This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Robin Hanson wrote an article recently on how his politics have drifted. For those not familiar with his he was one of the early rationalist adjacent that likely filters a lot of people here. As a GMU professor he blogged like the rest of their Econ department and marginal revolution which was much bigger for leading people to SSC. Also early intellectual promoter of prediction markets like in the ‘90s and use to co-blog with Hal Finney.
A few highlights: “ While it is okay to fiercely resist the immediate decline of a cherished value today, like say democracy or gender-equality, 3 top LLMs agree that is now taboo to explicitly work to help your culture persist, reproduce, and have continued influence centuries into the future.”
“ I’m not especially into liberty, democracy, legal due-process, or immigration, beyond their instrumental values in achieving other things.”
A lot of comments on cultural drift and risks with that. The second comment strikes me because I feel like I’ve been thinking about those issues a lot lately. And I feel like I too am moving to a political philosophy of common goodism and the other ideas are just means to achieve the good. Perhaps this is just the standard libertarian to fascism pipeline but I do think a lot of people are questioning whether America is still on a workable path. It’s easy to be a liberal-libertarian when society is broadly good/stable but in harder times more pragmatic ideas emerge.
Then he just comments on things everyone else has noticed - parasitic classes in big cities (often unions) just crushing QOL for the non-rich.
I use to read Hanson a lot, but I only read him a few times a year now. Some of his early insights turned out coming true. It’s interesting to me how minds that shared a lot of common thinking patterns end up developing similar conclusions today. Democracy, Liberty, due-process, and immigration were likely things I viewed as very positive a decade ago. Now I would likely consider them unimportant.
Hanson
I've not seen anyone talk about it but his statement that aliens are likely on Earth domesticating humanity to keep us from expanding further is insane and calls into question how his reasoning skills have developed over the years. Religious nutjobbery is one thing, but embracing alien conspiracies shows a broken mind.
I don't think you or @stoatherd understand what Hanson was doing in that post.
He likes to play around with ideas and hypotheticals. He is not claiming to be correct about aliens. He is specifically saying he might not be correct. Reread these two disclaimer paragraphs, I've helpfully bolded the relevant area:
You should read the rest of his post like you read a hard sci fi author. All the steps and things happening need to be plausibly true not actually true. He is telling a story where aliens could be plausibly true.
Possibly true; though on a meta level, me and magicalkittycat actually agreeing on something should be considered a rare and special kind of evidence.
No, I don't think his disclaimers cover it.
First, in Hanson's original post where he outlines his "key positions, 2026", he says explicitly: "There’s a good chance some UFOs are aliens". No disclaimer, no playful hypothetical framing. There's no reason to regard it as some kind of sci-fi mental exercise; he literally lists it as one of his key positions.
Second, the aliens post itself makes specific claims prior to that limited-scope disclaimer, such as "we now accept ball lightning, even though evidence for it is weaker than for UFO". Couple this with his general attitude of contempt in those paragraphs -- e.g. his physics teachers "arrogantly" told him to write off UFOs. Then add in things like "I browsed UFO evidence and found it to be much stronger than stuff on ghosts or telepathy", or his titular "What the Hell!" reaction to US military reports of UFOs. This isn't someone who's meekly trying to go "hey, I just want to flag this up as a not-literally-impossible hypothesis".
Third, his disclaimer is scoped to his specific explanation of aliens, rather than to the general "UFOs are caused by aliens" explanation. His language in general assumes (though he's ambiguous about it) that the evidence for alien-type-UFOs is so strong that we should all be going "what the hell!" rather than "hmm, why is this US military report claiming something that's almost certainly not true"/
Fourth, it's a very weak disclaimer. "I'm not claiming this as fact; I'm saying it isn't crazy". I generally like disclaimers of this form! But they can't be coupled with content that clearly is claiming the thing as a likely fact. "There's a good chance some UFOs are aliens" is much stronger than "this isn't literally crazy". He's doing a motte and bailey: when he presents his high-level beliefs, it's the strong version ("good chance"); then, when justifying stuff, he retreats to the weak version ("not crazy").
