What evidence of aliens would convince skeptics?

[jarlrmai]

Yeah, I used Bird.net Ap as well -- but the version I have, at least, starts with your location and does not consider birds that wouldn't be there -- to save comparing zillions of birds that don't live where you are listening. There may be some way to set it for Spain, or Hawaii, or somewhere else, but if so I can't find it. It just goes by my phone's GPS. (I'm in NC, I got Carolina Wren as well, but with low probability.) I'm going to put a note in that thread asking if anybody in Spain or Hawaii wants to give it a go...

You can upload an mp3 here, I am in the UK and still get Carolina Wren.

https://birdnet.cornell.edu/api/

 

[JMartJr]

Ah, thanks, I was using the App. I have Carolina Wrens nesting on the porch, I'll keep an ear on them.
Sorry for going off topic, all, I'll be good now...

 

[nmarsollier]

What evidence is needed to convince a person that it is a tomato salad? A tomato.

About aliens? An alien.

 

[Mendel]

What evidence is needed to convince a person that it is a tomato salad? A tomato.

The only evidence that my instant tomato soup contains tomatoes is the declaration on the package that there's 20% tomato powder in it, an assertion that I am in no position to verify. Should I be skeptical?

 

[Mendel]

Evidence of aliens is not acceptable if it requires us to believe the aliens have supernatural powers; and "breaks the known laws of physics" is just code for that.

I have great confidence in the laws of physics. Arguments of the type "this fuzzy blob of pixels does impossible stuff and therefore is extraterrestrial" are destined to fail from the start.

We've posited in this thread that unprecedented technology or scientific breakthroughs could be used as evidence of aliens; but because it is unprecedented, this evidence would need to be quite strong to be convincing.

 

[nmarsollier]

The only evidence that my instant tomato soup contains tomatoes is the declaration on the package that there's 20% tomato powder in it, an assertion that I am in no position to verify. Should I be skeptical?

Of course, they only way to be sure, is a physical evidence. In your case there should be a receipe and a goverment departament that verifies that the receipe is followed. An even in that case could not be any tomato there.
But if tomatoes where extinct whould you trust in the declaration? Or you would like to see it?
You need an alien. You can trust science when the time comes, but you need not 'in theory' you need the scientific fact.

 

[Mendel]

You need an alien.

so how do I verify that if I don't know what an alien looks like?

if I can't even verify there's tomato in my soup?

 

[Woolery]

so how do I verify that if I don't know what an alien looks like?

For "evidence of aliens", I'd require far less.

An alien lifeform would be great. It could be sentient dolphins, or sentient wolves; if the aliens were humanoids but had tentacled birds as pets, that'd do me. Any lifeform that's obviously extraterrestrial, and can be examined to be, would suffice.

Sorry for being dense. But can you help me understand how nmarsollier’s requirement of an alien for “evidence of aliens” is flawed but your previous requirement of an alien for “evidence of aliens” is not?

Edit: I’m sure there’s a simple explanation I’m just missing. Can anyone who shares Mendel’s perspective clarify it for me?

 

[nmarsollier]

The only evidence that my instant tomato soup contains tomatoes is the declaration on the package that there's 20% tomato powder in it, an assertion that I am in no position to verify. Should I be skeptical?

That claim, means that if someone finds some kind of package with a declaration outside that there is an alien life inside, we should just 'believe' that aliens exists? or we should verify that?

Sould be a breach about believes and facts

 

[Mendel]

That claim, means that if someone finds some kind of package with a declaration outside that there is an alien life inside, we should just 'believe' that aliens exists? or we should verify that?

Sould be a breach about believes and facts

yes. the conundrum is that there really is tomato in there, even if it's not obvious.

Your 'tomato salad argument' has us reject all aliens that aren't obviously aliens, so you're setting yourself up to potentially overlook an alien with that approach.

If we telescopically tracked an object from outside the solar system into an Earth object, and we could establish some communications with it, that'd be a convincing proof.

 

[nmarsollier]

yes. the conundrum is that there really is tomato in there, even if it's not obvious.

