Credentials do matter to some extent or at least actually following the scientific method.
But overall there has been quite a big regression since SETI has pretty much failed to capture anything of even remote interest.
Loeb isn’t Sagan but the fact that you can’t even get funding for simple missions like looking for technological markers in the atmosphere of exoplanet does seem to indicate that there is a lot of stigma these days against anything related to searching for intelligent life.
Scientific credibility is a combination of the quality of your current paper as evaluated by peer review and replication, and the same for your previous work.
Notice the lack of "correct credentials" in my sentence.
Just a few decades ago it was the case the a majority of comets, asteroids, and supernovae were discovered by amateur astronomers -- and their work is taken very seriously by professionals. You can still report such discoveries no matter what credentials you have.
p.s. my hobby is dance history and I can dance the Minuet, hope that doesn't disqualify my opinion in your eyes.
I am a research affiliate with the Galileo Project, and I just want to suggest to anyone who is skeptical about our goals to visit the website (https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home) in particular the ground rules and FAQ section to see by what means we are attempting to establish a methodology for rigorously addressing the question of ETC technology within our solar system. This is a question with many directions by which it can be addressed, and because there is little public data available we do not have priors that point to the notion that one direction is “more likely” than other directions. Thus, to be as rigorous as possible we are assessing as many possibilities as we can within budgetary constraints and standard scientific practices.
As for the notion of UFO/UAP flying around, for over 70 years in the United States there have been reports of unidentified aerial phenomenon, with reports of various degrees of quality and provenance. In the 1940s there was a general public acceptance that UFOs represented physical objects, but confidence and reporting towards that idea fell off quickly. I will not get into the nuance of the public discourse on UFOs in America - but it is safe to say that it is one of the more interesting historys of science. In the last 5 years there has been an absolute tidal shift in government and academic interest in this topic, mainly fueled by recent admissions by the department of defense of the reality of UAP confirmed by multiple sensor systems. Within the project, we do not have definitive beliefs about the nature of UAP and instead simply seek to corroborate the data.
The team is a wonderful array of multi-disciplinary scientists from all walks of life and with credentials which are akin to that of any major scientific endeavor. I urge you to investigate why so many people are interested in this question, and to dispel any preconceived notions of what is “possible” within the context of science. Truth is objective, and so is data - only time will tell if this whole thing was simply a misdirection or a dead end, but we should appreciate that it is still possible to ask hard questions about the world we live in today and to receive funding to answer those questions.
Yeah, the idea of Oumuamua as space junk is faintly plausible simply because not enough data is present to determine what it really was. And if somewhat-above-human level technological societies existed, they'd send out probes that would spend 99.9999% of their time as space junk so this might well the only evidence of alien life humans will ever see.[1]
But jumping from there to earth-based UFO is a serious mistake, since virtually all of these have been debunked and their claimed existence generally violates most basic laws of physics.
[1] This is just assuming nothing more than somewhat-above-our-level tech exists. And everyone assuming dramatic aliens essentially has assume things absolute impossible for our present tech. And maybe these things are just absolutely impossible.
I don't know if you're aware but a lot has changed in the past few years. I used to dismiss is all as whacko sci-fi until last year, but the government is now confirming the reality of unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP a.k.a. UFOs). You should check out the report to Congress last year which detailed 140 incidents, 139 of which could not be explained prosaically, 80 of which were confirmed by eyewitnesses and multiple sensors, and 21 in which "observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics".
These are highly credible reports from the highest levels of military. Check out David Fravor's "Tic Tac" account off the coast of San Diego to get a taste of what's going on.
I've been curating this YouTube playlist of credible sources (including David Fravor) confirming the reality of these things if you'd like to learn more:
Why is it such a serious mistake to attempt to collect data? I don't understand all the hate for a plausible hypothesis. He is not putting his fingers in his ears and yelling there are UFOs over and over, he is starting a project to collect data for a plausible hypothesis.
We have video from the government that is matched with eye-witness testimony from David Fravor, a pilot who taught at the Navy's Top Gun school. I'm not suggesting this is iron-clad evidence of anything, but nothing about this incident (and others) has been "debunked". The first-hand account of one of the Navy's most accredited naval aviators along with matching video and sensor data more credible than some random person on Youtube who "debunks" it by saying it was the moon. If the evidence points to a phenomenon that doesn't operate inside the laws of physics as we understand them, then we have to adjust our understanding. Perhaps there are very good, mundane explanations for this and another incidents, but its foolish to simply ignore or downplay the significance of things we can't understand.
Right, it's plausible but I think most of the plausibility it due to the data being very sparse. Like how a blurry video of a figure is plausibly Bigfoot.
This piece reads like a celebrity drama article. It's so much back and forth between Loeb and his detractors, plus fitting in plenty of colorful emotions like "his anger boiled over..." Not much intellectual stimulation here.
Why shouldn't he? There are multiple credible reports of UFO's demonstrating interesting or unknown capabilities. Someone should be investigating this stuff.
Sure, why not? There are those that dismiss all sightings as aberrations and lies and don't believe there are actual objects that are flying around our atmosphere. Then there are people that believe there are actual objects that are flying around but don't know wtf they are.
