Crop Circles

[Anthony G Williams]

Sorry mosaix, but does that mean you only believe what has been been proved by experiment, or by deduction?

Those are two different things?

The greatest scientists on earth 'believe' (by deduction) that 96% of the universe is dark matter/energy which would account for the extra gravity in the universe, so they can't see it or measure it in any way except that something must be there, to make the equations balance.

And yet the 'physics model' rejects 'string theory' as a 'philosophy' because it can't be proved by physical experiment, simply because the apparatus to measure it does not exist, although the Large Hadron Collider might help string-theory gain some credibility with 'real' physics.

So even physics is not that different from being a religion, when you think about it.

A classic chain of illogical thinking....we don't know everything, therefore anything we can't prove is in the same category, therefore physics is no different from religion.

No, NO, NO!!!

Physics, like all science and many other disciplines (historical research, for instance), is based on evidence. Cosmological theories are an attempt to make sense of our observations of the universe (which is our basic evidence) in a way which is consistent with known science (evidence collected concerning the existence and behaviour of sub-atomic particles) and with mathematical logic. The fact that there are several competing theories is because, at the moment, the evidence we need is incomplete.

By definition, theories about the formation of the universe are not "testable" in the sense of "setting up an experiment to create a universe", but that doesn't mean that they are no more than fantasies. As the evidence comes in, so the theories will be whittled down. It's the evidence which determines and validates (or rejects) the theories.

Religion, on the other hand, is a "given" body of knowledge: it rejects any evidence which does not comply with the holy texts (in fact if you're in a Muslim country and you start questioning the factual accuracy of the Koran, you'd better have a very fast getaway in place and ready to go...). It is the antithesis of science, as different as it could be. Religion has always hated science (and tortured scientists to "recant" until this became regarded as rather uncivilised) because religious leaders do not want any questioning of their authority, or of the basis for that authority. If religion had not been challenged by the scientific method (which kept being proved right), we would all still be in the Dark Ages, because religion resists change as hard as it can.

The belief that aliens exist is not based on any verified evidence whatsoever. Let alone the belief that aliens have formed advanced technological civilisations, have managed to visit the Earth, and have amused themselves, first by building the pyramids and Stonehenge and now by having fun with crop circles. Attempts to point out that there are perfectly simple, mundane explanations, based on solid evidence and fully compliant with scientific and historical knowledge, which account for all of these are rejected by the "alienists" with the same blind vehemence as medieval priests rejected the notion that the Earth might be a spheroid, and that it might be orbiting the sun rather than the other way around.

It's the alien fantasies that are in the same camp as religion - as we have seen in this thread, you will not shake the true believers by producing solid evidence that they are wrong.

 

[RJM Corbet]

... As for deduction, you appear to be deducing in a reverse-Sherlock Holmes manner: You have already eliminated the improbable (students and young farmers) and so you must believe the impossible that remains (aliens.)

I have never once drawn any conclusion as to the origin of crop circles ...

 

[JunkMonkey]

Religion has always hated science (and tortured scientists to "recant" until this became regarded as rather uncivilised) because religious leaders do not want any questioning of their authority, or of the basis for that authority. If religion had not been challenged by the scientific method (which kept being proved right), we would all still be in the Dark Ages, because religion resists change as hard as it can.

Which throws up the interesting possibility (albeit a very remote one) that one day actual physical, scientifically verifiable, concrete evidence will be found for sapient life elswhere in the universe - that will be denied by the UFO cultists because it doesn't fit with their orthodox view of Greys, abductions, anal probings and all the rest.

 

[Ursa major]

Interviewer: "So we now have incontrovertible, though indirect, proof that there is intelligent life in our galaxy?"

'Expert' on aliens: "Yes."

Interviewer: "What do you think these aliens look like?"

'Expert' on aliens: "To be frank, it's a bit of a grey area."

 

[Chaoticheart]

I'm slightly curious as to how we got here from crop circles. Guess I'll have to backtrack a few pages.

A few points.

A classic chain of illogical thinking....we don't know everything, therefore anything we can't prove is in the same category, therefore physics is no different from religion.

No, NO, NO!!!

If one were to look at it from a philosophical standpoint however, which is arguably as logical a train of thought as you can get, then both physics and religion lack evidence in the same level. As there is absolutely no way to prove anything apart from ones own mind exists, belief in anything else, be it math, physics etc. is simply an act of blind faith (granted their are numerous attempts to counter this, but, having read many, I feel they failed to logically prove anything).