I think you're just wrong about this.
I know the kind of mode of discussion you're pointing to. My canonical model for this is "irreducible complexity" -- when a creationist says "the human eye is so complex it couldn't have possibly evolved". In that mode, it suffices to come up with any plausibly true mechanism by which the eye could have evolved; you don't need to prove it.
So I get exactly what you're describing, and I agree that it's a valuable mode of argumentation, and needs to be recognised when it's in play...
... and I just don't think Hanson is doing it. A narrowly-scoped "I'm just saying this isn't crazy", coupled with everything else, isn't enough to credibly signal that mode. Here's an example of how I'd signal it, in Hanson's position:
He wouldn't have to phrase it like that, obviously. But if he's trying to convey "hey, I don't actually believe this, it's just a toy sci-fi exercise", then he's done a very bad job that seems inconsistent with his general ability to communicate. If I tell a Young Earth Creationist "There's a good chance the human eye formed via gene sequence B857-X223", and then subsequently make an argument for that specific explanation, I don't get to fall back on "but I only need a plausible explanation for the human eye; it doesn't have to be that specific one".
I keep reading more of his stuff and keep seeing more disclaimers. While you keep reading his stuff and keep dismissing more of his disclaimers.
Here he is in a another post:
For a second I thought this disclaimer you wrote for him was something he wrote. What you wrote here is my interpretation of what he is saying.
Here he is again calling these "weird" ideas.
And the best piece of evidence is his words on other posts:
UFOs as US PsychOp
So he explicitly considers the "government hoax" explanation as most likely.
I could not find the writing you were talking about that is more recent. Much of this seems to be back in 2022/2023. He was added to the advisory council on UAPs in June 2026 but i couldn't find any output from that group. Perhaps now that he is part of the government he can update on the likelihood of the government hoax explanation.
He has written a bunch of stuff about aliens. Which might suggest he believes they are true, but he has also written possibly one of the best explanations for the non-existence of intelligent alien life: The Great Filter. I think he honestly likes thinking about and playing around with strange ideas. I went to GMU and have met Robin Hanson a few times, I've also known people who interacted with him a great deal (like fellow professors). The impression is the same: weird guy likes weird ideas. His public persona is really only the tip of the iceberg. And his publicly listed views on wikipedia include prediction markets (two decades before they were cool), incel sympathy, cryonics, the great filter (aliens), and a future society of brain emulations (his age of em book).
There are some people I feel safer pegging my views on a particular topic to whatever they say is correct. For example, I'll trust Scott Alexander on plenty of things. I think he will do honest research and come to the best possible conclusion given the evidence on plenty of topics. Psych meds are one of those topics. Robin Hanson is someone I'd feel comfortable pegging my views on aliens to. If he has recently updated his views from the ones expressed in his 2021-23 blogposts I'd be inclined to believe him without looking at any of the evidence. I still think you are both reading him uncharitably, or reading something I haven't seen.
That's ok, because I'm not making a claim about Hanson's entire oeuvre. I'm talking about the two specific posts I got pointed to. If he has disclaimers elsewhere, that's not really relevant to my criticism of those posts.
Let me point to exactly which posts I'm talking about:
I am criticising these posts. If you've found him saying other things elsewhere, then that's fine, but it doesn't change the contents of these posts. If I write a post saying "Bigfoot is real", and someone criticises it for insufficient evidence, it's unreasonable to point to a different post where I say "maybe Bigfoot is real, maybe he isn't".
You are making this up.
I dismissed, in detail, exactly one disclaimer he made. Where are these multiple disclaimers I'm dismissing? I gave a pretty thorough explanation of why that disclaimer doesn't discharge my criticisms; it's not very charitable to round that off to me just generally dismissing his disclaimers, because I haven't done that.
[EDIT: to be fair, you presented a pair of adjacent disclaimers in a single block quote, which I handled as a single disclaimer. But it's still untrue to claim that I "keep dismissing more of his disclaimers"]
... and he explicitly considers "there's a good chance some UFOs are aliens".
