Re:So hard to believe? (Score 3)

I totally agree that all these cases should be given the benefit of analysis using the "scientific method". what you don't realize however is that they already have.

Any credible scientist in the world base their experimental findings on reproducability. No new knowledge is accepted by the scientific community unless it can be repeated by other, unrelated and unbiased scientists. For example, the supposed "discovery" of cold fusion could not be reproduced and so we don't have any Back to the Future-style power generators. Most people believe in life in the universe, but most of those same people acknowledge that: a) The distances between civilizations is so vast the chances of two ever meeting are very small, b) Many factors (from the over-quoted Drake Equation) need to come together for contact to take place (i.e. civilizations need to exist in the same time window, civilizations need to survive post-technological age "adolescence" and not destroy themselves, etc.) The probablilities involved are very slim, c) If life exists on many worlds and Earth isn't special in having the conditions necessary for life, Earth isn't special in attracting civilizations either. Why travel light-years to come to our planet with such a lowly, unevolved society such as our own?

Just because Stanton Frieman is a nuclear physicist does not mean he represents the world's scientific community. Most of us would vehemently disagree with his claims. You insult scientific objectivity and the scientific community in general by believing his work.

We can all hope for claims such as that of "Starchildren" to be true, but the fact remains they haven't been reproduced and the scientific community has not jumped on the "aliens bandwagon" since we don't see anything to be concerned about. Keep on dreaming, but please remain objective and critical of any such claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."