If religion had not been challenged by the scientific method (which kept being proved right), we would all still be in the Dark Ages, because religion resists change as hard as it can.

The Dark Ages is a ridiculously misleading term; the time period is known as such simply because it appears dark to us due to a lack of records, not because people were less intelligent or because religion made scientific advancement lesser. And regarding religion vs science, that's really more an age of enlightenment thing, which came about seven hundred years after the end of the dark ages (or 200 years after if you use the time period to describe the entire middle ages).

As a side note, Einsteins views on religion vs science are quite interesting.

"Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#cite_note-72

The belief that aliens exist is not based on any verified evidence whatsoever.

Perhaps, but there is no verified evidence that aliens do not exist either. Simply because we have not seen them in this insignificant fraction of the universe is not verified evidence. By merely following the laws of probability it becomes likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe. In fact if it somehow turned out that this world was unique in having life, that, in my mind, would be a huge supporter towards the existence of a God.

 

[skeptical]

Chaotic

It is, of course, extremely likely that alien life exists somewhere else in the universe.

However, this idea is a hell of a long way from the assertion that crop circles and UFO's are caused by little grey men in flying saucers, or little green men, or any intelligent extraterrestrial.

In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no credible empirical evidence of any form that any extraterrestrial intelligence has ever visited the Earth. Instead, we get lots of evidence that terrestrial unintelligence is very active on Earth.

 

[Chaoticheart]

Chaotic

It is, of course, extremely likely that alien life exists somewhere else in the universe.

However, this idea is a hell of a long way from the assertion that crop circles and UFO's are caused by little grey men in flying saucers, or little green men, or any intelligent extraterrestrial.

In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no credible empirical evidence of any form that any extraterrestrial intelligence has ever visited the Earth. Instead, we get lots of evidence that terrestrial unintelligence is very active on Earth.

I agree entirely. My prior comment was simply directed at that tiny little sentence which felt as if it were implying there were evidence that aliens did not exist anywhere/shape/form.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

If one were to look at it from a philosophical standpoint however, which is arguably as logical a train of thought as you can get, then both physics and religion lack evidence in the same level. As there is absolutely no way to prove anything apart from ones own mind exists, belief in anything else, be it math, physics etc. is simply an act of blind faith (granted their are numerous attempts to counter this, but, having read many, I feel they failed to logically prove anything).

True, but pointless. There is also no way to prove that we are not all simulations in some advanced being's computer programme. None of this gets us anywhere at all - they are just debating points for the sake of debating.

In the real world (by which I mean, the world we live in as long as we accept that we are not simulations etc), science has brought us the civilisation we enjoy today, including the ability to post messages in discussion forums on the internet. That's pretty solid evidence by real world standards, which is not matched by any equivalent evidence for the basis of religion.

The Dark Ages is a ridiculously misleading term; the time period is known as such simply because it appears dark to us due to a lack of records, not because people were less intelligent or because religion made scientific advancement lesser. And regarding religion vs science, that's really more an age of enlightenment thing, which came about seven hundred years after the end of the dark ages (or 200 years after if you use the time period to describe the entire middle ages).

True - I was using the term loosely to refer to the long period of time before the Enlightenment (after all, if we weren't enlightened, we were presumably endarkened )

As a side note, Einsteins views on religion vs science are quite interesting.

"Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described."

I don't have much of an argument with that, but it's an idealised view of religion which doesn't closely match with reality. The problem with religion is when it insists it alone knows the truth about the material world in which we live: it then does indeed "speak of facts and relationships between facts". Which is why battles still rage over the teaching of evolution in US schools, and why none of the Republican Party's presidential hopefuls will admit to believing in it. Pathetic, really.

Perhaps, but there is no verified evidence that aliens do not exist either. Simply because we have not seen them in this insignificant fraction of the universe is not verified evidence. By merely following the laws of probability it becomes likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe. In fact if it somehow turned out that this world was unique in having life, that, in my mind, would be a huge supporter towards the existence of a God.

I never suggested that aliens did not exist - just that there is absolutely no evidence that they do, therefore no rational reason to develop a belief system based on their existence.

