[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's your opinion.

Yes and no. You can say its an "opinion", but so is the theory of gravity. I tend to actually rely on science and believe what science has to say on the matter, and contrary to your you position there is pretty good support for the belief in intelligent life beyond our planet. Simple Bayesian inference drives that belief. Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson all believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, they just question/questioned the potential for other civilizations to travel here based on OUR current understanding of physics. Again, this is because of a projection of OUR understanding of physics and what WE believe we know about the universe around us, not considering the advanced understanding much older civilizations may have. I tend to look past what our current context is, understanding how far we have come in just the past century, then consider there are star systems out there that are billions of years older than our own (the known universe is estimated to be just under 14 billion years old, while our galaxy is was born just over 4.5 billion years ago). To suggest we are on par with possible intelligences that may be millions of years more advanced than us is quite arrogant, and to you use your own terms, quite illogical.

I think most scientists think we are the only planet with life, or the universe is teaming with it.

Well, you've pretty much covered both ends of that dichotomy. Really hedged your bets there. I think you'd be surprised how many scientists ascribe to the concept of there being intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. The number is a majority, much greater than the majority of average citizens who believe in extraterrestrial life. Where there is argument is exactly as deGrasse Tyson frames the issue, the capacity to travel the distances to visit our planet. I've had similar discussions with a compatriot of mine, a famous theoretical physicist (who I won't name drop), who is in the same camp as NdGT. He holds firm on the limitations of what we understand about physics preventing visitation, but he does not discount life itself. Interestingly, when we put the card on the table that our understanding may be limited, or just flat out wrong, he admits that the possibility increases dramatically. I always reminded him of the various changes in thinking we have had in the past 100 years, which always got a smile and a nod of acknowledgment that sometimes our hubris of what we think we know may make us develop tunnel vision and not be open to the revolutionary ideas that ultimately make us rethink the old and establish new understanding.

Since we have no evidence of the later, we can't discount the former.

Since I have no evidence that you're not a pickle I can't discount that I may indeed be discussing this topic with a pickle.

As to the second part, sure, it's possible. But it doesn't feel very scientific. If life is plentiful, why bother spending 100 years here?

Why do humans continue to study known species? Why waste our time? Because that actually is science in action. Science is actually all about continual observation and learning what we can from those observations. It is never a waste of time as longitudinal study is how we learn about things.

If they are looking for intelligent life, as we do with our planet's species, why wouldn't they attempt communication?

Maybe they view us as too immature for such communication? Maybe they view us as nothing more than a life form or animal worthy of study? How many biologists attempt to "communicate" with the subject of study? Again, you're projecting YOUR understanding of things on something that may have an intelligence that is well beyond our understanding. If you were studying paramecium, would you bother to try and communicate with it?

There is no evidence we are being "studied" and the logic for it doesn't work, which is why I tend to dismiss that theory.

There actually is. There is quite the body of evidence, although you'll quickly dismiss it because you have already made up your mind on the subject. There is physical evidence of visitations. There is physical evidence of abduction. There is physical evidence of examination and tagging (scarring and implants). There is plenty of witness testimony of abduction. There is plenty of psychological evidence of these experiences. Again, you'll dismiss it, but the evidence is there.