophy of science" and the purpose of that field isn't to reveal new science. It's generally to consider things that are tangential to science such as moral questions that arise from science.

Science gives us the data on how nuclear energy works. The philosophy of science could discuss what the possible repercussions of this technology might be. To be in this field though you would still have to have the scientific education of the field that you are discussing. I don't personally think you really need a field of study called philosophy of science but I thought I'd throw this in here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here's a "light" example bordering on what I mean...

Nature: Manuscripts that are ideologically impure and “harmful” will be rejected
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022...ogically-impure-and-harmful-will-be-rejected/

... Via Jerry Coyne, whose blog often keeps track of these developments. Although politics is the medium that is directly seducing the administrators of these science institutions and journals, it's philosophers and other intellectuals who originated the doctrinal debris that these establishments are being re-programmed with.

Note that I'm not kicking traditional philosophy and what remnants might be left of non-corrupted Anglophone philosophy. It's the influential offshoots of certain Francophone and other schools of thought ("continental") that are much of the historical provenance of this stuff.
- - -

 

If you see an unidentified object Monday morning that may be Artemis on its way to the Moon. It is not a conspiracy, I repeat, it is not a conspiracy. It goes in peace. Don't not be alarmed. As you were...

 

Appreciate this.

To me (and maybe, others), philosophy and science ask different questions, for different reasons. If we're asking for evidence to determine if these UAP's for example, have a specific origin, we wouldn't turn to philosophy for that; we would turn to the scientific method. Science offers us a method to describe the world around us - the nature of reality. Philosophy allows us to ponder what could be...

If science tells us that aliens in fact, exist...philosophy allows us to ask the question - why do they exist?

I'm not sure scientists care enough about that, though - and they don't have to care about it. But, philosophy can influence the scientific method and subsequent discoveries, so in that sense, maybe they should care about it.

 

It has been “identified.”

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I like how you mixed science though, with a little philosophy.

 

For me that would be a simple philosophical question to answer - via science - the laws of physics allow

Said answer does not imply must since much else must be in place for any life to occur and with so so many must always a chance all those must do not line up

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/bioscience/other-forms-of-life-earth/amp/

Not even going to try to summarise the link since I could not make any summary worthy

By types of life I am NOT talking plants - animals - bacteria types. I, at the extreme, am meaning life forms which use totally different chemical make up from each other

If philosophy is asked you will find, at the two extremes, Who knows (one extreme) Supernatural (other extreme)

Like to think the laws of physics allow lay in the expanse of the pragmatic middle

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, philosophical activity can, in advance, formulate polices and recommendations about what we're supposed to do if a UAP turned-out to be space aliens, time-travelers, demigods or demons from higher dimensions, etc.

As Yazata also seemed to suggest, philosophy can research the a priori apparatus of science itself (the invented, prescribed template that manages science and the preferences that steer its interpretations). IOW, in the context of philosophy that "guiding apparatus" is not a "sacred cow" that is untouchable or beyond criticism. And I mean scientists themselves acting as philosophers of science when they step into that context, not just the philosophers who lack any other kind of back-up job.

When the public asks anything about the identity of science, its role, and the distinctions between it and other endeavors -- including say, pseudoscience... The pre-packaged replies are those outputted by past philosophy of science activity (the scrutiny or study of science and particular science disciplines and issues both commonplace to all and specific to only one or a few).

Metascience has a purpose similar to philosophy of science, but is a situation of science evaluating itself (statisticians) to improve productivity and standards. Whereas PoS is arguably more pervasive and fundamental in its investigation of science, covering the whole gamut of "proper" thought processes and work procedures.

Most philosophers of science today have backgrounds in science or are quasi-practicing scientists themselves. European physicists in the 19th and early 20th-century were especially steeped in philosophical influences due to the realism issues of that era about the abstractions of physics.

In essence, it's probably better to regard "philosophy of science" as an activity rather than being focused on it being a "brand of philosophers", since scientists themselves engage in and contribute to PoS at one point or another (either deliberately or in blissful ignorance). This especially applies to those largely performing as mediators to the public (writing books, doing interviews, lectures, etc) rather than practicing in a lab.

Philosophy in general revolves around thinking that is regulated, as opposed to the often inconsistent thinking occurring in everyday life. (This excludes postmodernism and some other schools of thought, which may regard the West's preoccupation with coherence and reason as just another cultural flavor or bias, and an oppressive and hurtful one at that.) That's what makes philosophy more primal than other formal knowledge-pursuing enterprises, because the others arose from it, and it is still an external tool for examining their guiding prescriptions (operating dogma).

 

I think there are many instances of getting philosophical about science that we've come to embrace and adore. Carl Sagan waxed philosophical about science in beautiful prose and lucid clarity. Paul Davies is a science writer that imparts wisdom and meaning to the world of science. Fritzof Capra wrote of the Tao of Physics. Physicist Brian Cox writes and hosts science programs that put science into a human perspective. Michio Kaku elaborates on some of the amazing implications of science and technology. Neil DeGras Tyson pontificates eloquently on the poetic beauty of the cosmic order. And even Einstein wrote philosophically about science, going so far as to describe it as a form of spirituality and guiding ethics for man. We need to loosen our grip on this arbitrary division between philosophy and science and see how they flow together into one harmonious and enlightening way of being-in-the-world.

 

One can be philosophical without allowing it to rule your world.

 

If you have a worldview, you already have a philosophy about what reality is and how we live in it. It may be based on scientific facts and laws, but it is still a moral and metaphysical pov that consists of various beliefs and values that personally suit you.

 

And this is what we want to exclude from an inquiry into what UAPs are.

A healthy worldview includes airplanes, petunias and igneous rocks - all things one can objectively confirm anytime one wants, as can anyone else. A healthy worldview regards unicorns, sea monsters and UFOs with skepticism - worth exploring, but certainly not confirmed to exist until and unless they exist in a form one can confirm as-desired.

Confirming means hard, objective evidence. Eyewitness accounts and other forms of remote and ephemeral sighting aren't sufficient to reach this level of confirmation - they don't meet the criteria above.

 

There are two ways I'm going to respond to this:
1. So what? Just because one breathes doesn't mean one necessarily hse any understanding of the biology of how breathing works.
2. If everyone is already so "philosophical", why do we need people who specialise in it to sit on any committee?

 

That's a philosophical premise in itself, that things only exist after they are confirmed to exist. The fact that you can only assert this assumption without evidence or logic shows it is a pet philosophical belief and nothing more.

 

I never said we need that. I'm simply pointing out that philosophizing is as natural and universal as breathing is. That we will get a view of UAPs without philosophizing about it will therefore not likely happen.