Friday, September 3, 2010

Alien Skepticism

The Bad Astronomy blog has had two good posts recently mocking people who think aliens have visited the Earth, here and here.

I've had posts on aliens before, so perhaps this is a good opportunity to clarify my position.

1. I think it's unreasonable to work off the assumption that humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That strikes me as absurd. I quite firmly believe that alien civilizations exist in the universe, and I definitely enjoy speculating on their extent and nature.

2. I do not think it is likely at all that aliens have visited us in the last fifty years (when UFO sightings really picked up). I would wager that all the famous incidents - not to mention the obviously transparent ones - are naturally explainable phenomena, deliberate fabrications, or psychotic episodes.

3. However, unlike a lot of people that think the existence of aliens is reasonable, I don't think it's implausible that aliens have visited us in the last fifty years. The video in the second link, for example, makes fun of the idea that governments would keep aliens secret. I don't see that as entirely unreasonable, actually (perhaps if the blogger worked on any social science he wouldn't see that as entirely unreasonable either). Governments keep threats, sources of information, and new technologies secret from citizens all the time. There's very good reason for this (and sometimes not so good reasons as well, obviously). If there was an instance of alien contact I don't see why it's implausible that the government would keep it secret until they (1.) had a better understanding of the nature or the threat of the incident, (2.) were concerned about other governments making contact and reaping benefits, or (3.) were concerned that other governments would make peremptory strikes on R&D facilities if they knew we were developing advanced alien technology. None of this increases the likelihood that we were visited recently. I still think that almost certainly hasn't happened. It's simply to say that some of the seemingly (and suspiciously) convenient reasons why UFO enthusiasts can never confirm alien contact make sense to me.

4. If you think of the expanse of the Earth's history, a lot of Bad Astronomer's reasons for skepticism of visitation don't make sense anymore. That is to say, while I think actual visitation of Earth is highly implausible, I do consider various "ancient astronaut" theories more plausible than Roswell-type theories. That doesn't mean I'm one of those people that thinks the pyramids could never be built by humans. As a social scientist, I am constantly in awe of the innovation and abilities of the human species. I don't need aliens to explain anything I see. And I've never read a single page of Erich von Däniken. Nevertheless, when the ancients say "so and so came down from the sky, walked among us, and left" - I have no good reason not to entertain the possibility that "so and so" actually came down from the sky, walked among us, and then left. We really don't know either way. We have no way of confirming or refuting the account, and if we think it's reasonable to assume intelligent life exists in the universe we can't laugh off the idea.

5. I don't think it's unreasonable to think we may make contact with aliens over the next century (I do think it's unreasonable to expect that that is probable). We are obviously not going to get to them in the next century, but depending on how advanced they are and whether they're keeping tabs on us, they might come to us. Even more likely than contacting intelligent life, of course, is the chance that we'll find some tenacious fungus on Mars - which will settle the silliness about the fictitiousness of alien life once and for all.

Here, Michio Kaku provides very good reasons to (1.) think twice about many of Bad Astronomer's attempts at explaining why we should make a big deal of the fact that SETI hasn't found anything, while (2.) still being skeptical that they've actually visited us.



Having said all that, my mother-in-law's boyfriend moved out to New Mexico recently and my mother-in-law is moving out there this fall - we're going to visit soon afterwards and you better believe I'm taking a trip to Roswell while we're there. I don't care if everything suggests that nothing happened there. Roswell represents mankind starting to get serious about its cosmic significance (albeit, in a sometimes superficially unserious way - which is an interesting and ironic juxtaposition in and of itself... perhaps we need to be a little unserious to process such a serious underlying realization).

UPDATE: On the Colbert Report rerun last night, he interviewed Leslie Kean on her new book on UFOs. It was very interesting and one of the nice things is she seems to come from a skeptical position, and she's looked at more formal, official documentation of the events. Her point is (1.) most UFOs are easily explained, (2.) we can't say confidently what they are, and (3.) we also can't rule out that even recent events aren't extraterrestrials.

26 comments:

  1. A recent post from Lee Kelly makes me wonder... have their been any critical rationalist/Popperian treatments of alien visitation? It seems ripe for that kind of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "...I have no good reason not to entertain the possibility that "so and so" actually came down from the sky, walked among us, and then left. We really don't know either way."

    Of course there is literally no evidence whatsoever that this actually happened - this despite the fact that you've had people studying Egypt's pyramids for over a hundred years.

    There is of course all sorts of evidence that these were indigenously designed, etc. monuments, etc. There is no evidence that they were created by aliens.

