UFOs in an age of cellphones.

[Conde Lucanor]

It's not only lack of evidence. UFOlogy defies common sense.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's not only lack of evidence. UFOlogy defies common sense.

And how, prey tell, is that the case?
Expound your common sense logic.

[thedoc]

It's not only lack of evidence. UFOlogy defies common sense.

Common sense would tell us that there are many advanced civilizations out there, some more advanced than we are and some less. A few with the capability of getting here, but I don't know why they would want to, except to do research on primitive societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[Conde Lucanor]

It's not only lack of evidence. UFOlogy defies common sense.

And how, prey tell, is that the case?
Expound your common sense logic.

Some that come to mind:

1) A basic assumption from the UFO myth is that there are human-like civilizations in other parts of the universe. As the only civilization we know of is our human civilization, and that civilization is the product of a contingent (non-teleological) natural history, as well as of a contingent cultural evolution, people who believe in alien civilizations are implicitly favoring the idea that those worlds went through exactly the same physical, biological and cultural process as on Earth. It's not only that life emerged, which is always a reasonable possibilty, but that it went through the same path of geological and biological eras, and that living systems evolved almost just the same, until producing complex organisms with central nervous systems, a lymbic system, etc., and eventually one of those groups of organisms would develop a neocortex and other features typical of hominids (like innate capabilites for reasoning, creativiy, language, etc.), all of which would be necessary to develop their societies to the point that they can build intergalactic spaceships. You have to think of a linear, unidirectional process, where the very existence of hominids guarantees the devolopment of highly technological societies. These coincidences are, of course, very unlikely, and more likely to represent our anthropocentric views of the universe.

2) The UFO phenomenon is undoubtedly a mass media phenomenon. It didn't come up in the public sphere until the science fiction genre had been well established, evolving from H.G. Wells to Buck Rogers in the first half of the 20th Century. Then came the Kenneth Arnold sightings and the subject exploded as mass hysteria. Before that, the UFO phenomenon didn't even exist. In terms of the amount of claims and the timing that results from the Drake equation and the history of mankind, this sudden "Cambrian explosion" of alien spaceships, doesn't make sense.

3) And now it exists only as part of a subculture of "the unknown" and conspiracy theories, all advanced by people lacking any scientific methodology, ranging from hoaxers to naive aficionados. No wonder why the only scientific paper devoted to the subject, delivered by the University of Colorado, dismissed the genre as nothing to add to scientific knowledge.

4) Interesting to note that before the 80's, the phenotypical features of aliens was heterogenous: tall, short, hairy, non-hairy, small eyes, big eyes, etc. Suddenly, after a few alien movies and the infamous "UFO Cover-up? Live!" pseudo-documentary, aired in 1988, all aliens have become pretty much alike.

5) How about the problem of language? Telepathy? Come on!!!

6) And the funniest of all reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EhqkYEjU8U

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's not only lack of evidence. UFOlogy defies common sense.

And how, prey tell, is that the case?
Expound your common sense logic.

SoB in blue

Some that come to mind:

1) A basic assumption from the UFO myth is that there are human-like civilizations in other parts of the universe.
First you mentioned "Ufology," which is simply the study of unidentified flying objects. Which are objects that appear to be flying, that have gone unidentified, simple. So anything, that meets that criteria can in fact be a UFO.

But OK, you specifically are referring to those that some attribute to Extra Terrestrials (ET's); not of this planet. In that case I'm having problems with "basic," "the" and "human-like," as you seem to be lending those believers credibility, if only in that this, "the UFO myth," of which you've referenced, is the only way the case can be.

Does everybody agree that in fact there is only one way that the ET case can be? Anybody?

At least I see, that as to the possibility of there actually being ET's, they could exist however the universe allows; that we are not necessarily the only model. But that being said, I see no reason why humanoids can't exist elsewhere, as there could be some universal predisposition, that as yet humans are not privy.

That we know of, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, and Kepler is currently finding all kinds of planets, such that there is some probability of ET life. I saw some figures once, though they presently escape me, that some scientist calculated, which indicated that there is high probability that there is life on other planets. It was purely a number thing, which I'm not good a memorizing, and it was some time ago.

