Nonsense, we do a lot of that ourselves. What was the profit to go to the North Pole? The South Pole? Scale Mount Everest? Explore to the bottom of the Marianas Trench? Go to the Moon? And while yes, in the era of Colonization profit was the main reason, it was not the only one. Both North America and Australia also served as "dumping grounds" for dissidents and criminals alike. When populations became too large, sending some to colonies was an appealing option. And even in the early US, a lot of people explored the wilderness simply to quench their curiosity. Although to be honest, I doubt we will ever meet any. There is still more evidence to the fact that travel past the speed of light is not possible, which means travel between stars will take huge amounts of time. Especially when you take into consideration that the closer you get to C, the more time dilates. So even a 4 light year trip at near light speeds would only take 4 years for the passengers on such a ship. But on Earth decades would pass before they arrived. I seriously doubt because of the distances involved any "intelligent life" in the Universe has done much more than explore their own solar system. The only exception to this might be a "Generation Ship", but odds are they would be looking to settle, and would pass up any planet with an intelligent species living on it, instead preferring one uninhabited to reduce or eliminate the risk of conflict.
1. I really liked & totally agree with your points here in #1. Good job. 2. Your thinking on interstellar travel is all accurate so long as you limit yourself to the technologies familiar to us now. Chemical, ion, or nuclear propulsion systems are far too slow & too limited, to take us on interstellar voyages--as you accurately state. The speed of light barrier limits ANY means of travel stuck in four dimensional space-time. But interstellar travel just might be available thru inter-dimensional travel. I suggest watching Youtube videos showing interviews for Bob Lazar &/or Dr. Steven Greer for more info.
I only follow what is known at this time, or what is believed to be factually known. Thanks to many theorists we understand how the speed of light limits travel, and that no matter can go past that speed. Yes, I am aware of other possible theories, but they do not even have any common grasp if such is possible, or how it would even work. Kinda like "warp speed". It is more concept than even theory.
That is about 50 years out of date. By no means is the speed of light an absolute limit; only with respect to local space. This is why concepts like the Alcubierre "warp" drive have gotten attention. Ah, so you pick and choose what you like. Got it.
I understand your discomfort & reluctance to engage in "theoretical" concepts of space travel. But ETs are here now, and their craft are being photographed by someone daily. The fact of their presence proves interstellar travel is possible somehow. Since you're right, humans don't have the technology or knowledge necessary to achieve that lofty goal, then the only possible answer is that ET does. Getting to know ET personally just might open that knowledge to us too.
So far, these flying objects are unidentified. It certainly would be exciting to find and examine an object that could have arrived from somewhere off Earth. Even then, I wouldn't bet on meeting an ET, as like our own space program, they could be found to be entirely robotic, traveling in accordance with known physics, having been sent large numbers of years ago.
I find it likely that whatever has decided to play here would not use a craft we would notice. Considering what we silly humans have accomplished in miniature design and robotics it makes no sense to send a large payload through space.
Again, I understand your hesitation, but there are several thousand humans around the planet who claim to have met face to face with ETs already. Many of those have been examined by medical professionals under hypnosis, & shown to be telling the truth. The ETs they describe were not robotic. Neither were they unfriendly or threatening, although in some cases the human's fear caused them to assume they were.
A lot of people believe they've seen Bigfood and have physical evidence of such existing - footprints, photography, etc. Many report "near death experiences" where the supernatural was witnessed. Studies of eye witness account accuracy show that such accounts just aren't very good due to a variety of factors. Our judicial system has to face that problem, too. This is a case where the rules of science should be applied.
Looking at many of the responses in here, it seems more like we need a pseudo-science thread. Either that, ir just pitch this entire thing into the Conspiracy Theory area.
I agree that the rules of science should be applied whenever possible, though there are aspects of our reality that don't lend themselves to "scientific" scrutiny. There are also other areas that scientists themselves have declared off limits to study. For example, the area of non-physical reality (part of all our lives), long known as the "spiritual" side of reality, has been off limits to science from at least the Middle Ages, until just recently, and still terra incognito for many scientist even today. Yet, the spiritual aspects of our lives is equal in importance to the physical, & more so for some. Until recently, with the advent of the Near Death Experience, science was at a total loss for spiritual studies. Now, there's an ever increasing presence of scientists studying metaphysics, & opening ever more new doorways to our holistic understanding of all our personal realities. Actually, in the case of NDEs (Near Death Experiences), the accounts have been proven to be quite accurate, though often hard to interpret due to the vast differences in the reality one experiences in that alternate dimension we call the spiritual or Astral. I personally think science has an ever increasing role to play in spiritual studies, but much prejudice must be overcome before that happens.
It is SCIENCE that declares the supernatural to be off limits. In fact, it exclude MORE than just the supernatural. Those working in theoretical physics come up with ideas such as string theory. Since these can not be tested (due to the limits of our abilities) they are outside of experimental science (science), too. What you are talking about does not have to do with scientific method - experimental science. There is no "additional pressure" being placed on scientific method. The real issue here has to do with using science when that is the correct tool and using religion when that is the correct tool. Mixing the two toolsets is not going to work, because the fundamental assumptions on which they are built are WAY different. Nothing has been proven about NDE's as far as science is concerned. As for religion, you can interpret dreams, NDE's, halucinogens, etc. any way your religion wants to. Personally, I'm totally uninterested in NDE's, because humans have the capability of dreaming - concocting artificial circumstances and events. When human sensory organs and the brain itself begin to die, it doesnt seem unlikely that the brain could go in numerous directions based on depricated input and memories/beliefs of the person dying. As for your last sentence this is NOT about overcoming prejudice. It's about the definition of science. If you decide to include the supernatural, then you don't have sciece anymore - period. The definition of scientific method just falls apart. Mankind can't test God.