    There is keeping your mind open, and then there is letting it flop out of your head.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Governments keep threats, sources of information, and new technologies secret from citizens all the time."

    And they are never able to keep those secrets, well, secret. This stuff always outs. The government couldn't even keep a minor league burglary done for political purposes secret.

    "...we're going to visit soon afterwards and you better believe I'm taking a trip to Roswell while we're there."

    It is a kitschy tourist trap.

    "Roswell represents mankind starting to get serious about its cosmic significance..."

    I always thought that was the role of Galilleo and Kepler.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...I have no good reason not to entertain the possibility that "so and so" actually came down from the sky, walked among us, and then left. We really don't know either way."

    Also, before you write off a couple of hundred of years of archaeological, etc. research perhaps you ought to think through why you think that the people who claim alien visitors created the Pyramids just might have some sort of useful argument and why the professional scientists are wrong.

    We really do know who built these structures, and there is no evidence that aliens were involved in their construction. There is all sorts of evidence that humans built them as the result of the development of large, hierarchal societies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. I said I could care less about people's pyramid obsession - but stories about people coming down from the sky are much more broadly told than just in Egypt. Ultimately it comes to this - are ancient gods stories that people made up or could they be actual physical creatures. As long as we reject the ancient pantheon, either of those seem plausible - the former more so, of course. The point is, both explanations should satisfy any materialist.

    "There is keeping your mind open, and then there is letting it flop out of your head."

    I'm confused, Xenophon. Are you under the impression that I think aliens built the pyramids or is that a more general "you"? Architecture and monuments are the last thing I would point to as evidence in a case like this. That's absolutely not what I'm saying - just to be clear.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "And they are never able to keep those secrets, well, secret. This stuff always outs. The government couldn't even keep a minor league burglary done for political purposes secret."

    Think through what you just said, Xenophon. If they kept the secret you wouldn't know what it was. So you have no denominator with which to compare the secrets that have gotten out too. It's a great big question mark. And you don't even have to go to aliens for this. So we know about a botched burglary. How many non-botched burglaries don't we know about? We don't know! That's the point. To look at Watergate and put that forward as evidence that we know everything isn't evidence at all. It's predicated on the assumption that Watergate and things like it constitute all the secrets there are to speak of. In other words, Xenophon, you're assuming your own conclusions - and quite blatantly I might add.

    "It is a kitschy tourist trap."

    I can do kitsch.

    I always thought that was the role of Galilleo and Kepler.

    I've actually heard some interesting analogies between our eventual discovery of extraterrestrial life (in this case they were talking about a fungus on Mars type of discovery) and Coppernicus, the idea being that Coppernicus decentered the geocentric cosmology, and this sort of discovery will decenter our conception of terrestrial biology.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Also, before you write off a couple of hundred of years of archaeological, etc. research perhaps you ought to think through why you think that the people who claim alien visitors created the Pyramids just might have some sort of useful argument and why the professional scientists are wrong."

    Do you have any critical reading skills at all, Xenophon? I said the pyramids were not built by aliens - I specifically said that none of those sorts of stories based on ideas that "ancient man couldn't have possibly done X" make sense. I'm on your side - why are you suggesting that I'm "writing off a couple hundred years of research".

    The sort of thing I think is worth considering is what you could call eye-witness accounts. The veracity of these accounts of course is highly suspect, but when someone says "X came down from the sky", if you're a materialist of any stripe and you have a shred of an understanding of evolutionary biology one plausible option is that someone did actually come down from the sky.

    It has nothing at all to do with pyramids. Why do you keep bringing that up?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Ultimately it comes to this - are ancient gods stories that people made up or could they be actual physical creatures. As long as we reject the ancient pantheon, either of those seem plausible - the former more so, of course. The point is, both explanations should satisfy any materialist."

    The latter is so unlikely that it is not even worth entertaining. Same with claims about God, and faeries, and leprechauns and trolls and vampires and ghosts and ESP and ouiji boards and dousing and all sorts of other similar claims.

    "Are you under the impression that I think aliens built the pyramids or is that a more general "you"?"

    When people start talking like you have here, that is exactly what they mean. So I take it at face value.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When people start talking like you have here, that is exactly what they mean. So I take it at face value.

    I explicitly said that the pyramids do not require aliens for an explanation. If you took it at face value, that's what you would have taken. What you did was comment too fast before you read what I actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Daniel,

    "It has nothing at all to do with pyramids. Why do you keep bringing that up?"

    Because you are plugging into a bunch of language, thought, etc. that has existed for a couple of decades. There is this whole sub-field of nutters out there and your language sounds just like what they argue. Doh!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Daniel,

    No, you wrote this ...