As the only civilization we know of is our human civilization, and that civilization is the product of a contingent (non-teleological) natural history, as well as of a contingent cultural evolution, people who believe in alien civilizations are implicitly favoring the idea that those worlds went through exactly the same physical, biological and cultural process as on Earth. It's not only that life emerged, which is always a reasonable possibilty, but that it went through the same path of geological and biological eras, and that living systems evolved almost just the same, until producing complex organisms with central nervous systems, a lymbic system, etc., and eventually one of those groups of organisms would develop a neocortex and other features typical of hominids (like innate capabilites for reasoning, creativiy, language, etc.), all of which would be necessary to develop their societies to the point that they can build intergalactic spaceships. You have to think of a linear, unidirectional process, where the very existence of hominids guarantees the devolopment of highly technological societies. These coincidences are, of course, very unlikely, and more likely to represent our anthropocentric views of the universe.

2) The UFO phenomenon is undoubtedly a mass media phenomenon. It didn't come up in the public sphere until the science fiction genre had been well established, evolving from H.G. Wells to Buck Rogers in the first half of the 20th Century. Then came the Kenneth Arnold sightings and the subject exploded as mass hysteria. Before that, the UFO phenomenon didn't even exist. In terms of the amount of claims and the timing that results from the Drake equation and the history of mankind, this sudden "Cambrian explosion" of alien spaceships, doesn't make sense.
Actually there are some that swear that cave paintings, other forms of ancient art, and writings, seem to represent humanoids flying in "Chariots of the Gods," (<- a book that was written about it). I've seen the imagery and agree that they could be 'interpreted' that way.

3) And now it exists only as part of a subculture of "the unknown" and conspiracy theories, all advanced by people lacking any scientific methodology, ranging from hoaxers to naive aficionados. No wonder why the only scientific paper devoted to the subject, delivered by the University of Colorado, dismissed the genre as nothing to add to scientific knowledge.
Disinformation is in fact a real tactic employed by various governments. While I cannot say with certainty that any is being applied in this instance, I can see some possible reasons why it might be. Namely, the potential for loss of control.

4) Interesting to note that before the 80's, the phenotypical features of aliens was heterogenous: tall, short, hairy, non-hairy, small eyes, big eyes, etc. Suddenly, after a few alien movies and the infamous "UFO Cover-up? Live!" pseudo-documentary, aired in 1988, all aliens have become pretty much alike.
See my wrap up below, after your quote

5) How about the problem of language? Telepathy? Come on!!!
The human body and mind emits and utilizes electromagnetic energy, (EM), even producing coronal discharge and infrared energy (a specific frequency of EM). Radio waves are a specific band of EM energy, that are either frequency or amplitude modulated to give us music on the air waves. Sure for humans it's futuristically possible, as how could anyone profess to know what shall or shall not be included in the future, as the word conjures up infinity.

6) And the funniest of all reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EhqkYEjU8U
Within the first minute I heard them spout logical falsehoods.

A common fallacy, is to state that something can't be proven, because as of yet, it hasn't been; that because some, so called, proofs have been proven otherwise, there can be no proof, thus ones definitive statement of impossibility.

[Kuznetzova]

I know the answer to this one, the reason there is no cellphone UFO evidence, is because no one is looking up anymore, because they have their heads buried in their cellphone LCD screens, texting friends on their social network; look up and miss something really important, are you kidding me.

Funny and sadly true.

Yeah, keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel more comfortable. The bottom line is that within the space of 45 minutes while the "cigar-shaped craft" followed the airliner, every single stewardess on that plane would have shot multiple photographs of it with her cellphone.

You have a choice. Either you can admit this, or you can retreat back to your comforting delusions.

[thedoc]

But OK, you specifically are referring to those that some attribute to Extra Terrestrials (ET's); not of this planet. In that case I'm having problems with "basic," "the" and "human-like," as you seem to be lending those believers credibility, if only in that this, "the UFO myth," of which you've referenced, is the only way the case can be.

Does everybody agree that in fact there is only one way that the ET case can be? Anybody?

At least I see, that as to the possibility of there actually being ET's, they could exist however the universe allows; that we are not necessarily the only model. But that being said, I see no reason why humanoids can't exist elsewhere, as there could be some universal predisposition, that as yet humans are not privy.