In my youth I used to assume that the galaxy would be teeming with advanced alien civilisations, but I am now a lot more doubtful. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Fermi.htm

 

[RJM Corbet]

If I say, quite correctly, that string-theory, because it cannot provide evidence, is openly referred to as a 'philosophy' by the physics 'model' -- why does that mean I think aliens made crop circles?

Isn't religion a philosophy? Or the belief that it's wrong to kill, steal, covet thy neighbour's ox, etc?

A lot of physicists nowadays 'believe' in string theory -- it unifies quantum gravity, which is the holy grail of modern physics. Some physicists, like Leonard Susskind, of Stanford University, have literally given their lives to the 'belief'.

I'm saying there can't be 'evidence' of everything, and it gets boring, whenever someone wants to even discuss possibilities -- especially in a science-fiction forum -- that everyone shouts for: evidence -- as if science is all there is in the world, and when the best actual evidence science can provide accounts for only 4% of observed phenomena.

There are some things human beings will just never know. Get used to it ...

 

[Anthony G Williams]

If I say, quite correctly, that string-theory, because it cannot provide evidence, is openly referred to as a 'philosophy' by the physics 'model' -- why does that mean I think aliens made crop circles?

It may be referred to as a philosophy by some physicists, but not by others - there is, as always, healthy disagreement among scientists working at the cutting edge of knowledge and understanding.

I never said that you, personally, believed that aliens created crop circles - but lots of people seem to.

Isn't religion a philosophy? Or the belief that it's wrong to kill, steal, covet thy neighbour's ox, etc?

No, to both. There is such a subject as the "philosophy of religion" and another called "religious philosophy" (which is different) but both of these are ways of thinking critically about issues raised by religion, whereas a religion is a body of law and belief which must be accepted and obeyed - quite different in principle.

The belief that it is wrong to kill etc (people of the same group, anyway - naturally you should kill enemies!) results from the long history of human development in cooperative groups (and also applies to social animals), and has subsequently been codified for social management by both secular and religious authorities as we have discussed before. It long predates religion - or philosophy.

A lot of physicists nowadays 'believe' in string theory -- it unifies quantum gravity, which is the holy grail of modern physics. Some physicists, like Leonard Susskind, of Stanford University, have literally given their lives to the 'belief'.

They believe that it represents the best chance of explaining observed phenomena, as far as they know. However, a key difference between science and religion is exemplified by the fact that if new evidence clearly indicates that string theory is wrong, it will be abandoned (maybe with great reluctance by its main proponents, but that's human nature for you...).

I'm saying there can't be 'evidence' of everything, and it gets boring, whenever someone wants to even discuss possibilities -- especially in a science-fiction forum -- that everyone shouts for: evidence -- as if science is all there is in the world, and when the best actual evidence science can provide accounts for only 4% of observed phenomena.

Yes, I know, people get bored by the constant demand for evidence - especially when it gets in the way of what they really like to believe in.

To say that we can only account for 4% of observed phenomena is nonsense: the (so far) unobserved dark matter and energy affects cosmological calculations but little else: once that mystery is solved, it will only drop a few pieces into place in the vast jigsaw of knowledge.

There are some things human beings will just never know. Get used to it ...

The only thing which I can think of which might in principle be forever beyond human understanding is why the Universe emerged in the first place. For the rest, there are many things we don't know now, and some we may not know for centuries, but the number keeps falling as knowledge increases, and there is no reason to suppose this will stop for as long as our civilisation lasts. Get used to it...

 

[RJM Corbet]

It starts becoming semantics: religion, faith belief, etc. But perhaps this thread isn't the place to go on with this one?

Back to crop circles: let me know when the beach party's on Dave -- could do with some fresh air, I'll bring my own board, long as you bring the beer?

 

[RJM Corbet]

Sorry, had to post this. 666 is a BAD number ... superstition

 

[Metryq]

Alien Wizards did it!

 

[J Riff]

sorry, out of patience

There is proof, yes. You can see it, yes. You will be informed via the worldwide media, yes, then this discussion will be actually interesting, instead of theoretical blather.
Mercy. 1950s - the pilot of the craft was determined to be a large insect.
1962, Mars mission - 'there's carvings and statues everywhere.'
You can imagine what's gone on since. Get over it, fleshapoids!
Anyway. Posting Mars images, with details of various places visited, on a UFO board, of all places.
There were others up, some will be talking soon I hope, including the young female, who you will believe.
NASA will hang on to the bitter end, but none of them were up there so I reckon they don't count for much in the end.
No, not kidding. I led the fragging mission - liason, if you will. Wattaya goon do about it?
Where else would it end up if not on an English SF board? My Pa was a limey and the missions ran out of Canada with US and Brit financing.
Sorry. It gets a lot worse than you may expect, people are dead, families destroyed, a lot of tragedies in the wake of this monster. Nasty, nasty business. Yech. God, you won't even believe it.
Unless the goon squads keep the cap on somehow, it should be bubbling out steadily now. I heard something about this fall for some kind of worldwide mind control, sorry television....announcement.

