Until SETI produces many positive results, I think this highly unlikely, For one thing, it would mean our whole concept of cloud and star and planet formation is essentially wrong.
Back in 1970 when I wrote the code for the first automatic telescope, the MTBAT (Mean Time Between Astronomy Textbooks) was something like 5-7 years, notably short for a “hard” science. Then I and others got to work putting instruments, telescopes next, under computer control, and developing computerized image enhancement techniques. Computers also made space telescopes possible (and I wrote code for the first of those). I believe that since astronomers caught onto the value of computers (many struggled), the MTBAT has actually shrunk. Nothing wrong with that, but I think that this history might leave a young astronomer very open-minded about the possibility that a lot of the stuff he’d been taught is stuff he’ll either get to relearn---- or better, have the opportunity to personally correct.
The history of astronomy is that of getting things right, and wrong. (E.g: Copernicus) Because astronomy is a science, its own people correct the most egregious errors. Yet given its history, I’d expect an astronomer to look forward to correcting more of the many errors which astronomers have made, thus keeping that awesome field of study alive and healthy.
Considering the significant items about which astronomy is currently clueless, e.g: dark energy, dark matter, and the Big Bang’s absurd “singularity,” errors in star and planet formation theory seem to me about as important as the question, “Did 4, rather than 5 flies sneak into the house when the screen door was opened?”
In an important respect, I cannot do this. If I were to do this, then I would be trusting something you taught me, which would violate the condition: “never trust the stuff you’ve been taught”. I like the statement, from my adviser, “learn to live with and love uncertainty.” I have to trust what I’ve been taught. I don’t know any other good way to do science (no need to re-invent every wheel).
Wrong. Since you’ve not paid me enough (e.g: anything) to be your teacher, I have no power to teach you anything. The best I can do is propose ideas, which you, in turn, may accept or reject. Any which you accept become
your ideas.
This is because ideas are different from dollar bills and personal property. You can take an idea from me without depriving me of it.
With whatever respect is due your adviser, he, she, or it is a nitwit. If you were in the field of philosophy,or psychology, or any study which involved the choices of even somewhat intelligent entities, then, yes, embrace uncertainty. Otherwise, uncertainty is a sell-out. (And I’m not talking about experimental error-bars.)
Embracing uncertainty is just a nit’s way of saying, “Run with the tribe, jump to the same music, collect your share of the government grant money, and let’s all not rock the boat.” Loving uncertainty is a perfect way to set your life course as a perpetual shmoo.
“Shmoos”, Mose warns, “is the greatest menace to hoomanity th’ world has evah known.” “Thass becuz they is so bad, huh?” asked Li’l Abner. “No, stupid”, answers Mose - and then encapsulates one of life’s profound paradoxes: “It’s because they’s so good!!”
From the link,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo"
There is considerable power in not trusting the stuff you’ve been taught. It is different from disbelieving the stuff or rejecting it outright. In fact, distrust is at the philosophical core of the scientific method. Why do scientists try to duplicate the experiments of other scientists?
Religion’s style of idea-development is to accept the words of convincing prophets or gurus at face value and build a belief system around them. Philosophy depends entirely upon the charisma of its authority figures (i.e. their obfuscatory skills), plus a pretense of logic applied to a tiny subset of available information. Science got rich and important by distrusting. Grow some cajones and carry the torch.
Good science does not come out of stupid, expensive experiments like the LHC. It comes out of the rare human mind willing to question his perfessers.
I would need good reason to think that the ideas are life-changing, not so much for the $10, but for the time it will take to seriously read and consider your ideas.
Actually, the only way you’ll know for certain if the ideas are life changing is if you read them, understand, and notice down the road that your life is different. However, since you possess the quality of curiosity, your life will change whether you read my stuff or not. You might not even know the causes of the changes which you experience. The greater likelihood is that if you read my stuff, you’ll attribute any subsequent life adjustments to one of Oprah’s self-help gurus, or even entirely to your own personal insights. What is important is that your life works.
Therefore it is not important that you believe that my ideas are potentially life-changing. It is only important that **
I **so believe, else I’d never expend the considerable time, effort, and cost to put them to printed page.
That sums up my view on reincarnation.