<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20071208112210.GC10128@leitl.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Do you understand how science works? </pre>
</blockquote>
Yes. And science does something really neat. Over time, we learn new
and exciting things. We learn to do things that were previously thought
impossible. And the last I checked, it was not a regular practice to
totally disregard the improbable as if it were impossible. Saying that
ALL civilizations destroy themselves because we can't see ANY is just
too big of a leap. Saying that there we are ALONE based on such a small
amount of data (relatively) is a big leap as well. Especially this
early in the game. I don't pretend to know the answer. But I am not
confounded by the paradox either. I simply think we have much more to
learn before we can draw that line. If we don't blow ourselves up and
we run into other civilizations in
the the future I will be proven right. If humanity dies, I may have
been wrong. But even then it wouldn't be certain. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20071208112210.GC10128@leitl.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Does negative proof ring a bell?
</pre>
</blockquote>
That was my point. Negative proof doesn't work. But just because I
can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may mean that I
lack the tools or the knowledge to prove it. But again, I am not
stating that I can prove the paradox is wrong right at this moment. I
am looking at this from a historical perspective and seeing that the
paradox may only a problem because we make too many assumptions. Our
technology is still young. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20071208112210.GC10128@leitl.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
If it't not observable, even in principle, we don't have to spend any thought on it.
There is an infinity of such things, and our resources are very finite.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Again, not true. I didn't say it was not observable at all. Only very
difficult to observe with our current tools. Again, there is a
difference. Why all the black and white reasoning? If no one spent
thought on anything except what they could readily observe with the
tools they already had, where would we be? <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20071208112210.GC10128@leitl.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
None, unfortunately.
</pre>
</blockquote>
lol. You do have a sense of humor. I apologize.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20071208112210.GC10128@leitl.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Any particular reason you top-posted this, without trimming citations?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes. I was accessing from work though a webmail account and it was
giving me all sorts of formatting trouble and would error forcing me to
start over. After a few attempts I just top-posted to get the brief
version of what I wanted to say out.
</body>
</html>