There is a series called "Origins" hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and in one segment he had a biologist on who criticized movies for always depicting aliens as having a "face", that anything with a face had to have evolved on earth. I thing the "Biologist" was full of hot air. For a terrestrial (living on dry land as opposed to swimming in a liquid) creature, having all the sensory organs on a separate movable body part, makes evolutionary sense, and having the brain in that body part makes sense as well for quicker response from perception to reaction. This "Biologist" was completely ignoring the possibility of parallel evolution where the same solution is found by different creatures. On Earth we have Bats, Birds, and insects that fly, even some fish. By this "Biologists" reasoning there should only be one "kind" of creature that flies, walks on 4 legs, walks on 2 legs, swims in the ocean or rivers. That "Biologist's statements were just stupid.

[Kuznetzova]

6) And the funniest of all reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EhqkYEjU8U

The advanced civilization from distant star system has mastered inter-stellar travel. They have come all the way to earth to insert weird metal things under people's skin and put probes in their anus. They also need some organs surgically removed from cattle. They can remove them with laser cutting tools that man does not yet understand.

Despite all these powerful technologies that they possess, the alien civilization could never quite figure out how to turn off the GIANT YELLOW NEON LIGHTS that advertise their presence to a town full of confused onlookers.

[thedoc]

6) And the funniest of all reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EhqkYEjU8U
Within the first minute I heard them spout logical falsehoods.

A common fallacy, is to state that something can't be proven, because as of yet, it hasn't been; that because some, so called, proofs have been proven otherwise, there can be no proof, thus ones definitive statement of impossibility.

N.I.H. If I didn't think of it, it's impossible.

[uwot]

Who on this forum are you arguing with, Kuznetzova? Are you just barking at the moon, as usual?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I know the answer to this one, the reason there is no cellphone UFO evidence, is because no one is looking up anymore, because they have their heads buried in their cellphone LCD screens, texting friends on their social network; look up and miss something really important, are you kidding me.

Funny and sadly true.

Yeah, keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel more comfortable. The bottom line is that within the space of 45 minutes while the "cigar-shaped craft" followed the airliner, every single stewardess on that plane would have shot multiple photographs of it with her cellphone.

You have a choice. Either you can admit this, or you can retreat back to your comforting delusions.

You forgot something, actually the aliens are privy to our technologies, and have adapted new ones of their own, as they really don't like having their pictures taken.

[Conde Lucanor]

First you mentioned "Ufology," which is simply the study of unidentified flying objects. Which are objects that appear to be flying, that have gone unidentified, simple. So anything, that meets that criteria can in fact be a UFO.

When you mention that it's "the study of...", you give the subject a tone of seriousness and objectivity that it doesn't have. UFOlogy is not anything near a scientific discipline, nor another field of knowledge, it does not intend so. It will allow any criteria that fits it mythical narrative. It's like saying that Astrology is the study of something or that looking for fairies in the garden is an actual scientific research activity.

But OK, you specifically are referring to those that some attribute to Extra Terrestrials (ET's); not of this planet. In that case I'm having problems with "basic," "the" and "human-like," as you seem to be lending those believers credibility, if only in that this, "the UFO myth," of which you've referenced, is the only way the case can be.

Yes, of course there are some variations of the myth. A myth is flexible enough to accommodate almost any possible cases or scenarios, but the core principle of UFOlogy is about alien civilizations visiting Earth with spaceships. Let's not confuse, however, UFO with SETI. SETI is not about any phenomenon, actually its highly theoretical and speculative nature is about the absence of any physical phenomenon that could lead us to believe in activities from alien civilizations. You perhaps can make a speculative case about SETI, but it has very little to do with spaceships traveling to Earth.

In the case of UFO's (assuming there's a case), there is not such phenomenon either, there's nothing physically happening which would need theories and explanations (i.e. they are coming from Earth, etc.), but there's a mythological narrative based on claims about the existence of a phenomenon, never supported by evidence, nor common sense.

Does everybody agree that in fact there is only one way that the ET case can be? Anybody?