Could you please address this quote from him directly? There are no disclaimers attached to it. Do you agree that Robin Hanson believes there is a good chance some UFOs are aliens? If not, why did he say he did?
His two claims are compatible, obviously. Maybe he thinks government hoax is 60% likely, and aliens are 30% likely. I think "a good chance" must mean at least 10%.
And I consider that to be ridiculous. I'm not criticising him for some strawman position of "I 100% believe UFOs are aliens". I'm criticising him for considering it a "good chance". That's an extraordinary position.
Yes, that's fine! The Motte is full of weird guys who like weird ideas. I have nothing against that. What I'm doing is literally reading his words and assessing whether they're reasonable. Where disclaimers exists, or where he's going into a hypothetical, I'm very happy to come along with his ideas and explore what they would mean. But he isn't making disclaimers when he says there's a good chance some UFOs are aliens, or for any of the other places I'm criticising him. I'm not going to give him a blanket pass to assume everything he says is a hypothetical just because he likes weird stuff.
There's a massive problem with doing this on the topic of aliens (not specific to Hanson).
If, say, a fitness expert tells you "make sure you eat lots of vegetables after a workout", it's reasonable to peg your beliefs to their claims. But if they say "make sure you smash yourself in the face with a brick every day", the dominant hypothesis should be "this person is mistaken".
So when an "expert on aliens" (?) tells you "there's a good chance UFOs are aliens", then your prior on UFOs being aliens should be so low that "this expert is mistaken" should be strongly in play! I'm not saying you should dismiss what they say out of hand -- it's reasonable to take their belief as evidence. But you shouldn't "be inclined to believe him without looking at any of the evidence".
I'm literally just quoting him, and I've linked to the posts. If he doesn't think there's a good chance UFOs are aliens, it's his fault for saying he does; that's not a lack of charity from me.
If you are unsure about what some public intellectual is saying, or is there is maybe a difference in interpretation between us, it would make sense to me to look at other things they have said on the topic. By not being willing to read other things on the topic you are dismissing disclaimers or other ways of explaining how he might have a more nuanced take. And you don't even have to go read them or find them, I've been providing them.
After going through a lot of Hanson blog posts on Aliens yesterday I think I have a much better grasp on what has happened. Some key things:
Back in 2020-2023 Hanson has a bunch of posts on Aliens and UFOs. Some key takeaways is that he thinks the government hoax angle is the most likely explanation for instances of UFOs that can't easily be explained away. He thinks the government hoax angle is 2 orders of magnitude more likely than nearby aliens coming to visit us. The 2021 blog post "UFOs -- What the Hell?" is from this early period. Its him toying around with the idea and having fun and not taking it too seriously. Because his given likelihood for UFOs being explained by aliens around this time period is like 1 in 10000.
In between now and then two major pieces of evidence are what changed his mind.
The first piece of evidence is directly linked in the "My Politics" post. Its about Pre-Sputnik Earth-Orbit Glints. Basically a telescope survey of the sky before humans were launching things up there found a bunch of glints in orbit around the earth.
The Second is that the government started saying there are aliens. Not exactly that, but they started admitting and presenting evidence of Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. Its not just a single "report" like you were describing it where one author might be coincidentally wrong. It was more of a meta study that had to be signed off on by a bunch of people. I haven't found Hanson speaking about this directly on his blog, but he is on a government panel in charge of similar releases, and he has definitely read these reports.
I get what happened, you see him say something that seems completely crazy. You follow his first link, thinking that justifies his craziness. Instead he treats it with a dismissive almost silly attitude.
I'm telling you he badly curated the links here. He does treat it with a serious attitude, he does have posts where he goes over the evidence. And many posts with the theoretical explanations for various things.
He does acknowledge that this will make him sound crazy.
My priors on aliens are not as low as yours. There is nothing physically impossible about aliens existing. Travel between stars is slow but not impossible. It would be like hearing that there is a one time use pill that cures 90% of depression cases. My priors on that being true would be really low. But its not physically impossible. I'd check what Scott Alexander has said about it, because I'd probably not be the best at digesting all the evidence. I'd still take a shot at reading some of the evidence, but I know in the back of my head I'm just not as qualified as them. I'm doing the same thing here.