Your 'tomato salad argument' has us reject all aliens that aren't obviously aliens, so you're setting yourself up to potentially overlook an alien with that approach.

If we telescopically tracked an object from outside the solar system into an Earth object, and we could establish some communications with it, that'd be a convincing proof.

Why?
Such scenario should open doors to many theories, why aliens would be the only one?

Why cannot be:

- Good
- Time travel
- Atlantis humans comming back from excursion
- A matrix error

All depends on the evidence. As sceptik I would say that If we are scientifically 100% sure that we are communicating with alien life, then there is an alien to believe in, otherwise we have only theories.

 

[Ann K]

Why?
Such scenario should open doors to many theories, why aliens would be the only one?

Why cannot be:

- Good
- Time travel
- Atlantis humans comming back from excursion
- A matrix error

All depends on the evidence. As sceptik I would say that If we are scientifically 100% sure that we are communicating with alien life, then there is an alien to believe in, otherwise we have only theories.

I understand the original question to mean "What would convince YOU". That would convince Mandel, and I would find it rather persuasive too, but there's no reason it has to be your standard as well. After all, there is no such thing as a standard regulation skeptic. But since an alien from another planet would be a natural entity (although not yet demonstrated), it's a thing I'd consider to be far more likely than any supernatural one, which seems to be the common characteristic of your alternatives. We know natural things exist, but have yet to see evidence of the supernatural at all.

 

[nmarsollier]

You are right, I agree that there is no standard here, sorry about explaing myself boyond the question.

To answer the questioon as skeptic, my answer is: An alien life.

So, someone please take notes about many skeptics answers and make some stats to get to some conclusion about a general answer to this question.

 

[Hawkeye]

Definitely not just hearsay and rumors, which is what the vast majority of “evidence” seems to be, including supposed government official types such as Elizondo and co

 

[Mendel]

Why cannot be:

- Good
- Time travel
- Atlantis humans comming back from excursion
- A matrix error

Occam's razor.
Intelligent beings (they communicate!) that have been tracked from outside the solar system (extraterrestrial) are your tomato salad tomatoes.

Your 4 suggestions all introduce additional elements that have no supporting evidence and don't add explanatory power.

 

[Edward Current]

Why cannot be:

- Good
- Time travel
- Atlantis humans comming back from excursion
- A matrix error

To quote an earlier comment:

Ok now we are just making stuff up.

Seriously though, back at the beginning of this thread, we realized that "aliens" in the question needed to be generalized to something like "non-conventional intelligent entities," which would cover everything on the list. So the question becomes, what would convince skeptics that non-conventional intelligent entities here on Earth are actually a thing, and not just the products of colorful imaginations.

 

[Woolery]

So the question becomes, what would convince skeptics that non-conventional intelligent entities here on Earth are actually a thing, and not just the products of colorful imaginations.

The fact that there can be no formulaic answer is a pretty big stumbling block in the way of consensus, in my opinion.

Taking into account the feedback of others, I edited a previous suggestion. I think the following very broad criteria might be worth considering as a jumping off point.

Evidence of non-conventional intelligent entities (in the form of alien life, ships, tech, communications, space trash , etc.) must:

-Be widely corroborated
-Withstand detailed analysis
-Invite independent scientific review
-Include verifiable, transparent chain of custody

The obvious criticism to the above is that it’s too general. But since no one knows in what form evidence might reach us if it did, I don’t know how to be more specific without making it into a laundry list of make-believe scenarios.

Maybe an alternative way to think about it is: if a Mars rover collected evidence suggesting life once existed on Mars—a scenario for which science is preparing—what would the process of collection, analysis and verification of the evidence look like in the broadest terms? It’s a difficult question to answer.

 

[Domzh]

if someone could show me the above instead of the below

 

[Edward Current]

Is that a door?

Because the window and skylight suggest it's a door.

