Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The New York Times runs an “aliens are maybe real” story

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So we hear from Gizmodo:

The New York Times published a story Thursday night about the likelihood that aliens have visited Earth. The main takeaway? Aliens could be real and the U.S. government has been conducting classified briefings in recent years about things left behind by “off-world vehicles.”

So what does the new article have to say about the possibility of little green men—aside from the ones currently in Portland? A well-funded group inside the Office of Naval Intelligence is actively investigating unexplained encounters between members of the military and unidentified flying objects. And while some of the “materials” recovered by U.S. government sources have turned out to have perfectly innocent explanations, some materials are still a total mystery.

Matt Novak, “New York Times Casually Drops Another Story About How Aliens Are Probably Real” at Gizmodo

Here at the New York Times (paywall).

There are many total mysteries out there. We need more to go on than mere mystery to take aliens seriously. One remembers the astronomer who convinced himself recently that space detritus Oumuamua was an extraterrestrial light sail and accused the rest of us of being too dumb to see that.

Like we said, as long as there’s an Out There Out There, they’ll be Out There

See also: Tales of an invented god

Comments
JVL asks
“What is the point of UD really?”
JVL really needs to get in touch with what the atheistic materialism of his Darwinian worldview actually entails. According to the atheistic materialism of Darwinian evolution, there is no point to anything.
“There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.” – Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10
As Dr. Michael Egnor explains, "It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts."
Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
Of course, as JVL himself made clear with his question, “What is the point of UD really?”, nobody really lives their life as if their life is completely without any meaning or purpose. In fact, it is impossible for JVL, nor any other atheist, to live his life as if it was truly without any meaning or purpose. This is made evident by the fact that leading atheists self-admittedly 'invent' meaning and purpose for their lives. That is to say, Atheists choose not to live their life as if it really had no meaning and purpose, as their worldview actually entails, and, in an self-admitted exercise of self-delusion, choose to create illusory meanings and purposes for their lives.
The Absurdity of Life without God - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Meaning of Life First, the area of meaning. We saw that without God, life has no meaning. Yet (atheistic) philosophers continue to live as though life does have meaning. For example, Sartre argued that one may create meaning for his life by freely choosing to follow a certain course of action. Sartre himself chose Marxism. Now this is utterly inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say life is objectively absurd and then to say one may create meaning for his life. If life is really absurd, then man is trapped in the lower story. To try to create meaning in life represents a leap to the upper story. But Sartre has no basis for this leap. Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sartre's program is actually an exercise in self-delusion. Sartre is really saying, "Let's pretend the universe has meaning." And this is just fooling ourselves. The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/
Yet contrary to whatever self-delusion JVL and other atheists may prefer to believe, the fact of the matter is that the scientific evidence itself strongly supports the fact that out lives truly do have meaning and purpose.
Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog
In fact, it is completely impossible to even do science without presupposing teleology on some level. For instance, it is completely impossible for JVL, nor any other atheist, to describe the complexities of molecular biology without using words that directly invoke teleology and/or purpose.
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” - Denis Noble - Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/
Life is literally, from top to bottom, infused with purpose and teleology and that purpose and teleology, in and of itself, refutes JVL's atheistic worldview that holds that their is no purpose to his life, nor to any other life.
1 Corinthians 2:9 But just as it is written, “Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him.”
bornagain77
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
.
Actually, I did not say most of those things. Not specifically.
It is of course relevant however that SETI says these things. You already know this because I told you this exact thing back in May, and went on to provide you with quotes that explain the SETI position: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SETI: “Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow”. “There is no consensus on a strict definition of intelligence, and there likely never will be because intelligence is what is known as a fuzzy concept; it lacks well-defined boundaries and contains multiple components.? However, the study of intelligence lies firmly in the domain of empirical science because its features can be operationally defined and its correlates can be quantified and measured.” - Lori Marino PhD (SETI/NASA Virtual Resource Center for Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Intelligent Life) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I definitely did not say some of that. I don’t want to keep having the same conversation over and over again. Upright BiPed seems to put everything in the same terms all the time.