    "That doesn't mean I'm one of those people that thinks the pyramids could never be built by humans. As a social scientist, I am constantly in awe of the innovation and abilities of the human species. I don't need aliens to explain anything I see. And I've never read a single page of Erich von Däniken. Nevertheless, when the ancients say "so and so came down from the sky, walked among us, and left" - I have no good reason not to entertain the possibility that "so and so" actually came down from the sky, walked among us, and then left."

    That's sort of equivocation is absolute bullshit. The pyramids were built by human beings, and there is no question about that. Aliens had nothing to do with them. Nothing at all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Because you are plugging into a bunch of language, thought, etc. that has existed for a couple of decades. There is this whole sub-field of nutters out there and your language sounds just like what they argue. Doh!

    I'll remember to tie you to NWO conspiracy theorists, the Birch Society, every embarassing Tea Partier I can think of, Glenn Beck, and LaRouche the next time I hear you utter a word of libertarianism or anti-government anything...

    It's the same language, after all, right?

    Is Michio Kaku or Hawkings a "nutter" too? I'm not really saying anything they haven't put out there. And I have explicitly rejected the weird stuff. Give it a rest - you either commented way too fast or you're putting words in my mouth and trumping up my arguments as you regularly do on here.

    But one thing is clear - I never made arguments like this. You really have to come to terms with that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That's sort of equivocation is absolute bullshit. The pyramids were built by human beings, and there is no question about that. Aliens had nothing to do with them. Nothing at all.

    Agreed. Do you think there is some sort of issue around this point?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is this like the opportunity cost of capital, where you and Mises and Horwitz think you're the only guys that buy into it when actually a very, very wide community of people agree on it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I explicitly said that the pyramids do not require aliens for an explanation."

    There is a wide gulf between making that sort of claim and simply stating that aliens were not involved the building of the pyramids. Yours is "The Stupid" position.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is a wide gulf between making that sort of claim and simply stating that aliens were not involved the building of the pyramids. Yours is "The Stupid" position.

    Just stop coming here if you're going to do this. It gets really old. You are allergic to agreement and you feed that by continually distorting my positions and the positions of other commenters. Really. Stop. It's tiring.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You are allergic to agreement..."

    We do not agree on this subject. There is no reason to believe aliens have ever visited this planet. There is also no reason to believe that they ever will.

    Anyway, being the good little libertarian that I am, I will stop coming here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I said "if you're going to do this". I'm not sure what your libertarianism has to do with it, but all your wealth of bibliography and many of your thoughts are fine. I get tired of reassuring you I simply did not say what you claim I said.

    There is no reason to believe aliens have ever visited this planet. There is also no reason to believe that they ever will.

    And this we do certainly disagree on. But we have common cause when it comes to the erection of ancient monoliths!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, I am glad that you don't think that pyramids and other ancient mega-structures were created by aliens. To me it looks like your original statements leaves that possibility open.

    Because libertarians take private property seriously. This blog is your property from my POV.

    On the UFO book: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38852385/ns/technology_and_science-space/

    Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Daniel,

    I'm an archaeologist. I write a blog (though less so these days) on the anthropology of paranormal beliefs [with emphasis on UFOs], and I have taught a university course on the topic. And I found this post while perusing your Lovecraft post, probably the fiction writer most effective in utilizing the ancient astronaut concept (though unlike Jason Colavito, who wrote a book on that topic, I don't think we can credit HPL with the concept as inventor or most successful distributor, he was simply tapping into the deeper modern western occult tradition that was headlined by Theosophy).

    That you haven't read a page out of von Daniken is the problem. So many of the almost "eyewitness accounts" turn out to be nothing of the kind. They are instead art work or text ripped dramatically out of context and given completely new meaning by people interested in promoting the idea of ET visitation (the same thing is done with people arguing for living dinosaurs, hairy hominids, and so on). The classic example would be probably von Daniken's most famous example, where he takes Pakal's sarcophagus lid from the Maya city of Palenque in the 7th century, and tries to interpret it as looking like a Gemini capsule control chair. It is simply nothing of the kind, and it can be quite well-understood by someone who has examined other Classic Maya artwork. Most of the "reports" in ancient astronaut works can be ruled out that easily. That leaves a smaller number that might talk about gods or other supernaturals coming from underwater or the sky or underground caves. At which point we interpret these stories with an unknown. Geomythologists try to argue, for example, that legends and myths record past natural and catastrophic events such as volcanic eruptions. While some examples are debatable at best, there have been some cases where it seems oral tales describe very old events. But in these cases, we know what to look for. We know not only how a volcano works in general, but how the particular eruption would have occurred, and what it would have looked like to eyewitnesses. And even then, it takes interpretation to maybe detect that in some stories.