 

[Domzh]

indeed! its an alien mothership with clearly visible marsians showing the peace sign. john and jack junior. a little bit blurred of course due to the alcubierre drive that causes gravitational lensing (obviously)

 

[Ann K]

It intrigues me how strongly this discussion is geared towards machinery and tech. We seem as a group to be more interested in "show me the alien devices" than in "show me the aliens." Not a criticism, just an observation that interested me.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine the situation where carbon-based life forms (because chemically, carbon is the most probable building material) land on earth after a journey that took centuries (because the limitations of physics and the size of the universe suggest that would have to be the case). We might discover the descendants of the original voyagers, possibly young people without the knowledge of their original home or without the expertise to build the hardware. We might only find the plant-like materials grown for consumption during the journey, or the equivalent of a fungus that's grown around a leaky valve.

Now how are we to determine they're all extraterrestrial? Morphology of the creatures, probably, if indeed they survived the trip and are found. But the plants and the fungus might just have researchers saying "Ooh, a new species!". There's no reason for any super-intelligence to have made such a journey If the original creators are not present, Our best question might well be "show me the alien devices".

 

[Mendel]

But the plants and the fungus might just have researchers saying "Ooh, a new species!"

Their DNA (if they don't have any, that's VERY alien) won't be placeable within terrestrial genetic lines.

A far-breakthrough life form. A life form (broadly defined) that is not based on carbon/DNA, or does not have cells, or lacks some other characteristic shared by all known forms of life, but otherwise shows characteristics we associate with life. For the claim that it’s an “advanced” being, it must be able to outperform any human at some information-processing task, such as factoring high polynomials. Not good enough: A breakthrough type of genetic engineering. A new species. Something that biologists merely “can’t explain.” Those things might be breakthrough, but a far-breakthrough life form needs to rewrite what we know about biology.

An alien lifeform would be great. It could be sentient dolphins, or sentient wolves; if the aliens were humanoids but had tentacled birds as pets, that'd do me. Any lifeform that's obviously extraterrestrial, and can be examined to be, would suffice. I expect the genetic sequence of a humanoid alien would already suffice. No need to be "advanced".

 

[Woolery]

An alien lifeform would be great. It could be sentient dolphins, or sentient wolves;

Most biologists (and a lot of other people) believe that sentient dolphins and wolves are the only kind there is. You might consider striking these examples from your list.

Article:

The definition of sentient is simply “able to perceive or feel things”. Today most of us would probably also say that animals are able to feel emotion, form attachments and have distinct personalities. Yet for many decades the idea of animals feeling emotions or having personalities was dismissed by behavioural scientists. This strange view that arose from the 17th century philosopher René Descartes’ alleged assertion that animals are without feelings, physical or emotional.

Source:https://theconversation.com/amp/heres-what-the-science-says-about-animal-sentience-88047

 

[Mendel]

Most biologists (and a lot of other people) believe that sentient dolphins and wolves are the only kind there is. You might consider striking these examples from your list.

Sure. As soon as you show me one with an interest in space flight.

I have chosen these examples because it is easily imaginable that a life form similar to these evolved further on another planet than it did on ours.

Not all sentient life forms are aliens.

 

[jarlrmai]

Sure. As soon as you show me one with an interest in space flight.

I have chosen these examples because it is easily imaginable that a life form similar to these evolved further on another planet than it did on ours.

That would be likely be described as a "sapient" dolphin.

Levels of intelligence/awareness are hard to describe/judge though.

 

[Mendel]

Levels of intelligence/awareness are hard to describe/judge though.

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy​

Content from External Source

​

 

[nmarsollier]

We know almost nothink. It is hard to answer.

I mentioned before

- Good
- Time travel
- Atlantis humans comming back from excursion
- A matrix error

And was meant to be imaginative and paranormal, but indeed that claim is as valid as the claim abput ancient aliens .

Good is supposed to be everywhere, is an alien or it it is part of everything? Who kmows?, there is no evidence

Time travel is indeed a possibility, to the past or future, going back or further may meed some space to move.

Aylantis earth humans, well who knows many folks are saying that they see osnis, no scientific evidence again

A mattix error , well if we are in a simulation can be a rock that works as a radio due a matrix error.

Also the problem is that we dont exactly need to kmow to ensure if some thing is an alien life, we only know just an small piece of the story.

I suggest Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon, puts very imaginative alternatives.