Thread by @jimeharrisjr

This thread really seems to have stirred up #ufotwitter, but few seem to understand it. Those that dismiss it too quickly understand it the least. All the discussions around whether or not I can imagine Extraterrestrial life being far more advanced than I have described...

https://twitter.com/jimeharrisjr/status/1666808206105141248

2/ (aside from being hysterically funny as they continue to insist the alien spacecraft are far more advanced than we could possibly imagine - and yet dozens have crashed on Earth) miss the *intent* of the thread. I'm *not* trying to convince you UFOs aren't real.

3/ The point of the thread is that there isn't enough evidence to *accept as true* the Grusch story. Forget for a moment that prior to 9/11 I was a grad student in Physics or that I interrupted my studies to spend more than a decade in the USIC, and that I think Grusch is nuts

4/ That doesn't matter; This is an epistemological argument, not an appeal to authority.
In short, there is Objective Truth (which cannot be known), accepted truth (which has satisfied exhaustive efforts to disprove), and belief (which is personal and subjective).

5/ We'd love to know objective truth, but this is impossible. Quantum physics, for example, establishes that you can't know the exact position and exact momentum of any particle in the Universe, so a complete picture of truth is impossible. Further, there are unknowables, such as

6/ "What did Napoleon eat for breakfast before Waterloo?"
Even if someone documented what he was served, you can already see the arguments popping up: "How do we know the menu isn't fake?" "Did anyone actually see him *eat* the eggs?"

7/ Belief, on the other hand, is much easier to define. You believe what you believe. Humans believe all kinds of things against the available evidence. Belief doesn't have to be rational--and that's exactly why it can be discarded readily by others.

8/ Belief is a remarkably poor basis for decision-making--especially at a societal level. It's why the US Constitution has the Establishment Clause.

We demand more: we debate every piece of legislation; have stringent evidentiary requirements for civil and criminal trials.

9/ That isn't to say belief is always wrong and epistemological determinations are always right. For example, I once investigated a shocking stalking/threats case. The subject was very careful. He left no hair, fibers, fingerprints, or DNA anywhere.

10/ But, I found a pattern in the evidence, identified a likely subject, and started building a strong circumstantial case against him. I interviewed him, and he carefully avoided lying--or confessing. Absent any physical evidence, the US Attorney's Office declined prosecution.

11/ I *believe* he was guilty--wholeheartedly--but according to the balance of evidence and the process of our system, he is considered factually innocent. I don't like that result, but I *accept* it because I agree that the system *should* require more than just belief.

12/ There are many methods of debating through logic and reason--and mathematics. I'm particularly fond of a branch of statistics made famous by Thomas Bayes. In Bayesian statistics, you calculate each probability conditionally based upon new evidence AND the prior probability

13/ The Grusch "revelations" seemed remarkably specific, and were reported as if Grusch had proof. "Journalists" who should have known better reported on them breathlessly, but the "prior" probability suggested they were almost certainly false. I won't repeat my previous thread

14/ but to even begin believing Grusch's story, one had to accept a lot of "maybes" and "what-ifs." Each of those "maybes" is a conditional probability. On one side, we have Einstein's Special Relativity which is a wildly successful theory continuously reaffirmed by thousands

15/ of high-quality experiments. On the other, we have some guy claiming he *met some guys* who claim *they* saw some stuff suggesting extraterrestrial life forms (which we have no hard proof exist) built wildly advanced craft that can cross space or dimensions or something--but

16/ they somehow crash constantly in deserts all over the US. By contrast, the US Space Shuttle--a primitive system that flys by basically strapping two rockets and a giant tank of explosive hydrogen to a glider--managed to lose only two shuttles in 135 missions.

17/ So, if I'm trying to weigh the evidence as Bayes would, I start with: what's the probability of extraterrestrial life? I'd say pretty good. We don't have proof, but I'd guess better than 99.9%.

Intelligent life? That's harder to say. By one estimate there could be at

18/ least 36--and up to 928 civilizations in our galaxy (see the link). That sounds like a lot... but the closest would be over 3,000 light-years from us. And with more than 100 Billion stars in the Milky Way, the odds of finding us aren't good. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.384…

19/ From there, it gets worse: is it possible to go FTL? If so, what percentage would have the capability? Would they pick us when they won't see radio signals from us for more than 3,000 years, if at all?

Each new question multiplies one fraction by another, making the

20/ probability of a *single* visit virtually zero, much less, enough visits for dozens of them to crash here (even if "they" are the worst drivers in the Universe).

All that said, does it PROVE there's no ETs visiting Elliot? No. If you choose to believe in LGMs, go for it.

21/ But, please don't ask society as a whole to take it seriously without a WHOLE LOT more evidence on the other side of the scale.

22/ Grusch, for his part, is making it worse for himself, spinning wilder and wilder (and therefore less and less probable) versions of his story.

nymag.com/intelligencer/…

23/ All of that said, there is no one alive who would be more *delighted* for me to be proven wrong than... well... *me*

I don't *think* it's going to happen, but far from being upset, the day I'm proven wrong on this would probably be the happiest day of my life.