The problem is that there's no ET case from the perspective of UFOlogy, just as there is no flying pink unicorns case. But you can make an "ET case" based on the claim that they are actually pink unicorns disguised as interstellar travelers. The ET case can be anything. The ET case from the SETI perspective is something else, although UFOlogists will base their unsubstantiated claims about alien visitors on SETI speculations: "there can be other civilizations, therefore they're coming to Earth in spaceships, abducting people".

At least I see, that as to the possibility of there actually being ET's, they could exist however the universe allows; that we are not necessarily the only model.

You can certainly wish or have high hopes that it turns out that way, but so far there's no support to that claim (I mean, other than "anything is possible").

But that being said, I see no reason why humanoids can't exist elsewhere, as there could be some universal predisposition, that as yet humans are not privy.

Very unlikely that everything that happened of Earth just repeated elsewhere exactly the same. You seem to entertain the notion that human-like organisms just flourish easily anywhere, but you only have evidence of that happening in just one place, under contingent conditions that are highly improbable, or at least very difficult to repeat. Humans might have not evolved if dinosaurs were decimated by a large cataclysm, and yet you wouldn't expect dinosaurs to end up designing and building spaceships.

That we know of, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, and Kepler is currently finding all kinds of planets, such that there is some probability of ET life. I saw some figures once, though they presently escape me, that some scientist calculated, which indicated that there is high probability that there is life on other planets. It was purely a number thing, which I'm not good a memorizing, and it was some time ago.

That's the Drake equation, related to SETI (not necessarily to UFOlogy), which is just speculation about conditions on Earth being repeated somewhere else. But it also works against the case of ET and thus has been counteracted by the Fermi paradox (if there are so many, why we're still alone?). Considering the age and vastness of the universe, and the possible cycles of emergence and disappearance of civilizations, even if they emerged in several places, the chances of ever being in contact one with another could be minimum. But in any case, please note again that this is typical SETI speculation, very little to do with UFOlogy.

Actually there are some that swear that cave paintings, other forms of ancient art, and writings, seem to represent humanoids flying in "Chariots of the Gods," (<- a book that was written about it). I've seen the imagery and agree that they could be 'interpreted' that way.

You cannot support claims about extraterrestrial voyages with a well known hoaxer like Von Daniken. He's just an aficionado who makes money selling books to naive, gullible people, eager for fantastic stories. Thery are not scientific studies, nor anything like that. If you want a scientific study, look for the Ed Condon report (oh yes, of course, he's part of the conspiracy, right?). Besides, common sense will tell us that if intergalactic voyagers were visiting Earth on spaceships, people would just tell so, they wouldn't hide it under "enigmatic" hieroglyphics that just "look like" something. The history of writing goes back to around 3,500 years, enough time to put on record such events as UFOlogist claim, yet there's nothing. Not the Egyptians, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Arabs, no one in Middle Age or Renaissance Europe, nobody ever saw anything until Kenneth Arnold in 1947. Not even in societies willing to entertain fantastic tales. Does that make sense?

Disinformation is in fact a real tactic employed by various governments. While I cannot say with certainty that any is being applied in this instance, I can see some possible reasons why it might be. Namely, the potential for loss of control.

The Condon report was submitted by a well known scientist from the University of Colorado. And since our subject here is common sense, well...you can extend my claim about UFOlogy to government conspiracy theories: they defy common sense, too.

The human body and mind emits and utilizes electromagnetic energy, (EM), even producing coronal discharge and infrared energy (a specific frequency of EM). Radio waves are a specific band of EM energy, that are either frequency or amplitude modulated to give us music on the air waves.

That doesn't seem to be anything close to a proof about the existence or possibility of telepathy.

Sure for humans it's futuristically possible, as how could anyone profess to know what shall or shall not be included in the future, as the word conjures up infinity.

So, we cannot be for sure that pink unicorns will not appear in the future, right? Maybe, but it defies common sense.

A common fallacy, is to state that something can't be proven, because as of yet, it hasn't been; that because some, so called, proofs have been proven otherwise, there can be no proof, thus ones definitive statement of impossibility.

But I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about common sense. Proof is the subject for those who claim the existence of something, and since UFOlogy has never being able to submit any material, concrete evidence, to support its claims, I rest my case and will advocate for my right to be skeptical about those claims. Common sense will not prove anything, not even that there are no little garden fairies, but still is common sense.