I don't know what it would take for you to change your mind on alien likelihood. I would just say consider the fact that it is not a package deal. Someone can believe aliens are possible and still think faster than light travel/comms are impossible. The aliens don't have to be little green men, or any other hollywood stereotypes.
Why do you consider the possibility so infinitesimally low? Is there some physical law you think it is violating?
I'm not.
Again, and you keep ignoring this, he explicitly says "there's a good chance UFOs are aliens".
I am not unsure about what he's saying. I've been pretty clear about this. He directly, literally, explicitly states his position. Why are you inventing this idea that I'm unsure what he's saying?
Dude, I don't know how to explain it to you any more simply than I already did.
I am evaluating what he said in those two posts. I don't have to read a person's entire set of works to criticise specific posts!
This has nothing to do with me "not being willing to read"; you've completely invented that, as you've invented several other positions for me to hold.
Then blame Hanson, because that's his description: "a U.S. military report says that intelligently controlled UFOs with amazing abilities seem real to them".
I am literally relaying his words, and you keep assigning blame to me for direct quotes from Hanson! If he subsequently found other reports, that's fine; but I'm criticising his post based on the words inside it!
Why do you think my priors are low? The only comment I've made on alien existence is "If aliens exist -- which I think is plausible". Where are you getting "stoatherd has a low prior on aliens?"
Evidence.
This is a nice line, but it seems to be from a different argument entirely.
The possibility of what, exactly? Aliens existing, or aliens specifically interacting with Earth, typically via UFOs?
Why are you inventing yet another position for me, that I consider the possibility (of whichever thing you're talking about) "infinitesimally low"?
I asked you a specific question in my last comment: when Hanson said "there's a good chance UFOs are aliens", did he mean there's a good chance UFOs are aliens?
You gave a pretty detailed rundown of how you think Hanson's views have evolved (which I appreciate). I think the implicit answer to my question was "yes", but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Given that, can you please acknowledge that you're now completely moving the goalposts? Because you claimed I was being uncharitable, and I was misinterpreting a hypothetical (with disclaimers!) from Hanson -- that he didn't actually believe the thing that I was saying he did.
Now you're saying he does believe that thing. And you're trying to prosecute the case that the thing is reasonable. That's fine, but can you please notice that you've entirely shifted the argument?
Ya I admit I didn't see Hansons latest post cuz I hadn't fully read the parent post. So I didn't believe you that he had said that.
See it from my perspective:
If Hanson thinks aliens are real then I'm willing to update my beliefs to think that aliens are real.
So you saying that Hanson says aliens are real is for me basically claiming aliens are real. Using the same logic you've used elsewhere about not trusting authors on something where you have really low priors ... I thought it more likely you were mistaken the that aliens are real.
Then the article you linked to was at a time when he didn't actually think aliens are real. So that confused me.
And I agree Hanson is not a careful writer. It's very easy to read any of his stuff in isolation and see him as a crackpot.
And ya my "goalposts" have shifted as I've learned more. I think the framing is maybe bad. I don't think I'm trying to "win" an argument against you. There are mistake and conflict arguments and I was treating this more like a mistake one. I'm certainly learning lots. I don't have any particular strong values attached to the existence of aliens or in defending Hanson. I think it's a mistake to dismiss Hanson out of hand, but he doesn't do himself enough favors for me to think it's vital to defend his reputation. He has been hit with like a half dozen cancellation attempts over things he has said. I've cringed at most of them.
So I guess I'll state what I'm trying to get across and leave it at that:
I think it's a mistake to entirely dismiss Hanson. Especially on his topics of expertise: Aliens, Prediction markets/futarchy, and signalling models of social behavior.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Last summer, he had a post exploring some very interesting research showing transient light phenomena in outer space prior to terrestrial satellites, and claiming a corroboration to UFO sightings and atomic testing. He's updated it with two reports of corroboration and (today!) with a report of "failure to replicate" on another telescope.
