I’m posting this NOT because I think it makes a good point, but rather because I’d like to know EXACTLY why the more “religious folk” are so animatedly opposed to searching for extraterrestrial life:
“This” refers to a piece that O’Leary (for UD News) wrote on the, ah, generous assumptions people make about the likelihood of encountering ET. His post has attracted 103 comments.
As noted there, I am not sure why Timothy Kershner thinks I am “against” searching for ET. My ENV series to date has studied how prior beliefs and desires govern what counts as evidence. For example, if Earth is a mediocre planet, why isn’t Mars? Or are we allowed to ask?
Why is it science to speculate that ET might be hiding in our junk DNA but not that Bigfoot might be hiding in the mountains? The cultural assumptions merit unpacking, and I mean to unpack them. People can be as upset as they please.
For the record, here is the series:
What has materialism done for science?
Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train
Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
“Behold, countless Earths sail the galaxies … that is, if you would only believe …”
Don’t let Mars fool you. Those exoplanets teem with life!
But surely we can’t conjure an entire advanced civilization?
Of course you don’t have to read any of it before expressing an opinion. Rules like that went out with cucumber sandwiches and tea. But sometimes it is actually more fun to address the identified topic.
In outdated schools, they used to expect you to aim at and hit a specified target, not just throw stuff around and then get a self-esteem award. But some students actually enjoyed being on target, believe it or not. – O’Leary for News