    In the case of aliens, we have no idea what we'd be talking about. You could argue modern UFO reports could be the model, but the repertoire of things seen, both craft and occupants, is vast to the point of allowing all sorts of cherry picking. And the things ancient astronaut authors point to are usually pretty broad as well. A figure with big round eyes. A figure with little lozenge eyes. A figure with antennae. A disc. A cylinder. An ellipse. And so on.

    There is better global evidence for mermaids (tales all over the place of water people that change shape and try to lure in land people, some of whom guard treasure) than there is for aliens in past myths. But these don't have tv shows and books, with the rare exception of the occasional USOs (UFOs underwater) tales, because people have a harder time believing in underwater civilizations than they do ET, because of the proximity and likelihood of evidence, as well as more general interest in the sky and space these days, as there was in the sea and water transport a few centuries ago.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That is an interesting-sounding field of research!

    To clarify - it is precisely the "talk about gods or other supernaturals coming from underwater or the sky or underground caves" that I would even consider in this regard. You don't even have to go to something as contextless as sarcophagal art. The book of Ezekial, for example, serves the purpose I'm talking about.

    And all I'm saying is that given my prior assumption of the extreme unlikeliness of an alien visitation, I think that the chances of some visitation happening and being recorded literally from 1950 back is probably higher than anything having happened since 1950. I think that for two reasons: (1.) You don't have the "well if a ship came why didn't NASA see it" concern, and (2.) it's simply a much broader time period.

    That's all I'm saying - I hardly embrace the ancient astronaut idea.

    I called this post "alien skepticism" because I consider myself an "alien skeptic" (at least a skeptic when it comes to visitation). I am, however, a speculative skeptic :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Understood. All I'm saying is, even most of the stories aren't really all that mysterious, because like the artwork, they're often taken out of context too, and highlighted out of numerous stories we consider supernatural and fantastical, because they serve the point of someone working with modern day stories.

    As for field of research, it's more a hobby. When I am getting paid, my day job is in Mesoamerican and Spanish Colonial archaeology. The paranormal thing was sort of a hobby that I convinced Tulane to let me teach a course on. You can find the syllabus at my blog

    http://spookyparadigm.blogspot.com/2007/05/monster-hunters-etc-class-going-well.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. ahtzib -
    What do you know about this O'Hare airport UFO?

    I had never heard of it before the Colbert Report. The pictures are absolutely amazing, but then, when you see pictures like that you just assume without thinking that they're photo-shopped. Anything that blatant has to be a fake.

    But apparently some think there's good reason to believe it?


    I just don't know the background on it - can you shed any light?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I heard about it when it first hit the media. I know there were photos that ended up not being credible, but these may not be them (I haven't read Kean's book, and haven't watched the Colbert clip above, perhaps I might tonight). While I am a skeptic to the point that I'd likely be called a debunker by those in the community, I have no problem saying "I don't know" to the rare specific cases that stand up to some scrutiny.

    I don't know enough about the Chicago O'Hare case, other than bare bones, but I know there is a lot of material from various sources to hunt down if it interests you. I saw a link last week on the Daily Grail to a ufological study on it, but as I haven't read it, I can't comment any more as to its care/quality.

    The one case I know Kean covers in her book (I browsed the ToC) that I would like to know more about is the pilot sighting of something massive over the English Channel. No expectation it won't turn out to be something explainable with more study, but the basic interest grab there is obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The one thing I will note, as a social scientist, and that I think I covered on the blog, is that the O'Hare case was not reported when it happened, but months later. During the dead season in news of the Xmas/New Years holiday, it hit the press and then CNN, a very similar ecological niche to how the Stephenville, TX "flap" exploded, again courtesy of CNN.

    PS: Which images are you referring to? I don't have sound right now, so I pause-fast-forwarded through the Colbert clip, and didn't see any. Maybe I missed them?

    PPS: I see you have a number of Lovecraft posts as part of a larger project. You may find my other blog, Miskatonic Museum, amusing. And it has some links there that may be of utility to you.

    http://miskatonicmuseum.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  26. No images in this video - I googled it afterwards. I found a variety of varying clarity. I'm sure some where the non-credible ones you refered to.

    I wonder if CNN will take the same interest in UFO stories when Larry King leaves. I know he has a deep interest in the issue, and I wonder if he has some sort of editorial clout driving the reporting on it.

    I'm going to check both your blogs out and probably post on it tomorrow morning to share with readers.

    Thanks for all this info - I'll definitely be checking out what you've written.

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.