Last fall, he had a post arguing that the DoD has been lying through their teeth about UFOs, either deliberately fostering a cover-up or encouraging people to believe in them – both cases with pretty dramatic outcomes for US trust in institutions.
(An aside, but I think it's really funny that now the shoe is on the other foot, as UFO skeptics basically have to argue that there's some sort of conspiracy by the government to fool the public into believing UFOs are real, an amusing reversal from the time when the UFO believers had to argue that there was some sort of conspiracy by the government to keep people from believing in UFOs.)
Maybe he's written more since that I haven't read, but it looks to me like he's still pretty open-minded about possibilities besides aliens.
From the first one
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was surprised by this claim (my very loose knowledge of Robin Hanson hasn't flagged him up as insane), so I went to check it out. For anyone else lacking the context on this, here's what Hanson said (which I think magicalkittycat has represented faithfully):
Hanson links to a post where he expands on his position on UFOs. It's an interesting read. I think "insane" is a fair characterisation. In the first paragraph, we get:
Not a great start. It's frustrating that he doesn't bother distinguishing between whether he means "UFO-as-unidentified-flying-object" vs "UFO-as-alien-craft", which is absolutely load-bearing. It's the difference between "yes, obviously" and "you are lying to me".
I don't understand what's gone wrong in Hanson's brain here.
There is no possible content of a US military report that would make me go "What the Hell?", because "this report is false" is always a plausible hypothesis. It wouldn't make me go "What the Hell?" if I learned a military report were mistaken or a deliberate lie. So anything that has a higher WTF factor than a wrong report cannot possibly make me go "What the Hell?", because the report-is-mistaken hypothesis would defeat it!
It baffles me that he does this, right underneath his floating website banner which declares: "Overcoming Bias".
It gets worse:
... what? No, they don't.
"That is" isn't supposed to allow you to link two entirely different things! "Our best theories predict unicorns; that is, they predict universal gravitation". This isn't science; this isn't anything.
...
I expected the rest of the article to contain some kind of evidence for aliens, at least in Hanson's view. Instead, he performs an annoying series of shell games (including, I expect, on himself) to flip the burden of proof away from himself. Then, once he's confused himself and his readers enough to make it seem like he might have some kind of reasonable position, he constructs a ridiculously elaborate theory of exactly what type of aliens probably exist. It has the same kind of attitude as a stupidly written Sherlock Holmes deduction sequence ("there is chalk on your sleeve, therefore it must be chalk from the Prussian ambassador's club, therefore the ambassador's wife's diamond necklace is a fake!") or a lazy deist/specific-god equivocation ("there appears to be generic evidence for some kind of creator, therefore it is exactly my one specific god and my holy text is correct").
I agree with him on the meta level of "don't be ashamed to examine things just because people label them 'conspiracy theories'"; that's stupid. But the balance of probability on UFOs/UAPs is that they're natural, terrestrial phenomena. If aliens exist -- which I think is plausible -- they almost certainly exist much too far away to interact with us. (I'm pretty sure his version of panspermia, where a rock from a neighbouring system happens to hit not only the Solar System but Earth specifically, is insanely improbable -- even leaving aside questions like "could even a tardigrade survive the catastrophe of a massive meteoric impact?" I could be wrong about this, though.)
This is a shame. I've almost certainly read a bunch of Robin Hanson stuff in the past, and have probably trusted him as an expert in some capacity or other. I think this article from him is pretty disqualifying. This is egregious nonsense, and I'm glad mkc brought it up.
I am saying all this because I'm an alien participating in the cover-up, obviously.
I've never been impressed by Hanson, so that he's nuts on UFOs doesn't surprise me. It is a very large leap from "life, including intelligent life, can arise via these natural processes; the universe is very large and contains many, many planets; therefore it is possible that there is other intelligent life out there somewhere" to "and that life is these specific kinds of aliens buzzing around American cornfields".
More options
Context Copy link
I think extraterrestrial UFOs are the kind of exceptional claim which requires exceptional evidence. Before GenAI became a thing, the number of video cameras exploded. If UFOs were real, the number of videos of them should have exploded as well.