I would hope that anyone rational would accept that based upon the evidence to date and our current knowledge of astronomy and physics, extra-terrestrial visitation is possible, but very unlikely. Thus it becomes a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". But instead, all we have is blurry, shaky footage. Or some phenomena such as lens flare. And the claim that "what 'they' are doing is impossible according to our physics, so it must be extraterrestrial." So much willing misinterpretation and jumping to an unsupported conclusion.
Now, efforts like that described in the article to obtain more evidence would usually be good, but you can't prove a negative, and no amount of undetected aliens, or explained and discarded "evidence" will convince the true believers that ufos are not real aliens.
Loeb is rapidly dissipating the reputational credit he still has. I expect him to become a regular on Ancient Astronauts soon.
Academic reputation is properly based on original hard work. Idle speculation is the opposite of that. It is fine for me to suggest that pre-dynastic Egyptian stone dishware is evidence of an unknown technological efflorescence, because who cares? It doesn't matter if I'm right, though it would be cool if I was. But I am not doing the work, and nobody expects me to, so if it gets done, somebody else will deserve and get the credit.
[+] [-] telxosser|4 years ago|reply
I mean I think this is all nonsense but the idea someone doesn't have the correct credentials to produce scientific evidence is so distasteful.
We must first put on our properly powdered wig, dance the minuet, then and only then is one capable of collecting UFO evidence!
[+] [-] dogma1138|4 years ago|reply
But overall there has been quite a big regression since SETI has pretty much failed to capture anything of even remote interest.
Loeb isn’t Sagan but the fact that you can’t even get funding for simple missions like looking for technological markers in the atmosphere of exoplanet does seem to indicate that there is a lot of stigma these days against anything related to searching for intelligent life.
[+] [-] wumpus|4 years ago|reply
Notice the lack of "correct credentials" in my sentence.
Just a few decades ago it was the case the a majority of comets, asteroids, and supernovae were discovered by amateur astronomers -- and their work is taken very seriously by professionals. You can still report such discoveries no matter what credentials you have.
p.s. my hobby is dance history and I can dance the Minuet, hope that doesn't disqualify my opinion in your eyes.
[+] [-] enoreyes|4 years ago|reply
As for the notion of UFO/UAP flying around, for over 70 years in the United States there have been reports of unidentified aerial phenomenon, with reports of various degrees of quality and provenance. In the 1940s there was a general public acceptance that UFOs represented physical objects, but confidence and reporting towards that idea fell off quickly. I will not get into the nuance of the public discourse on UFOs in America - but it is safe to say that it is one of the more interesting historys of science. In the last 5 years there has been an absolute tidal shift in government and academic interest in this topic, mainly fueled by recent admissions by the department of defense of the reality of UAP confirmed by multiple sensor systems. Within the project, we do not have definitive beliefs about the nature of UAP and instead simply seek to corroborate the data.
The team is a wonderful array of multi-disciplinary scientists from all walks of life and with credentials which are akin to that of any major scientific endeavor. I urge you to investigate why so many people are interested in this question, and to dispel any preconceived notions of what is “possible” within the context of science. Truth is objective, and so is data - only time will tell if this whole thing was simply a misdirection or a dead end, but we should appreciate that it is still possible to ask hard questions about the world we live in today and to receive funding to answer those questions.
[+] [-] joe_the_user|4 years ago|reply
But jumping from there to earth-based UFO is a serious mistake, since virtually all of these have been debunked and their claimed existence generally violates most basic laws of physics.
[1] This is just assuming nothing more than somewhat-above-our-level tech exists. And everyone assuming dramatic aliens essentially has assume things absolute impossible for our present tech. And maybe these things are just absolutely impossible.
[+] [-] mgalgs|4 years ago|reply
I don't know if you're aware but a lot has changed in the past few years. I used to dismiss is all as whacko sci-fi until last year, but the government is now confirming the reality of unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP a.k.a. UFOs). You should check out the report to Congress last year which detailed 140 incidents, 139 of which could not be explained prosaically, 80 of which were confirmed by eyewitnesses and multiple sensors, and 21 in which "observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics".
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/27/politics/ufos-uap-extraterres...
These are highly credible reports from the highest levels of military. Check out David Fravor's "Tic Tac" account off the coast of San Diego to get a taste of what's going on.
I've been curating this YouTube playlist of credible sources (including David Fravor) confirming the reality of these things if you'd like to learn more:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7gMGIbRUmhTRTuUHX8CA7H_s...
[+] [-] bostonsre|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|4 years ago|reply
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52457805
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E
[+] [-] roywiggins|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trav4225|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oneepic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ALittleLight|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netizen-936824|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bostonsre|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Smoosh|4 years ago|reply
Now, efforts like that described in the article to obtain more evidence would usually be good, but you can't prove a negative, and no amount of undetected aliens, or explained and discarded "evidence" will convince the true believers that ufos are not real aliens.
[+] [-] aaron695|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ncmncm|4 years ago|reply
Academic reputation is properly based on original hard work. Idle speculation is the opposite of that. It is fine for me to suggest that pre-dynastic Egyptian stone dishware is evidence of an unknown technological efflorescence, because who cares? It doesn't matter if I'm right, though it would be cool if I was. But I am not doing the work, and nobody expects me to, so if it gets done, somebody else will deserve and get the credit.