Interesting post. It offers much to discuss. I agree it's largely about the definition of science. As my post noted (and yours), our daily reality involves more than science has been able to study fully, for a variety of reasons. You & I both seem to have a high regard for the "scientific method," but we both recognize there are regions of study for which it is ineffective. So, we're left with the disturbing necessity of choosing to disregard those areas where science isn't useful as somehow unreal or less than real. Or, choosing to disregard the limitations of science & accept those areas of reality as real based on other forms of measure or discernment. For many years, I chose the former. But time & experience forced me to gradually accept the truth that reality is bigger than science, along with the idea that what many call the "supernatural" is simply parts of our reality we don't understand well yet. I agree with you that science hasn't yet "proven" that NDEs are actually death experiences, but the evidence has accumulated over the past few decades enough to make it quite impossible to dismiss. There have been a number of intense soft science research studies done on the topic, with all of them concluding the NDE was real, even though scientifically inexplicable. Over time, as science broadens its reach, I suspect its ability to study such mysteries in more detail & more in the experimental sense may increase, but I doubt it will ever be totally comfortable there. I feel "religious" studies will be equally inept in this task, because religion is far too Earthbound & dogmatic to be open to the vast differences NDEs indicate are real between the physical & spiritual worlds. For one example, the western religions describe the place our souls go after death to be much like Earth. The Christian Bible describes Heaven as paved with gold. The Koran promises male Muslims who die protecting Islam a reward of 72 virgins with whom they can do as they wish. Both of these images of the afterlife are in diametric disagreement with the spiritual world as illustrated by the NDE. In reality, the spirit world has nothing of a physical nature in it. Everything is energy. In fact, many NDEs make the point that nothing physical could possibly exist there. It would be vaporized by the intense energy level. I find it fascinating that there is such an intricate, complete, constant working relationship ongoing between that reality & our physical reality here. Whatever we can learn about that relationship thru science or any other means, is highly exciting to me & many others like me around the world.
There are questions that science can not answer. What's beyond the portion of the universe that we can see with telescopes? That doesn't make it "supernatural" in the sense that heaven is supernatural. I think we have to be careful here as humans don't know it all and simply not knowing isn't a good justification for considering something to be magical. I would suggest that what is being gathered are anecdotes. As they say, the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data". Anecdotes are anecdotes. One of the basic problems with the "soft sciences" is that the methods of hard science can't be used for reasons of ethics. It's just not possible to use the techniques that are known to be required for scientific understanding. Muslims don't actually get promised 72 virgins - that's a pernicious false translation. Your notion of the supernatural (spirit world, energy) is entirely religious, of course.
1. I agree, there are questions science can't answer, but my point is that just because science can't study it with it's rigid systemic method attuned to the physical universe, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't important. I'm personally uncomfortable with the term "supernatural." I don't regard the spiritual world as "supernatural." I regard it as a crucial part of our total reality, but one we're not normally consciously aware of. I'm not one to go into the "magical" aspects of things. 2. It's a pretty prominent false translation then. I read in several reports on the 9/11 disaster that the Muslims involved believed they were going to be rewarded by just such a circumstance. I've never read the Koran, so I can't say from personal experience. But I do know there are no "virgins" in the spiritual realm. 3. My notion of the "spiritual" world is NOT based on religious teachings, dogma, or belief. It was formed over several decades of careful study of NDEs & other spiritual (not religious) writings. The evidence available doesn't support the religious views of the spiritual world as very accurate--especially the western religions. Also, the least accurate are those from the fundamentalist sects.
Yes, there are important questions that science can not address. None of the above was intended to deny that. Anything about the "soul" or life after death or gods or prayer or turning water into wine is in the supernatural realm and can not be addressed by science. Supernatural is just a term used to identify the collection of beliefs that includes these specifics. It could also include reincarnation, new age beliefs, and many other ideas. None of these things can be addressed by science. My understanding on this is that the description of heaven was not meant to be specific. The message of this and other descriptions was meant to cause one to imagine fabulous rewards and understand that heaven is greater joy than that. It was a way of communicating the magnitude of the wonder and joy of heaven. OK. This still belongs in the collection of supernatural things, at least to the extent that it can not be addressed by science. It's well known that people have dreams. But, there is no scientific possibility of verifying that material in those dreams is in any way an accurate identification of the afterlife or whatever else is claimed.
Well there is proof of them from thousands of years so I think if they wanted to colonize us by now they would have. I think we are an experiment for them.
I am absolutely convinced that extra-terrestrials exist, live on Earth, and have kids. Yes, I do teach K-8. Why do you ask?
And there is some reason to believe that the answer isn't all of the above? After all it is quite easy to postulate extremely xenophobic societies that are quite cooperative among their own kind.