You would pretty much have to add epicycles -- *maybe the aliens are fine with some UFO sightings, as long as their existence does not become common knowledge, and increased their stealth level in response to the increase in cameras *. (Which rhymes with God totally does work miracles, but only in settings where they are deniable.)
On the other hand, there is an argument to be made that believing weird things is the hallmark of a true rationalist. It is easy to cosplay as a rationalist: just believe what the atheist echo chamber is telling you, only repeat arguments previously made by the science pope. Only, this is not so different from cosplaying any other belief system. If your mind never arrives in deserted places, it is probably because it was just trodding along with the crowds.
Still, it seems a bit disappointing that he picked UFOs of all things. His grabby aliens were conceptually cool at least. Aliens which do not darken the stars as they spread but only get caught on blurry pictures sometimes are orders of magnitude less cool.
Even if Scott Alexander were to turn into a true believer of sun-related miracles (which I find unlikely), he would win hands down because he found his own weirdness niche not adjacent to massive online communities.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a sneaky little issue that a lot of alien proponents try to use as an argument but it doesn't really work.
It goes generally along the lines of
The first two steps are fine. We exist and are life, therefore life can exist.
But other life is likely is not a great conclusion because we're looking in on ourselves. The observation "we exist and therefore life can exist" is true whether life is 1/100,000 planets, 1/100million planets, or 1/100^googolplex planets. Life could be so rare that it exists in one of every 1000 universes in a greater multiverse, and it would look the same with "we exist" in all those scenarios.
Space may be unfathomably big, but some things can also be unfathomably rare. Same way I'm sure there's a bunch of genetic disorders that could in theory happen but the chances are so rare (because they would require multiple precise mutations all at once) that to even get a coin flip chance would take a thousand times the entire lifespan of humanity. They're making an irresponsible leap in logic by assuming that "we exist = other life is so common it should interact with us"
But Robin Hanson isn't the only other atheist I've known who has turned into a UFO believer and I think there's a reason for this. Belief in aliens fulfill the human compulsion for a greater mystery and greater meaning in a similar way belief in religion does. And the arguments for them follow similar strained paths.
Consider for instance the other main issue of UFO theories, that their technology and ability to hide just happens to adapt and evolve in sync with our ability to discover them so they're always hazy and just out of peripheral vision ala Bigfoot or the Mothman and there doesn't seem to be much reason here. Isn't that very similar to how God stopped doing a bunch of blatant and undeniable miracles the second cameras were invented? The dragon in my garage works for both oddly enough.
I must admit, I did not have "intra-atheist squabble over aliens results in arguments that intelligent life may be extremely improbable" on my bingo card. Handwavy BigNum arguments are a typical part of the arsenal. Isn't the entire point of the unfalsifiable multiverse idea to construct a handwavy BigNum argument?
It probably makes more sense if you view the phrase "intra-atheist squabble" as similar to "intra-bald-people squabble". Atheism isn't a faction with a unifying dogma or rules or structure, it's literally just "all the people who don't think there are any gods. It's a mistake to model atheists as a group that can, I don't know, have some kind of sedevacantist schism as to who's the real atheism pope with authority over atheism.
And I struggle to understand the second half of your bingo card: "intelligent life may be extremely improbable" isn't some crazy position, neither among atheists nor in general. From the way you're presenting it (and I may be misreading it), you seem to be saying something like: "huh, it's interesting and fun how, in arguing amongst themselves, these atheists have unintentionally generated a strong argument against atheism".
But that's not what that is!
Depends which multiverse idea you're talking about, but I don't think so. When you say "arsenal", do you mean the arsenal of atheists? Because I don't think that's true either.
There's a pretty long history of dirty theists making arguments along the lines of, "Let's compute how inconceivably improbable it is for intelligent life to spontaneously develop out of simple dead matter." I don't really subscribe to such arguments, but that is neither here nor there. It may be the case that you are unaware of the typical battle lines that have been drawn when they do so. Not being aware of such would be a reasonable explanation for your confusion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Post-camera miracle claims are a dime a dozen; you can choose to believe that they aren’t sufficient evidence but they are there.