[SpheresOfBalance]

First you mentioned "Ufology," which is simply the study of unidentified flying objects. Which are objects that appear to be flying, that have gone unidentified, simple. So anything, that meets that criteria can in fact be a UFO.

When you mention that it's "the study of...", you give the subject a tone of seriousness and objectivity that it doesn't have. UFOlogy is not anything near a scientific discipline, nor another field of knowledge, it does not intend so. It will allow any criteria that fits it mythical narrative. It's like saying that Astrology is the study of something or that looking for fairies in the garden is an actual scientific research activity.

But OK, you specifically are referring to those that some attribute to Extra Terrestrials (ET's); not of this planet. In that case I'm having problems with "basic," "the" and "human-like," as you seem to be lending those believers credibility, if only in that this, "the UFO myth," of which you've referenced, is the only way the case can be.

Yes, of course there are some variations of the myth. A myth is flexible enough to accommodate almost any possible cases or scenarios, but the core principle of UFOlogy is about alien civilizations visiting Earth with spaceships. Let's not confuse, however, UFO with SETI. SETI is not about any phenomenon, actually its highly theoretical and speculative nature is about the absence of any physical phenomenon that could lead us to believe in activities from alien civilizations. You perhaps can make a speculative case about SETI, but it has very little to do with spaceships traveling to Earth.

In the case of UFO's (assuming there's a case), there is not such phenomenon either, there's nothing physically happening which would need theories and explanations (i.e. they are coming from Earth, etc.), but there's a mythological narrative based on claims about the existence of a phenomenon, never supported by evidence, nor common sense.

Does everybody agree that in fact there is only one way that the ET case can be? Anybody?

The problem is that there's no ET case from the perspective of UFOlogy, just as there is no flying pink unicorns case. But you can make an "ET case" based on the claim that they are actually pink unicorns disguised as interstellar travelers. The ET case can be anything. The ET case from the SETI perspective is something else, although UFOlogists will base their unsubstantiated claims about alien visitors on SETI speculations: "there can be other civilizations, therefore they're coming to Earth in spaceships, abducting people".

At least I see, that as to the possibility of there actually being ET's, they could exist however the universe allows; that we are not necessarily the only model.

You can certainly wish or have high hopes that it turns out that way, but so far there's no support to that claim (I mean, other than "anything is possible").

But that being said, I see no reason why humanoids can't exist elsewhere, as there could be some universal predisposition, that as yet humans are not privy.

Very unlikely that everything that happened of Earth just repeated elsewhere exactly the same. You seem to entertain the notion that human-like organisms just flourish easily anywhere, but you only have evidence of that happening in just one place, under contingent conditions that are highly improbable, or at least very difficult to repeat. Humans might have not evolved if dinosaurs were decimated by a large cataclysm, and yet you wouldn't expect dinosaurs to end up designing and building spaceships.

That we know of, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, and Kepler is currently finding all kinds of planets, such that there is some probability of ET life. I saw some figures once, though they presently escape me, that some scientist calculated, which indicated that there is high probability that there is life on other planets. It was purely a number thing, which I'm not good a memorizing, and it was some time ago.

That's the Drake equation, related to SETI (not necessarily to UFOlogy), which is just speculation about conditions on Earth being repeated somewhere else. But it also works against the case of ET and thus has been counteracted by the Fermi paradox (if there are so many, why we're still alone?). Considering the age and vastness of the universe, and the possible cycles of emergence and disappearance of civilizations, even if they emerged in several places, the chances of ever being in contact one with another could be minimum. But in any case, please note again that this is typical SETI speculation, very little to do with UFOlogy.

Actually there are some that swear that cave paintings, other forms of ancient art, and writings, seem to represent humanoids flying in "Chariots of the Gods," (<- a book that was written about it). I've seen the imagery and agree that they could be 'interpreted' that way.

