Comments by "Aaron Rosenberg" (@aaronrosenberg6633) on "Where are all the aliens? | Stephen Webb" video.

But his talking points don't rely on the assumption that we'd need to have traveled to other worlds. His assumptions (and he does not present them as absolutes), are based in his own deductions through critical reasoning, which itself seems based on some fairly hardcore research.
1
Again, he is not saying, "I am totally right about this." Why would you confuse Webb with, say, a preacher? He is only offering his viewpoint, albeit based on lots of research and some deep considerations. "You think our research and technology is hard-core. What makes you so certain that it is?" We have created standards for research. The scientific method is one of these. The peer review process is another. Scientific process creates testable models and by nature employs a high dose of skepticism in drawing conclusions. "I have no proof that aliens exist. But I've studied history. And history says that we've always misinterpreted what we think we are looking at." History says no such thing. If that were the case—that science is always misinterpreting—there would be no progress at all; nothing would work. What you seem to be saying here is that because scientists are sometimes wrong, we should never trust them, and therefore we can believe what ever we want without relying on the evidence that science produces. "The more logical approach to this problem is to think that, most likely, we are not looking at this correctly." Scientific research already does this. That's why it's so rigorous. It posits every possible scenario as to why it might be wrong, and tests those. "I believe that we don't understand a majority of the universe. So how can we start making judgments about what it really is?" Again, this seems like a "What the bleep do we know" sort of position to take. As if we should never begin to try to understand. Good thing that scientists don't think like you. We would never have sent out those rovers to Mars.
1
Science is self-correcting. That does not make it useless. Why? Because it has utility and you can begin with computer you're typing on and the polio you don't have. It improves upon itself. Sometimes that means a small adjustment to a concept, and sometimes a complete overhaul. It makes no claims to perfection, but it is the very best way we have of understanding the universe. "I am all for science and scientists, except when they're saying something illogical." I don't hear anything illogical coming from Webb.
1
I'm under the assumption that you're attacking science because your whole spin, even in light of your proclaimed love for science, seems to be that it's something we can't learn from. I'm not being defensive.
1
Of course we aren't right about everything. But why spin that into, "We barely know anything about ourselves..."? We know lots, even if we don't know everything.
1
I didn't say that we have it all figured out. I said we know lots. We can measure the progress. We know more than we used to. We can test hypotheses from what we know and then we can know more. We likely will never "have it all figured out," at least in our lifetimes. Tough for us. But again, I sense an underlying denial of some sort, and I cannot pinpoint it. It's as if you have a hidden motive that only you know.
1
What I meant was that it seems like you're keeping something hidden. Of course we will be much further along in 1000 years. I don't think it's a silly talk. Consider that the possibility that we're alone is real, and that these are the factors that lead a scientist to present the possibility. His line of thinking is sound. As the description reads, "he spells out the remarkable barriers a planet would need to clear in order to host an extraterrestrial civilization."
1
A UFO is unidentified by definition. He's simply saying he saw something, and he didn't know what it was. He doesn't contradict himself at all. You say you don't take him seriously, and then present the possibility of intelligent life out there as a "hope." I think you should examine your critical reasoning.
1
He's not making any absolute claims, but only sharing his opinion. As far as his ability to comprehend the size of the universe, I would give him credit where it's due. His education and research speak to that.
1
I see your point. However, I don't think the talk is pointless. Even conjecture is valuable, and conjecture by an astronomer is more valuable. He bases his talk on what he does know, which is definitely a starting point, if only that.
1