Similarly ufo reports are basically the same thing even with improving technology.
When you say post-camera miracle claims, do you mean:
Because I don't think (1) can possibly be true, but that's the one that matters. If you believe they exist, would you mind pointing me towards some? This would be the most interesting and important thing in the world.
More options
Context Copy link
I know they are, same people still claim to be abducted from time to time. The issue is that despite having the prove things really well machine in everyone's hands now, God, Aliens, Ghosts, Bigfoot, and every other similar preexisting cryptid esque being have seemed to simultaneously decided to scale how back how blatantly they're willing to expose themselves.
Now it's possible to conjure up some explanation where they want to be widely known about but not widely proven for some reason. Like hell maybe they exist in some metaphysical Tinker Bell like form where they gain power from belief in them that dissolves with knowledge or something, but interesting coincidence so much of the interesting stuff all happens to work in this way.
The Catholic church verifies miracles on a regular basis and provides evidence using modern technology. You may think this evidence is insufficient to prove a miracle(because you need to accept the existence of God), but it hasn't stopped happening. Improving medical technology has not ended miraculous healings. Many holy relics are at least not provable as false.
The same can be said, by the way, for UFOs. Cell phone videos of the sorts of things that UFOs would claim would turn up on cell phone videos are in fact turning up.
They have not ever verified a miracle. The best they can do is "using current methods, we can not explain how something happens" but that's not affirmative proof of a miracle. Ironically this type of argument is known as a devils proof. "If you can't prove it's not the work of God through current science, it must be the work of God"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Its entirely fair to disagree with the alien theories - I dont have enough confidence in anything anthropic to change my behaviour, much less to put it on a list like that - but I think you make it sound much worse than it is. This is not a typical aliens conspiracy theory, it doesnt turn on "sightings", and not really more "out there" than related work like eg Bostrom on the Fermi paradox.
In line with above... that is one way you can do anthropics. Im not sure "the likelihood of life can get arbitrarily low, because I can always posit greater non-interacting multiverses" is really on so much more solid ground than what youre critising with it. All of anthropics is weird, and we shouldnt point and laugh at one because its weird in a way that reminds us of a popular conspiracy theory.
You're making a logical error. @magicalkittycat isn't saying this as a fact; it's being used to show that "therefore other life is likely" does not necessarily follow from "therefore life can exist". It's a disproof of a simple fallacious argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are behind the times. Embracing aliens is within the Overton window now. Tyler Cowen jumped on board too. I still think it’s a long shot to be true but we do have a lot of military evidence of something going on.
If you start with a Bayesian view that aliens are retarted but then you keep getting new military grade video showing unexplainable crafts then at some point you need to move to a % that it’s real.
Makes me think more of advanced human craft that is now being officially recognised, rather than aliens zooming us.
More options
Context Copy link
Once more, this is like a cat talking about a strange bright red bug that moved impossibly fast across the room and how dangerously evolved it must be to ignore inertia and conservation of energy.
More options
Context Copy link
I haven't kept track of every detail but many (most? All?) of the "military evidence" seems to be well debunked by Mick West (eg). Tyler Cowen sometimes seethes about this guy but to my knowledge has never offered a rebuttal. The quality of discourse and reasoning here is not good.
I have not looked into them closely. But Hanson did have a full model for probability of alien life and great filters so he’s clearly thought a lot about aliens and what seems possible in what we know about physics. His academic training in physics and Econ/social sciences is a good of background as anyone to think about these things. He is smarter than so I give his opinion some weight.
I also don’t think he’s at 100% it’s aliens but he does have a probability that’s what is going on.
I mostly posted him because I think he’s a solid thinker who was early on 2 themes (prediction markets/crypto). Someone who is early is often wrong. I’ve quit reading him because I’ve already internalized a lot of his models but probably should be read more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, It would explain the state of the world better than anything that ever came out of academia or any "respectable" source.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link