Wait wait wait, if you’re suggesting some magical bullshit about space whales starhopping the intergalactic void, we’re gonna shut this thing down right now. It’s not my job to prove a negative. It’s your job to prove your hypothesis.
You keep using that term, but I do not think it means what you think it means. The counter to the null hypothesis of “aliens aren’t visiting us” isn’t “but what if space whales,” it’s irrefutable proof that aliens are visiting us, in which case a new hypothesis is formed.
-
-
"Aliens aren't visiting us" is a positive, specific assertion. "We cannot know if aliens are visiting us" is the null hypothesis.
-
If something isn't observable, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means we can't claim it does exist.
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
In the absence of irrefutable proof (of which blurry sensor readings on artifact prone machinery does not qualify), I am, again, quite comfortable in my assertation that it is not, in fact, aliens, and that furthermore, in the absence of proof that FTL capable lifeforms would
-
choose to show up in conveniently blurry recordings in a backwater planet of the galactic arm, with no system-wide evidence of said beings’ existence elsewhere, that space whales are fucking stupid.
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.