Not really. That's a distortion. It's a reasonable hypothesis.It is true that "most folks" agree with this. It's not because of basic reasoning, though; it's an argument from incredulity.
Not really. That's a distortion. It's a reasonable hypothesis.It is true that "most folks" agree with this. It's not because of basic reasoning, though; it's an argument from incredulity.
Heh, you are correct. I was thinking afterwards, what practically would be resolved by the answer. There might be dragons off the edges of the map. I can’t get there anyways.Obviously.
No, none of this matters.
Yeah, I think it would dominate the news for a bit, but then we'd just get used to the idea (assuming actual interaction wasn't possible).Consequently, if we did receive evidence of intelligent life. Evidence, not scientific or cultural information, just the most basic proof of existence, other than challenging philosophical ideas, what would be the practical difference? Having evidence would seem to be profound, but is it? We would still need to survive global warming, and other encroaching calamities.
TomB
Consequently, if we did receive evidence of intelligent life. Evidence, not scientific or cultural information, just the most basic proof of existence, other than challenging philosophical ideas, what would be the practical difference? Having evidence would seem to be profound, but is it? We would still need to survive global warming, and other encroaching calamities.
TomB
Especially if they decide we're too destructive to be allowed out of our backwater little solar system.Consequently, if we did receive evidence of intelligent life. Evidence, not scientific or cultural information, just the most basic proof of existence, other than challenging philosophical ideas, what would be the practical difference? Having evidence would seem to be profound, but is it? We would still need to survive global warming, and other encroaching calamities.
TomB