Something worth discussing? How about the concussion weapon they use to punch holes in anything, like maybe the crust of a planet.
It burns a large crystal, looked like quartz, for every shot. The bigger the crystal the heavier the impact. These crystals are loaded, by hand, into a metal cylinder and fired single-shot style. Advanced, but ancient, technology.
How does it work? I don't know - but someone does, and you are being denied knowledge of the existence of this, saucers and other tech. I wonder why.

BTW this nightmare has temporarily destroyed my writing ability, on top of all the other torture, so I'm not around here much, won't be, but puhlease stop arguing or denying or theorizing and remember that this is a Science Fiction board. If you can't wrap your mind around it what chance does Joe Public have?

 

[Starbeast]

The Unexplained Crop Circles​

Hoaxers may create most agroglyphs, but not all.​

http://www.timstouse.com/CropCircles/planksstring.htm​

 

[RJM Corbet]

http://www.timstouse.com/CropCircles/planksstring.htm​

This means nothing without at least one or two of the red parts filled in? Is the reader supposed to do the research? That's the researcher's job! That's what researchers do. Trawling 99th hand 'facts' off the net and then collecting them is not 'research'. Research is phoning and visiting people and laboratories. How can 'researchers' complain that nobody takes them seriously if they keep recycling this sort of thing as 'research'? Crop circles aren't hidden. Big cover up? Afraid? Oh, please!? Anyone can pick a bent barley stalk and take it home, or a scoop of earth. There's plenty of opportunity for someone to come forward with real lab test results. Why would they want to hide their names? It makes no sense at all? So all we get to read, is stuff like this:


... The real issue is that no man-made crop circle has satisfactorily replicated the features associated with the real phenomenon, and this has baffled scientists and researchers. (But WHICH scientists and researchers?) Crop circles are created by a force seemingly at odds with modern science. (No further details? Says who? Why? Where?) Central to the hoax argument is that a physical object is required to flatten the crop to the ground, resulting in the breaking of the plant stems. In genuine formations the stems are not broken but bent (left), normally about an inch off the ground and near the plant's first node. The plants appear to be subjected to a short and intense burst of heat which softens the stems to drop just above the ground at 90ª, where they reharden into their new and very permanent position without damage. Plant biologists (WHICH biologists?) are baffled by this phenomenon, and farmers, (Which farmers?) who know how the land ticks, have no explanation either. It is the singlemost method of identifying the real phenomenon. Research and laboratory tests (Laboratory? Where? Link for test results?) suggest that microwaves or infrasound may be the only method capable of producing such an effect ...


If someone wants to publish 'proof' he knows he has do better than that. He KNOWS it. But he just goes ahead anyway. Why? That's the part I don't get ...

 

[RJM Corbet]

Try this site if anyone wants to really check this stuff out, with references, etc ...


http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/9related.html

 

[Dave]

I'm afraid I've given up the ghost on this thread. I can't argue with the fact that they were made by giant Martian insects. The evidence is now insurmountable, not!

 

[RJM Corbet]

If I could see or read about ONE scientist (ie: NAME, qualifications, and university or institution) who is prepared to stand up with 'evidence' of unusual effect or unusual soil residues? There are thousands upon thousands of web entries on the subject, but never anybody's name. Maybe there is someone out there with PROOF? But my own life's too short to be wading through thousands of cranky, unsubstantied web and you tube posts ...

 

[RJM Corbet]

Science spends billions on telescopes and so on, searching for 'exoplanets' and 'et' radio signals. It's right at the top of the list of priorities. So it's not as if scientists would be making fools of themselves by investigating the 'bent-stalk' and 'soil-radiation' in crop circles. To find something linking circles with 'et' would be probably the biggest scientific breakthrough of all time. Nobel prizes all round. So where are these 'scientists and researchers and biologists'?

They can't give their names? Yeah, right. Well, when they do ...