You are applying a double-standard to ID evidence that you do not apply to the exact same evidence in other disciplines, and you are being asked to substantiate that double standard. In your comments above you stated very directly what phenomena you consider to be a decisive and unambiguous correlate of intelligence. The correlate you stated above does indeed provide a rationally justified inference based on our universal experience of the phenomenon in question. It is also the exact same phenomena that ID uses to infer intelligence, and you are being asked to state why you deny it in one instance and accept it in another. You came here saying over and over again that you just wanted to understand ID thinking. I am wondering if there is any possible scenario that you could become involved in that would help you understand ID proponents better than having to genuinely explain why you deny them the same rationale that which you emphatically (and even excitedly) allow yourself. If you are genuinely seeking to understand, and genuinely seeking to have a conversation, then why are you so clearly avoiding the opportunity?
What is the point of UD really? To just support the views of its few consistent contributors or to actually foster a dialogue and and increase of mutual understanding?
Again, why are you avoiding the opportunity to have the conversation? What is your rationale behind the obvious and unambiguous double standard?Upright BiPed
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
JVL "What is the point of UD really?" I don't suppose there is a single point. We have many points. One of them is to demonstrate that every time a materialist gets his feet held to the fire on the subject of semiosis, they lie, dissemble, whine, try to change the subject and otherwise obfuscate. Thank you for helping us make that point JVL.Barry Arrington
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: So when we find a signal that presents itself as a narrow-band carrier wave, we will assume intelligent activity because in our universal experience, narrow-band radio waves are the unique product of a transmitter, not a natural noise-maker. In other words, the operational definition of intelligent action for SETI is the reception of a narrow-band radio wave. Actually, I did not say most of those things. Not specifically Oh but however, if we want to be absolutely certain of intelligent activity, we will check that signal for an even more formidable operational definition of intelligent activity, which absolutely no one will argue with; a finding that will confirm without question an act of intelligence. We will look for an aperiodic coding structure — semiosis — the very phenomenon that was predicted and confirmed inside of every living cell on earth, JVL. And in response to this documented historical/scientific fact, you ask to see the designer’s toilet instead. I definitely did not say some of that. I don't want to keep having the same conversation over and over again.Upright BiPed seems to put everything in the same terms all the time. So, why the instantaneous double standard? It seems that no matter what I choose to contribute to this forum Upright BiPed is bound and determined to bring it back to a disagreement he has with me. I did think, about this particular topic I might contribute something that would be interesting. But if everying I offer is just going to be attacked then I shan't bother. What is the point of UD really? To just support the views of its few consistent contributors or to actually foster a dialogue and and increase of mutual understanding? Clearly that is not my call to make. But it is my choice to stay or go. If you guys just prefer to have an echo chamber of what you already believe then that's fine with me. I did get the impression, perhaps mistaken, that at least some of you wanted a discussion of the issues. Perhaps I was wrong. ? Sorry I didn't respond as quickly as you wanted. I do have other things to do.JVL
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
?Upright BiPed
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
. Right. So when we find a signal that presents itself as a narrow-band carrier wave, we will assume intelligent activity because in our universal experience, narrow-band radio waves are the unique product of a transmitter, not a natural noise-maker. In other words, the operational definition of intelligent action for SETI is the reception of a narrow-band radio wave. Oh but however, if we want to be absolutely certain of intelligent activity, we will check that signal for an even more formidable operational definition of intelligent activity, which absolutely no one will argue with; a finding that will confirm without question an act of intelligence. We will look for an aperiodic coding structure — semiosis — the very phenomenon that was predicted and confirmed inside of every living cell on earth, JVL. And in response to this documented historical/scientific fact, you ask to see the designer’s toilet instead. So, why the instantaneous double standard?Upright BiPed
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
<Upright BiPed: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. It’s a good question and there have been a few false alarms in the past so a possible bit of alien signal should be extremely closely scrutinised.JVL
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
.
While I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings
How would we know if we found "electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings"? What would that be?Upright BiPed
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
While I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems the vast distances involved make physical visitation extremely difficult. Besides, given that they might want to hide their presence why are there so many reports of contact and even abductions? If they know their cloaking and mind wiping technologies are severely flawed why would they keep using them? They've got incredibly advanced technology but they can't prevent us from seeing them on occasion or remembering encounters?JVL
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
What makes you say we've never seen them in space, AaronS1978 ?William J Murray