You cannot support claims about extraterrestrial voyages with a well known hoaxer like Von Daniken. He's just an aficionado who makes money selling books to naive, gullible people, eager for fantastic stories. Thery are not scientific studies, nor anything like that. If you want a scientific study, look for the Ed Condon report (oh yes, of course, he's part of the conspiracy, right?). Besides, common sense will tell us that if intergalactic voyagers were visiting Earth on spaceships, people would just tell so, they wouldn't hide it under "enigmatic" hieroglyphics that just "look like" something. The history of writing goes back to around 3,500 years, enough time to put on record such events as UFOlogist claim, yet there's nothing. Not the Egyptians, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Arabs, no one in Middle Age or Renaissance Europe, nobody ever saw anything until Kenneth Arnold in 1947. Not even in societies willing to entertain fantastic tales. Does that make sense?

Disinformation is in fact a real tactic employed by various governments. While I cannot say with certainty that any is being applied in this instance, I can see some possible reasons why it might be. Namely, the potential for loss of control.

The Condon report was submitted by a well known scientist from the University of Colorado. And since our subject here is common sense, well...you can extend my claim about UFOlogy to government conspiracy theories: they defy common sense, too.

The human body and mind emits and utilizes electromagnetic energy, (EM), even producing coronal discharge and infrared energy (a specific frequency of EM). Radio waves are a specific band of EM energy, that are either frequency or amplitude modulated to give us music on the air waves.

That doesn't seem to be anything close to a proof about the existence or possibility of telepathy.

Sure for humans it's futuristically possible, as how could anyone profess to know what shall or shall not be included in the future, as the word conjures up infinity.

So, we cannot be for sure that pink unicorns will not appear in the future, right? Maybe, but it defies common sense.

A common fallacy, is to state that something can't be proven, because as of yet, it hasn't been; that because some, so called, proofs have been proven otherwise, there can be no proof, thus ones definitive statement of impossibility.

But I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about common sense. Proof is the subject for those who claim the existence of something, and since UFOlogy has never being able to submit any material, concrete evidence, to support its claims, I rest my case and will advocate for my right to be skeptical about those claims. Common sense will not prove anything, not even that there are no little garden fairies, but still is common sense.

Not gone, but can't answer today, too much to do, I'll return tomorrow, May 24, or let you know otherwise, so as to finally answer here, in the place of this text.

Just a heads up though, since we are probably arguing something that is improvable either way, as I know of no survey that's been conducted to test the "common sense" of the majority of the cultures currently inhabiting the earth, as to their belief in the possibility of ET's. Also know that this argument can yield no judgement, as to the reality of ET's, as currently this truth, either way, escapes human knowledge thus understanding. I shall continue to argue that the possibility of ET's is not in conflict with "common sense," rather "common knowledge," is that of which you speak, which are two different things, after all we are here, aren't we, seven billion strong!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"common sense
noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence."

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"common knowledge
noun
something widely or generally known"

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above definitions are compliments "dictionary.reference.com".


It would seem that at least the "Common Sense" of the UK and America believe in ET's.

As a 2012 in the UK a survey says that 52% believe in UFO's thus ET's according to your previous statements. In America a 2005 survey shows that 66% believe in life on other planets.

"The survey, conducted by Opinion Matters, revealed the following statistics among those surveyed:
52 percent believe UFO evidence has been covered up because widespread knowledge of their existence would threaten government stability."
See Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 68259.html

As to Americans:
"While most depictions of extraterrestrials are confined to science fiction, nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that some form of alien life exists somewhere in the universe, according to a new survey."
See Link: http://www.space.com/1150-americans-ali ... shows.html

See Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fDyr_FDZiI

It would seem that the "common sense" of at least the UK and the US, stands behind the belief in ET's.

And why not, we're here? I think that to not believe in ET's smacks of religion and the belief that humans are the 'special' creation of some god. Also this gives one 'power,' in the belief that they are one, of the one and only intelligent species in the universe, their way of ensuring self importance, an ego thing. Many need to find anyway to believe they are it, that they belong to an exclusive club of special beings. That if there are others, then we're just possibly copies. Some can't handle sharing that position. Fear also come into play, I mean, what if they're malevolent.

I'm afraid that "common sense" dictates that if there can be one, then there can be many.

[Conde Lucanor]

I shall continue to argue that the possibility of ET's is not in conflict with "common sense," rather "common knowledge," is that of which you speak, which are two different things...

In the sociology of knowledge, "common sense" does have a connotation of "common knowledge", which represents the generalized assumptions of the man of the street, and is also deeply related to "ideology" or "false consciousness". But that's not what I've meant.

When I use the term "common sense", I refer to "sound practical knowledge", a general type of knowledge, different from specialized knowledge. It seems to match your dictionary's definition, except that we need to be careful about the expression "normal native intelligence", as it might be interpreted as an uneducated, naive construction of reality. I'd rather interpret the phrase as "a priori knowledge". In common sense converge both experience (including some level of education) and innate reasoning, some steps behind specialized scientific knowledge (that's why it is also called "pre-scientific"), but yet far from being naive. It is still a necessary condition for reaching objective truths.

To clarify even further, allow me to say that "common sense" is not "common man's sense", nor it has to do with statistics of what beliefs are more popular, as you seem to suggest by pointing at surveys. It might even be true that common sense is not very commonly distributed among the population and is not evenly applied to all concepts, since there is people that will find ridiculous the idea of fairies, but will find no problem believing in Noah's Ark or the magical powers of televangelists.

It would seem that at least the "Common Sense" of the UK and America believe in ET's.

As a 2012 in the UK a survey says that 52% believe in UFO's thus ET's according to your previous statements. In America a 2005 survey shows that 66% believe in life on other planets.

"The survey, conducted by Opinion Matters, revealed the following statistics among those surveyed:
52 percent believe UFO evidence has been covered up because widespread knowledge of their existence would threaten government stability."
See Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 68259.html

Regardless of the fact that, as explained above, surveys don't define what common sense is, these surveys doesn't seem to be accurate. We may add that your interpretation goes a lot further from what the report actually says.

For example, it does not say 52% of people believe in UFO's, but that 52% believe there's been government cover-up on the subject, which I must say, it's not a crazy idea. That governments cover up things seem to be an everyday fact. UFO stories are known to be PR nigthmares which have been usually poorly handled.

Yet, 52% would be an interesting figure, if we didn't find this key statistic in the report:

"20 percent of respondents believe UFOs have landed on Earth."

That sweeps away almost the entire UFO myth. Using UFOlogists' own terms, encounters of the second, third, fourth and fifth kind are hardly represented in people's beliefs, and only those of the first kind (weird things up in the sky) are accounted for as credible.

But I actually believe the survey is not a serious scientific work (as the article itself seems to suggest). Only 40% believe in god? Come on...lack of common sense is more widespread than that.

As to Americans:
"While most depictions of extraterrestrials are confined to science fiction, nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that some form of alien life exists somewhere in the universe, according to a new survey."
See Link: http://www.space.com/1150-americans-ali ... shows.html

See Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fDyr_FDZiI

It would seem that the "common sense" of at least the UK and the US, stands behind the belief in ET's.

Please refer to my definitions above. A widespread, popular belief, does not account for common sense.

In any case, you're showing two surveys that contradict each other: in one, two-thirds believe in alien life and in the other, only one-third. Notice again that belief in extraterrestrial life doesn't mean "advanced humanoid civilizations visiting Earth with spaceships". There's one reference in the first survey about 80% believing in more advanced civilizations, but that still falls short for depicting the UFO myth as it is known: aliens visiting Earth secretly, abducting people, etc.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Not sure that there are ET's but those that are either for or against that assert they could possibly know their motives, capabilities, reason, or anything about them. are just fooling themselves, as they anthropomorphize, projecting silly human concerns of no real logical consequence. To assume mankind's trivial concerns are universal, is quite laughable.

If I were truly a member of an advanced species, as I watched mankind, I'd be uncontrollably laughing and crying at the same time, and I'm one of them. There would be no need to stamp them out, as the stupid human is already doing that to himself, again they'd laugh and cry at the same time. To assume that I then anthropomorphize, is really funny! I'd definitely stick my thumb out as one of their crafts flew buy, in hopes that they'd pick me up, as there is no intelligent life on this planet.

Got a war, anyone?
Feed the starving, anyone?
Kill a kid, anyone?
Two faced, anyone?
Lie, anyone?
Fear your own shadow, anyone?
Destroy your habitat, anyone?
Kill for sport, anyone?
Care only about number one, anyone?

There's not enough time or space to continue, best to leave the dead animals to lie.