Adam Frank
speaker
594 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Dec 2024
last heard Dec 2024
Adam Frank’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
I would first want to try and do this without... Like, you know, if we're looking at the origin of life or the evolution of life on Earth, I'd want to do it just on its own without asking for this other layer. Because it requires a bunch of these other assumptions, which also have their own sort of breaking of causal chains. Because I don't really... Like, the idea that...
When you ask, what would you do if you were an alien? But again, like alien minds could be so unbelievably different, right? That they wouldn't even recognize the question you just posed.
Right. Because it's just like, you know, we're very much, we have a very particular kind of cognitive structure, you know, and we're very governed by, even if you went and talked to, this is an interesting thing to think about.
You know, if I could suddenly magically appear 100,000 years ago and talk to a hunter-gatherer about their worldview and their motivations, you know, I might find something that's like, but we're no resemblance to things that I think are sort of, oh, that's what naturally humans do. Well, let me ask you this question. Let's together do the thought experiment.
Yeah, I think that's a great question. I mean, so, you know, it's interesting how that even brings up the ethical questions, right? Let's say that, you know, would we, we'd have to first sort of sort out what are the consequences for them and what do we feel our ethical responsibilities are to them.
What are we to gain from this interaction? Right, right, right. You look at the way the missionaries, you know, missionaries had these interactions because they thought converting them to whatever religion they were, you know, was the most important. That's what the gain was. So from our perspective, I mean, we'd have to sort that out.
I think given, you know, if we're doing this thought experiment, we are curious. And I think eventually we'd want to reach out to them.
Hey guys, wait a minute.
In our engagement.
I am all in favor of an open, agnostic, transparent, scientific investigation of UFOs and UAPs. But the idea that there's any data that we have that links UFOs and UAPs to non-human technology, I just think they're the standards. They just, none of what is claimed to be the data lives up to the standards of evidence.
So let's just take a moment on that idea of standards of evidence, because I've made a So what people have to understand about science is we are really scientists. We are really mean to each other. We are brutal to each other because we have this thing that we call standards of evidence. And it's the idea of like you have a piece of evidence that you want to link to a claim.
And, you know, under what conditions can you say, oh, look, I've got evidence of, you know, this claim X, Y, and Z. And in science, we are so mean to each other about whether or not that piece of evidence lives up to the standards that we have. And we spent 400 years determining what those standards are. And that is why cell phones work.
If you didn't have super rigorous standards about what you think, oh, this little antenna, I've invented a new kind of antenna that I can slip into the cell phone and I can show you that it works. If you didn't have these standards, every cell phone would be a brick.
And when it comes to UFOs and UAPs, the evidence you have and the claim that this shows that we are being visited by non-human advanced civilization just doesn't even come close.
to the same standards I'm going to have to obey or whatever, live under, if my team, you know, the group I work with, if one of them says, look, we've discovered, wants to announce that, oh, we've discovered a techno signature on an alien planet. We're going to get shredded as we expect to be. We expect to be beaten up. And, you know, the UAP UFO community should expect the same thing.
You don't get, you know, you don't get a pass because it's a really cool topic. So that's where I am right now. I just don't think... any of the evidence is even close to anything that could support that claim.
Yeah, so, you know, in the book I talked about the idea that this is really stupid, but, you know, you want to look up, you want to look down, and you want to look all around.
So you want to do ground-based detectors, you know, upward-looking ground-based detectors of the kind we're already building for meteors, right, for tracking meteors. You want to have space-based detectors, put them on satellites. This is what the NASA UAP panel was thinking about. And then probably on, you know, we have lots of people in the sky.
There should be detectors on the planes or at least, you know, some kind of alert system that if a pilot says, oh, look, I'm seeing something I don't understand, boop, presses the red button. And that triggers the ground-based and space-based data collectors. And then the data collectors themselves, this is something that people really don't understand and it's so important.
In order to actually do science with anything, the data you have, you have to understand where it came from, like down to the, you know, the nth degree. You have to know how that camera behaves in a bunch of different wavelengths. You have to characterize that. You have to know what the software does, what the limits of the software are possible. You have to know what happened to the camera.
Showing 381–400 of 594 · page 20 of 30
← Previous
Next →