So called "Evidence" regarding the Universe...

[Barreldriver]

You know how those involved in the numerous "space programs" bring back "evidence" of certain traits/characteristics of our solar system via probes, maned flight, etc... and according to this "evidence" life is not sustainable as we know it anywhere in the solar system except for earth. Well, how do we know for sure? How do we know that the evidence presented is valid, not a forgery to fool us? What if life is sustainable and adaptations to any life forms there, or natural protective forces on the planets allow for their to be life in accordance to their position in the solar system i.e. what if places like Venus for example, have an extra resistant atmosphere that protects against the suns intensity at such a range, how do we know for a fact that Venus is like the text books portray? The reasoning is these texts and other media sources of "evidence" are built on government sponsored "studies" and since the history of man those in power have deceived those who were not, so who's to say that any of this "evidence" is valid at all?

For all we know outer space could be as the connection of realms portrayed in the Eddas, the planets home to various "Mythical" beings that travel to and from place to place.

[Aliandrin]

It's based on the best evidence, and of course our understanding will grow and change as our best evidence increases.

But that's no reason to throw out Occham's Razor and suggest that simply because we do not know things are not so, that they are so, or even very well might be so. That is the task of the Science Fiction writer.

[Barreldriver]

It's based on the best evidence, and of course our understanding will grow and change as our best evidence increases.

But that's no reason to throw out Occham's Razor and suggest that simply because we do not know things are not so, that they are so, or even very well might be so. That is the task of the Science Fiction writer.

How do we know this evidence is real though? It's all sponsored by governments world wide, and these "governments" have legacies of lies and deceit.

[Aliandrin]

In this case I doubt it. The space budget is so bloated and accomplishes so little that they're not hiding the fact that they're wasting your money.

[Barreldriver]

In this case I doubt it. The space budget is so bloated and accomplishes so little that they're not hiding the fact that they're wasting your money.

we have no money. What is there to waste? They're probably using the "space program" as a cover up or all we know. I've just been thinking of these things more and more lately.

[Aliandrin]

It's possible I suppose, but I doubt the pictures are fabrications. They've been getting pictures of distant objects that can only be seen from space long before the possibilities existed to digitally fake them.

If the space program is fake, I will be sorely disappointed.

[Psychonaut]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Is it a general criticism of science or more of a particular criticism of NASA?

You know how those involved in the numerous "space programs" bring back "evidence" of certain traits/characteristics of our solar system via probes, maned flight, etc... and according to this "evidence" life is not sustainable as we know it anywhere in the solar system except for earth. Well, how do we know for sure? How do we know that the evidence presented is valid, not a forgery to fool us?

This is one of the coolest things about modern science. It has created a new intellectual aristocracy that's not too dissimilar from the priesthoods of old. Those people who are not conversant in the language of science will have no means by which to judge the truth or falsity of any given scientific theory. Want to know for sure? Hit the books.

how do we know for a fact that Venus is like the text books portray? The reasoning is these texts and other media sources of "evidence" are built on government sponsored "studies" and since the history of man those in power have deceived those who were not, so who's to say that any of this "evidence" is valid at all?

So, this is a specific critique of NASA? Personally, I can think of no reason whatsoever why they would doctor or make up data from unmanned satellites, photos, etc. All of the data that makes up the picture we have of our universe is open source. If you're interested enough you can find out exactly how and when each bit of information that we have was collected. However, if you're convinced that NASA is lying to you, then I suppose that wouldn't do the trick.

For all we know outer space could be as the connection of realms portrayed in the Eddas, the planets home to various "Mythical" beings that travel to and from place to place.

Ask yourself this: which does the evidence support? Any person with a little expendable cash can invest in a telescope and an astronomy textbook. With just a little effort you can literally see a great deal of what's out there in the night sky. You can personally verify that the Heavens are much closer to the descriptions provided by NASA than those of the Eddas. That's not to say at all that there isn't any value in mythic cosmology, but I don't think that denying science in favor of myths is healthy.

[Loddfafner]

I have observed the sky through telescopes. I know some of the people doing research on the solar system and I respect them. I have followed scientific progress for almost my entire life. For these reasons, I believe that it is far more likely that science is on the right track than that it is part of some gigantic hoax.

Science does not lead to absolute certainty but does lead to enough confidence about what is out there to act effectively and appropriately. It has led to ruling out such possibilities as that the moon is made of green cheese or that Mars is covered in jungles. Venus has so much sulphuric acid that probes there do not last long, which makes life of any sort extremely unlikely.

Life as we know it is increasingly unlikely in the rest of the solar system. There might be some underground microbes on Mars, and maybe in some of the larger moons of the outer planets, but that is only speculation. There could be lifelike processes that we do not know how to recognize such as methane-breathing gasbags in the atmosphere of Jupiter and Saturn but that is pure speculation at this point.

[Loki]

I don't really understand the original question of the thread either. My father used to be an amateur astronomer and built himself a huge telescope. We could see many things in the night sky through that, including distant galaxies.

As for life beyond earth ... it actually requires more faith (and a whole lot of arrogance) to believe that earth is unique in the universe to have life develop on it, than otherwise. Mathematically, if you consider the expanse of the universe, it is probable that there are millions of other planets with lifeforms on them, and probably thousands, if not millions, of them, with intelligent life. I think we fail to grasp how big the universe is, and how small a part of it we are.

[Loddfafner]

I think there is more room for doubt about the existence of intelligent life on earth than that there is of a massive cover-up of the literal truth of the Voluspa or of Genesis.