Philosophy, mysteries: the Fermi paradox, part 0: what is proof?

Self-tutoring about philosophy: the tutor begins about the Fermi paradox: why don’t we have proof of aliens if they likely exist?

The Fermi paradox is the name given to a commonly known question: given that intelligent alien life seems likely to exist, why have we no proof? After all, the vastness of space is bound to include civilizations much more advanced than ours capable of visiting Earth.

Proof is something that I’ve explored in a couple of earlier posts, here and here. In the latter article I explore the idea that proving I was in Nanaimo might be very difficult; therefore, from a skeptic’s point of view, perhaps I never was. In the former article I reflect about facts that aren’t provable.

Curiously, as I observe herein, witness accounts of alien visitations are usually discounted. Yet, witness accounts of human events are believed much more important.

I would argue that we have as much proof of alien visitation as we do of many other premises we take for granted. Some of the testimony even comes from authority figures who are trained to observe, report, and know the truth. Moreover, there are photographs and videos, not all of which, as far as I’m aware, have been debunked. Yet, most people still aren’t compelled to accept those witness accounts, nor the photographic evidence, as proof that aliens exist. At the same time, they are willing to accept photographs as evidence that a night on the town happened, or that yes, he really did wear that dress, etc.

Today, perhaps the paradox Fermi hints at isn’t a lack of proof, but rather that the same mode of proof confirms one fact but isn’t sufficient to confirm another.

I hope to follow this up soon:)

Source:

cosmosmagazine.com

harvard.edu