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Now what if these things aren’t alien? We never see them in space only at planet level Maybe, they are of a super natural natureAaronS1978
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
@ET you are probably real *bah dumb cha* I’ll be here all nightAaronS1978
July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
It is unfortunate that such a vast, deep and ultimately alarming topic can be so easily glossed over. UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis for them refuse to go away, because many real physical encounters obstinately continue to occur (especially with Navy and Air Force aircraft), and continue to exhibit flight characteristics vastly beyond current or any projected technology. In my opinion the extraterrestrial hypothesis remains plausible as the explanation for the major category of UFO-related phenomena, vehicle sightings and encounters especially with optical media, radar and EMI interaction. Some of the theoretical arguments against the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) for UFOs are that there is zero knowledge of other life much less other intelligent life, if it actually exists it is apparently impossible for it to get here, the apparent ridiculousness and absurdity of some of the phenomena (such as alien abductions, many UFOnaut encounter accounts, brilliant “advertising” lights), the supposed parapsychological connection, and the supposed similarities with historical accounts of things like fairy sightings. But as far as I am concerned real data, evidence, always trumps theory. These following cases and many others of the same sort were real events in the world, in space-time, occurring to real people that presented as described. Their testimony and other evidence can’t reasonably be dismissed just because they appear fantastic or theoretically preposterous. Especially with good observers like pilots and police officers (sometimes multiple) whose testimony would otherwise be accepted in a court of law. The burden is on the skeptic to credibly demonstrate how these cases are actually misperceptions, hallucinations, errors, hoaxes, useless anecdotes, etc. And on the skeptic of the ETH to come up with a more credible general explanation for the many cases of physical interaction with physical apparent vehicles. Some people have observed strange apparently structured material objects in the atmosphere that give the strong impression of being vehicles, somebody else's hardware. The best cases stand on their own merits as evidence that on some rare occasions what seem to be alien vehicles appear to humans, sometimes producing physical effects including radar returns, radio interference, ground traces and leaving images preserved on photographic film or electronic media. For a detailed summary scientific review and analysis of the various types of physical evidence related to UFOs, there was the Sturrock panel report, see https://ufoscoop.com/physical-evidence-related-to-ufos/. The relatively recent (in 2004 and 2015) sightings and radar trackings of small UFOs shadowing US Navy carrier battle groups, featuring multiple pilot and ship radar reports and HUD video display recordings amount to some of the best data. Some of these HUD videos were released by the Defense Department a few months ago. This is just a sampling of some of the better older data, really just the tip of the iceberg: – The 1947 Kenneth Arnold sighting Except for the WWII “foo fighters”, this begins the modern era of UFOs. A good analysis is at http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/Arnold%20analysis2.pdf . There do not seem to be any valid optical, geometric, geographical, psychological or other reasons to doubt the major features of Arnold’s sighting as reported and they are internally consistent. The analysis results in a range of 16-20 miles, a minimum length of 70-90 feet, and a speed of 890 to 1200 mph. Arnold described the objects as trimmed-off in the rear thin shiny “saucer-like” discoids reflecting sunlight blindingly like metal at certain angles. – The Chiles-Whitted Case – Montgomery, Alabama, United States – July 24, 1948 – The Nash-Fortenberry Sighting (aircraft encounter with formation of UFOs) – Virginia, United States – July 14, 1952 – The RB-47 UFO Encounter – Gulf Coast Area, United States – July 17, 1957 – Socorro / Zamora UFO Incident – Socorro, New Mexico, United States – April 24, 1964 – Coyne Helicopter Incident – Mansfield, Ohio, United States – October 18, 1973 – “Dogfight over Tehran”, the 1976 Iranian Air Force Incident, a multiple pilot/ground/radar/visual/EMI signal case. Details at http://www.nicap.org/760919tehran_dir.htm . – The Cash-Landrum Case – Huffman, Texas, United States – December 29, 1980 – Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 Over Alaska – Alaska, United States – November 17, 1986 – Belgium Triangle UFO Sightings – Belgium – October, 1989 – Illinois Triangle UFO Sighting (by multiple police officers) – Illinois, United States – January 5, 2000 There was the 1999 French Cometa committee report, summarized at https://www.ufocasebook.com/cometamain.html . This was an in-depth study of UFOs conducted by a science professional group with close ties to the French military and government, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense. The study was done over several years by a group at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN, and by other qualified experts from various fields. They took the extraterrestrial hypothesis very seriously when considering the many excellent French cases. For an exhaustive analysis of electromagnetic effects generated by UFOs, see Fifty-Six Aircraft Pilot Sightings Involving E-M Effects – Haines (1992), at http://www.nicap.org/papers/92apsiee.htm .doubter
July 26, 2020
July
07
Jul
26
26
2020
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
There isn't any maybe aliens are real. There isn't any doubt. But sure, people will resist just because they haven't been introduced to any. There are too many reports from expert witnesses to discard them.ET
July 26, 2020
July
07
Jul
26
26
2020
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply