UFOs in an age of cellphones.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I shall continue to argue that the possibility of ET's is not in conflict with "common sense," rather "common knowledge," is that of which you speak, which are two different things...

In the sociology of knowledge, "common sense" does have a connotation of "common knowledge", which represents the generalized assumptions of the man of the street, and is also deeply related to "ideology" or "false consciousness". But that's not what I've meant.

When I use the term "common sense", I refer to "sound practical knowledge", a general type of knowledge, different from specialized knowledge. It seems to match your dictionary's definition, except that we need to be careful about the expression "normal native intelligence", as it might be interpreted as an uneducated, naive construction of reality. I'd rather interpret the phrase as "a priori knowledge". In common sense converge both experience (including some level of education) and innate reasoning, some steps behind specialized scientific knowledge (that's why it is also called "pre-scientific"), but yet far from being naive. It is still a necessary condition for reaching objective truths.

To clarify even further, allow me to say that "common sense" is not "common man's sense", nor it has to do with statistics of what beliefs are more popular, as you seem to suggest by pointing at surveys. It might even be true that common sense is not very commonly distributed among the population and is not evenly applied to all concepts, since there is people that will find ridiculous the idea of fairies, but will find no problem believing in Noah's Ark or the magical powers of televangelists.

It would seem that at least the "Common Sense" of the UK and America believe in ET's.

As a 2012 in the UK a survey says that 52% believe in UFO's thus ET's according to your previous statements. In America a 2005 survey shows that 66% believe in life on other planets.

"The survey, conducted by Opinion Matters, revealed the following statistics among those surveyed:
52 percent believe UFO evidence has been covered up because widespread knowledge of their existence would threaten government stability."
See Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 68259.html

Regardless of the fact that, as explained above, surveys don't define what common sense is, these surveys doesn't seem to be accurate. We may add that your interpretation goes a lot further from what the report actually says.

For example, it does not say 52% of people believe in UFO's, but that 52% believe there's been government cover-up on the subject, which I must say, it's not a crazy idea. That governments cover up things seem to be an everyday fact. UFO stories are known to be PR nigthmares which have been usually poorly handled.

Yet, 52% would be an interesting figure, if we didn't find this key statistic in the report:

"20 percent of respondents believe UFOs have landed on Earth."

That sweeps away almost the entire UFO myth. Using UFOlogists' own terms, encounters of the second, third, fourth and fifth kind are hardly represented in people's beliefs, and only those of the first kind (weird things up in the sky) are accounted for as credible.

But I actually believe the survey is not a serious scientific work (as the article itself seems to suggest). Only 40% believe in god? Come on...lack of common sense is more widespread than that.

As to Americans:
"While most depictions of extraterrestrials are confined to science fiction, nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that some form of alien life exists somewhere in the universe, according to a new survey."
See Link: http://www.space.com/1150-americans-ali ... shows.html

See Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fDyr_FDZiI

It would seem that the "common sense" of at least the UK and the US, stands behind the belief in ET's.

Please refer to my definitions above. A widespread, popular belief, does not account for common sense.

In any case, you're showing two surveys that contradict each other: in one, two-thirds believe in alien life and in the other, only one-third. Notice again that belief in extraterrestrial life doesn't mean "advanced humanoid civilizations visiting Earth with spaceships". There's one reference in the first survey about 80% believing in more advanced civilizations, but that still falls short for depicting the UFO myth as it is known: aliens visiting Earth secretly, abducting people, etc.

I truly respect you for knowing two completely different languages, but English seems to not be your strong suit, as that is exactly what common sense is. It is the sense that is most common, such that anything above 50%, err, actually, the greater percentage of belief, when there are those undecided or otherwise, is in fact by definition, the common sense. It doesn't matter if one likes it or not, as that is not in question.

"common sense
noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence."

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.

It would seem that the natives of two countries have spoken, one can rationalize all they want, but it changes nothing!

[Conde Lucanor]

I truly respect you for knowing two completely different languages, but English seems to not be your strong suit, as that is exactly what common sense is.

I appreciate your kind consideration of my limited skills in the English language, but while that might affect the expression, it has absolutely no effect on meaning and interpretation, as I can perfectly infer the intentions of meaning behind the propositions of the speaker (and a dictionary). There's no major difference in meaning, for example, in the direct translation of "common sense" to "sentido común" (the term in Spanish), which is defined as "modo razonable de actuar" (reasonable mode of acting). The dictionary from the major authority in the Spanish language (the RAE dictionary) defines common sense as "conforme al buen juicio natural de las personas", translated as "in conformity with sound natural judgement of people", which is pretty close to the definition in your English dictionary.

It is the sense that is most common, such that anything above 50%, err, actually, the greater percentage of belief, when there are those undecided or otherwise, is in fact by definition, the common sense. It doesn't matter if one likes it or not, as that is not in question.

"common sense
noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence."

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.

You may wish that common sense is what you think it is, but your "definition by fact" certainly does not conform to the dictionary definition that you present as evidence. Maybe you should look for another dictionary that backs up your claim, as this one doesn't. It does not mention statistical trends, popularity, percentage of belief, nothing like that.

What is known as a fact is that there's a common saying that came from the English-speaking world, which says:

"common sense is the least common of all senses".

[SpheresOfBalance]

I truly respect you for knowing two completely different languages, but English seems to not be your strong suit, as that is exactly what common sense is.

I appreciate your kind consideration of my limited skills in the English language, but while that might affect the expression, it has absolutely no effect on meaning and interpretation, as I can perfectly infer the intentions of meaning behind the propositions of the speaker (and a dictionary). There's no major difference in meaning, for example, in the direct translation of "common sense" to "sentido común" (the term in Spanish), which is defined as "modo razonable de actuar" (reasonable mode of acting). The dictionary from the major authority in the Spanish language (the RAE dictionary) defines common sense as "conforme al buen juicio natural de las personas", translated as "in conformity with sound natural judgement of people", which is pretty close to the definition in your English dictionary.

It is the sense that is most common, such that anything above 50%, err, actually, the greater percentage of belief, when there are those undecided or otherwise, is in fact by definition, the common sense. It doesn't matter if one likes it or not, as that is not in question.

"common sense
noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence."

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.

You may wish that common sense is what you think it is, but your "definition by fact" certainly does not conform to the dictionary definition that you present as evidence. Maybe you should look for another dictionary that backs up your claim, as this one doesn't. It does not mention statistical trends, popularity, percentage of belief, nothing like that.

What is known as a fact is that there's a common saying that came from the English-speaking world, which says:

"common sense is the least common of all senses".

No, in fact, the definition I presented, just states what "common sense" is, not how to establish any particular idea/belief as being common sense or not. It's "common sense" that "common sense" is that which is most commonly believed, and that the only test for what is in fact "common sense" is the greatest percentage of belief on any particular matter. And of course survey is the "ONLY" way one could ever know what particular belief, is in fact currently the most "common sense" as to any particular subject. If not, then name how one could know of such things in any other way.

To ask each and every individual on the planet would be the only way to truly know what common sense currently is, neither you nor I have done this, thus we must believe in the survey of others, our only other recourse. Yes/No?

I mean, would you rather you and I, just go round and round as to your and my rationalizations on the subject of ET's, or really get to the meat and potatoes of the subject, i.e. the most conclusive proof as to the actual "common sense" of the matter?

[Conde Lucanor]

No, in fact, the definition I presented, just states what "common sense" is, not how to establish any particular idea/belief as being common sense or not. It's "common sense" that "common sense" is that which is most commonly believed, and that the only test for what is in fact "common sense" is the greatest percentage of belief on any particular matter.

That's your stance and I obviously disagree with it. But beyond the disagreement that we may have on what common sense is, it's plain obvious that the dictionary definition that you brought has nothing to do with your own definition, which deserves respect, nevertheless.

And of course survey is the "ONLY" way one could ever know what particular belief, is in fact currently the most "common sense" as to any particular subject. If not, then name how one could know of such things in any other way.

I don't happen to be a big fan of surveys, but even if they were useful for the purposes that you describe, to find out what beliefs are more popular is completely irrelevant to the cause of defining what common sense is. If so, why doesn't your dictionary define it as "that which is more commonly believed" or so?

To ask each and every individual on the planet would be the only way to truly know what common sense currently is,

Disagree, for the same reasons explained above. But anyway, how do you know people answer surveys with what they truly believe?

I mean, would you rather you and I, just go round and round as to your and my rationalizations on the subject of ET's, or really get to the meat and potatoes of the subject, i.e. the most conclusive proof as to the actual "common sense" of the matter?

The UFO myth doesn't stand the rational analysis. It will always float around in a sphere of conjecture, of "could-be's" or "we-don't-know-yet's", to maintain its aura of mystery and feed the science fiction fantasies of many. It would be better if someone just tried to gather some decent material evidence.

[SpheresOfBalance]

No, in fact, the definition I presented, just states what "common sense" is, not how to establish any particular idea/belief as being common sense or not. It's "common sense" that "common sense" is that which is most commonly believed, and that the only test for what is in fact "common sense" is the greatest percentage of belief on any particular matter.

That's your stance and I obviously disagree with it. But beyond the disagreement that we may have on what common sense is, it's plain obvious that the dictionary definition that you brought has nothing to do with your own definition, which deserves respect, nevertheless.

And of course survey is the "ONLY" way one could ever know what particular belief, is in fact currently the most "common sense" as to any particular subject. If not, then name how one could know of such things in any other way.

I don't happen to be a big fan of surveys, but even if they were useful for the purposes that you describe, to find out what beliefs are more popular is completely irrelevant to the cause of defining what common sense is. If so, why doesn't your dictionary define it as "that which is more commonly believed" or so?

To ask each and every individual on the planet would be the only way to truly know what common sense currently is,

Disagree, for the same reasons explained above. But anyway, how do you know people answer surveys with what they truly believe?

I mean, would you rather you and I, just go round and round as to your and my rationalizations on the subject of ET's, or really get to the meat and potatoes of the subject, i.e. the most conclusive proof as to the actual "common sense" of the matter?

The UFO myth doesn't stand the rational analysis. It will always float around in a sphere of conjecture, of "could-be's" or "we-don't-know-yet's", to maintain its aura of mystery and feed the science fiction fantasies of many. It would be better if someone just tried to gather some decent material evidence.

What's funny is that while you have disagreed, you have not yet explained how anyone could come to terms with that which is common sense in this particular case, i.e., the possibility that ET's in fact exist.

Because in fact, you know that as to the definition, one would have to question everyone on planet earth, to get to the actual truth of the matter.

For the third time,...

... if not, tell me how one could accomplish this to include everyone, without trying to do the foolish thing of speaking for them, as if anyone accurately can, but themselves.

Common Sense:

"Good sense and sound judgment in practical matters" --© 2014 Oxford University Press--

"sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts" --© 2014 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated--

"sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence." --© Random House, Inc. 2014--

"plain ordinary good judgment; sound practical sense" --Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 ©--

"a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate." --2014 Wikipedia--

Such that anyone can clearly see that in the absence of the knowledge of the sense of nearly all people that the knowledge of the highest percentage, of all people, is surely more correct as to what is common, than a lower percentage; a logical imperative.

Sure anyone can try an split hairs as to meaning, as a means of subterfuge, but in fact common sense is any sense, that is in fact most common amongst people, that's in fact what it boils down to, need I say, period! I have noticed that many try an weave webs of complication as subterfuge in order to establish a falsehood, to what ends, surely some kind of control or self stroking mechanism, possibly both.

As no "one" person can dictate "common sense", as it is the sense that is most common. That is how I've always seen it, and shall continue to see it, as I bow down to no mans sense, only my own, which in this particular case, happens to be the most common, or so the people have spoken. That is in fact how I viewed your original statement as to "common sense."

Need I separate the two, citing the definitions of both, individually, as it is undeniably true that, that which is "common," is that which is more widespread.

[Conde Lucanor]

What's funny is that while you have disagreed, you have not yet explained how anyone could come to terms with that which is common sense in this particular case, i.e., the possibility that ET's in fact exist.

You keep forgetting the distinction between:
a) Extraterrestrial life, which could be, for example, just bacterial life.
b) Extraterrestrial humanoid, intelligent civilizations, never having contact with Earth.
c) UFOlogy, which encompasses "close encounters" of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth kind.

a) is still within common sense, although no evidence supports it yet. b) and c) are unreasonable, being c) absolutely ridiculous.

Because in fact, you know that as to the definition, one would have to question everyone on planet earth, to get to the actual truth of the matter...

if not, tell me how one could accomplish this to include everyone, without trying to do the foolish thing of speaking for them, as if anyone accurately can, but themselves.

I think the dictionary does a pretty decent job. I think you're confusing "common sense" with "common consent".

Sure anyone can try an split hairs as to meaning, as a means of subterfuge, but in fact common sense is any sense, that is in fact most common amongst people, that's in fact what it boils down to, need I say, period!

I still find it funny that after going through all the work of finding different definitions in dictionaries, ultimately you stick to the one definition that is not in your dictionaries, buy only in your own mind. Even the Wikipedia entry, which you seem to think works in your favour, doesn't. It does not talk about a belief shared by nearly all people, but about an ability. People can use their abilities or not and you can reasonably expect that they use them, but that's not necessarily the case of what usually happens, specially if they're everyday bombarded with the delusions of mass culture, aimed at making them ignorant and superstitious.

As no "one" person can dictate "common sense", as it is the sense that is most common. That is how I've always seen it, and shall continue to see it, as I bow down to no mans sense, only my own...which in this particular case, happens to be the most common,

I'm not sure if I'm getting it, but you're saying that no man can dictate what common sense is, except yourself. and just by mere chance, it happens to be what everyone else dictates...right?

[SpheresOfBalance]

What's funny is that while you have disagreed, you have not yet explained how anyone could come to terms with that which is common sense in this particular case, i.e., the possibility that ET's in fact exist.

You keep forgetting the distinction between:
a) Extraterrestrial life, which could be, for example, just bacterial life.
b) Extraterrestrial humanoid, intelligent civilizations, never having contact with Earth.
c) UFOlogy, which encompasses "close encounters" of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth kind.
So now you apparently believe yourself a mind reader, as I never said that, simply your projection, your assumption, presumption.

a) is still within common sense, although no evidence supports it yet. b) and c) are unreasonable, being c) absolutely ridiculous.
Why, because 'you' said so; omnipotent are you; visions of grandeur, do you see? And you are completely wrong as to c. as the dictionary says, and I so happen to agree in this case, that in fact:

"Ufology [yoo-fol-uh-jee]
noun
the study of unidentified flying objects."
That's it! They could be any number of things, including vehicles/probes from another planet. At least it's possible. Who's said anything about probability?

Because in fact, you know that as to the definition, one would have to question everyone on planet earth, to get to the actual truth of the matter...

if not, tell me how one could accomplish this to include everyone, without trying to do the foolish thing of speaking for them, as if anyone accurately can, but themselves.

I think the dictionary does a pretty decent job. I think you're confusing "common sense" with "common consent".
You're being evasive, as surely any fool can see that the dictionary does not tell one how to verify what is in fact considered common sense as to any particular subject. So what's the matter, you know that you can't do it? Is that it?

Sure anyone can try an split hairs as to meaning, as a means of subterfuge, but in fact common sense is any sense, that is in fact most common amongst people, that's in fact what it boils down to, need I say, period!

I still find it funny that after going through all the work of finding different definitions in dictionaries, ultimately you stick to the one definition that is not in your dictionaries, buy only in your own mind. Even the Wikipedia entry, which you seem to think works in your favour, doesn't. It does not talk about a belief shared by nearly all people, but about an ability. People can use their abilities or not and you can reasonably expect that they use them, but that's not necessarily the case of what usually happens, specially if they're everyday bombarded with the delusions of mass culture, aimed at making them ignorant and superstitious.
Strawman! I like your obsessive compulsiveness at believing you know how most people think, such that I may be starting to see a bit of either arrogance, elitism or megalomania. The fact that we are here, lends to the possibility that there are others. Again, arrogance to believe we are the only ones. I believe you fail to grasp the immensity of the "known" universe' let along the potential unknown universe.

As no "one" person can dictate "common sense", as it is the sense that is most common. That is how I've always seen it, and shall continue to see it, as I bow down to no mans sense, only my own...which in this particular case, happens to be the most common,

I'm not sure if I'm getting it, but you're saying that no man can dictate what common sense is, except yourself. and just by mere chance, it happens to be what everyone else dictates...right?
What are you talking about? Is this a language barrier problem? You sound as though you've flipped your lid; must be a language issue; I'll give you the benefit of doubt!
I said that a sense, that is common, is in fact the most widespread. What is in fact the common sense as to any particular subject, is not dictated by one, neither you, me, nor anyone else, rather that the populous at large does, which just happens, in this particular case, to agree with me. Just the luck of the draw. As I did not really know my side of the argument was in fact the most "common" "sense" as to this particular matter. Initially, I was playing the long shot, which seems to have paid off. More people see it my way than your way, which is in fact the definition of common.

What you are seemingly saying is that: "the majority does not agree with me, I don't like that, because I'm right, so everyone else is wrong, so they must not know how to think, as obviously only I do." And that's pretty scary, have you seen a psychologist/psychiatrist? If you really believe this then I think you surely should.

[Conde Lucanor]

What's funny is that while you have disagreed, you have not yet explained how anyone could come to terms with that which is common sense in this particular case, i.e., the possibility that ET's in fact exist.

You keep forgetting the distinction between:
a) Extraterrestrial life, which could be, for example, just bacterial life.
b) Extraterrestrial humanoid, intelligent civilizations, never having contact with Earth.
c) UFOlogy, which encompasses "close encounters" of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth kind.

So now you apparently believe yourself a mind reader, as I never said that, simply your projection, your assumption, presumption.

I never said you had said that. I'm pointing to the fact that you keep using the term "ET's" vaguely, so I'm showing you a list of possibilities (all of which can fit under that ambiguous umbrella), which not necessarily depart from common sense at the same level. Let's be reminded of my initial sentence: "UFOlogy defies common sense". The title of the thread is "UFOs in a an age of cellphones". Whereas you can always have the right to claim that UFO's cannot be understood as anything else but what the acronym intends, UFOlogy (etymologically, "science of UFO's"), does imply an established culture, a set of ideas, practices, a movement which comprises much more than just lights in the sky. You just have to see what UFOlogists "research" to realize that they don't just talk about lights in the sky. Von Daniken goes so far as to mess with archaeology.

a) is still within common sense, although no evidence supports it yet. b) and c) are unreasonable, being c) absolutely ridiculous.

Why, because 'you' said so; omnipotent are you; visions of grandeur, do you see? And you are completely wrong as to c. as the dictionary says, and I so happen to agree in this case, that in fact:

"Ufology [yoo-fol-uh-jee]
noun
the study of unidentified flying objects."
That's it! They could be any number of things, including vehicles/probes from another planet. At least it's possible. Who's said anything about probability?

Well, no. That's a ridiculous idea. Vehicles from another planet? Oh, yes, of course, you omnipotent being, your visions of grandeur assure you that highly technological civilizations just grow up like mold everywhere. You have absolutely no evidence to support that idea, you cannot explain how it can happen, but you just happen to know that is possible.

You're being evasive, as surely any fool can see that the dictionary does not tell one how to verify what is in fact considered common sense as to any particular subject. So what's the matter, you know that you can't do it? Is that it?

Actually it's not being evasive. It's just that you are confused, really messed up with your dictionary definitions. Of course that a dictionary will no tell you how to verify something, that's not what dictionaries do. But you're the one who brought the dictionary, not me. I agree you have to go further and deeper to define concepts properly, that's one of the tasks of philosophy, isn't it? But surveys are not that much valuable to philosophical discussion, although you seem to think it is.

Sure anyone can try an split hairs as to meaning, as a means of subterfuge, but in fact common sense is any sense, that is in fact most common amongst people, that's in fact what it boils down to, need I say, period!

Because you said so, oh, ommipotent you!!

Strawman! I like your obsessive compulsiveness at believing you know how most people think, such that I may be starting to see a bit of either arrogance, elitism or megalomania.

No wonder that you like it, because if there's someone who's been consistently claiming how most people think, well...that's you. I have never claimed to know what most people think, I just made the distinction that it really doesn't matter what most people believe to define what is common sense, and what is not. Remember, you are the one waving statistics, not me.

The fact that we are here, lends to the possibility that there are others.

No, it's not. That's poor reasoning. The fact that we are here just means that we are here, unless you give supporting evidence that the contingent processes of life on Earth can be replicated exactly the same somewhere else. What happens is that you have a very simplistic idea of the evolution of life on Earth, so you just think it can be replicated everywhere just that easily.

Again, arrogance to believe we are the only ones. I believe you fail to grasp the immensity of the "known" universe' let along the potential unknown universe.

Well, actually I have not seen a debate about UFO's and SETI where that ad hominem statement doesn't come to the surface. I always thought that it's just the opposite: human arrogance is behind the anthropocentric view of the universe: we are so important and necessary that the universe must be filled with people like us.

As no "one" person can dictate "common sense", as it is the sense that is most common. That is how I've always seen it, and shall continue to see it, as I bow down to no mans sense, only my own...which in this particular case, happens to be the most common,

I'm not sure if I'm getting it, but you're saying that no man can dictate what common sense is, except yourself. and just by mere chance, it happens to be what everyone else dictates...right?

What are you talking about? Is this a language barrier problem? You sound as though you've flipped your lid; must be a language issue; I'll give you the benefit of doubt!

You said that you "bow down to no mans sense, only my own". But you also said that "no one person can dictate common sense". It seems like you have double standards for the issue of "visions of grandeur". Sure, maybe is a language issue, your language issue.

What you are seemingly saying is that: "the majority does not agree with me, I don't like that, because I'm right, so everyone else is wrong, so they must not know how to think, as obviously only I do."

I didn't ever make a statement about the majority agreeing or disagreeing with me. The only one caring about what is a majority or a minority has been you. I only said that having a majority against me or by my side, does not determine whether I'm right or wrong, neither what common sense is or is not. I don't have to know how many people believe in god to make up my own mind about the subject.

[Arising_uk]

I increasingly find the reports credible, but my theory is that they are future humans time traveling back to observe the period when we started to fuck up in some really major ways. They seem more than casually interested in nuclear weapons for instance.

Who would be more interested in us than future humans? I'm puzzled that this theory is rarely considered, and aliens are always assumed instead.

All we need to assume is that time travel is learned at any point in the future, and future humans then become a credible theory. Well, as credible as anything is within the UFO realm.

Why would they need to fly back here?

[Hjarloprillar]

I know the answer to this one, the reason there is no cellphone UFO evidence, is because no one is looking up anymore, because they have their heads buried in their cellphone LCD screens, texting friends on their social network; look up and miss something really important, are you kidding me.

Funny and sadly true.

agree
and ;the sheep look up; the pretty points of light.
What and where they are is beyond their minds. so they fall back to texting crap to other sheep.

i have no landline and my mobile is a big motorola slide out kb watch . and has not been 'connected' for years

prill
--------------------------

im sad at this but there is hope. at a party about 6or 7 years back i was talking with guy who occasionally looked up.
Once he realised i was not 'being smart' but was a walking explanation machine he went into learning mode. what are stars, how far are they and so on.
An hour later 10 people were ganking me. then one guy said 'what is a black hole?
' i have no idea i said.. i can describe some effects of one but we here on earth have no real understanding.
like amazon indian asking what is formula 1 monaco . i get told and i work from there . does the native really explain in imagination f1 monaco.
do you or i explain in imagination the titan singularity. eater of suns.
You and i friend through life in 1st world understand F1 monaco ..life means entire life.

sadly the majority of youth today find themselves in this horrible machine.they retreat to texting crap. Would die fast in amazon. i can sympathize but not empathise.
the loss of potential is mind boggling.

prill

Aliens? Ufo's..believe as you will. my agreement or not is of no import.
i could lay out huge panoply of if's and could be;s.
yes some evidence on film and group testimony have weight.
What i know is that if ufo landed in my backyard and alien said . 'come'
i would go in a heartbeat.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance: What's funny is that while you have disagreed, you have not yet explained how anyone could come to terms with that which is common sense in this particular case, i.e., the possibility that ET's in fact exist.

Conde Lucanor: You keep forgetting the distinction between:
a) Extraterrestrial life, which could be, for example, just bacterial life.
b) Extraterrestrial humanoid, intelligent civilizations, never having contact with Earth.
c) UFOlogy, which encompasses "close encounters" of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth kind.

SpheresOfBalance: So now you apparently believe yourself a mind reader, as I never said that, simply your projection, your assumption, presumption.

Conde Lucanor: I never said you had said that.

SpheresOfBalance: Incorrect!! You said, and I quote, "You keep forgetting," an assumption, a projection of you, onto me. Within those words, you speak as if you can probably know me, thus speaking for me, or that I have “said”/inferred as much, which you can't necessarily do, and in this particular case, you failed to do. In addition those words infer that as to those distinctions, I'm either ignorant or absent minded of them. Though there can be quite a few more inferences gleaned from my usage of ET, thus simply an ignorance, failure, stubbornness or fear of yours, so as to not be capable of ascertaining all the possibilities. You, like many, have presumed to know, then charged me with your assumptions. You would rather play the mystical mind reader, than to simply ask me why I've chosen to speak as I have. A very common method indeed that speaks more of ones desire to dictate their beliefs, potentially born of fear, especially in this case, than it does their desire to find the truth of the matter.

May I please remind you: Socrates, 'I only know that I know nothing.'

Conde Lucanor: I'm pointing to the fact that you keep using the term "ET's" vaguely, so I'm showing you a list of possibilities (all of which can fit under that ambiguous umbrella), which not necessarily depart from common sense at the same level. Let's be reminded of my initial sentence:
"UFOlogy defies common sense".

SpheresOfBalance: Which in fact is completely wrong. As Ufology only contains the 'study of unidentified flying objects,' in it's meaning, i.e., there appears to be objects, that are flying, that have as yet to be identified. And it is completely common sense, that some study them, so to be finally identified. You tell me, where the lack of common sense is, that one should embrace ufology, so as to identify the cause of these occurrences. Considering the above, it’s absolutely true, that your initial comment was completely wrong, right from the start, not thought out very well. Probably due to your obvious lack of understanding of some English definitions; keep trying you’ll get there.

Conde Lucanor: The title of the thread is "UFOs in a an age of cellphones". Whereas you can always have the right to claim that UFO's cannot be understood as anything else but what the acronym intends, UFOlogy (etymologically, "science of UFO's"), does imply an established culture, a set of ideas, practices,

SpheresOfBalance: Then why didn’t you elaborate more in your initial statement, so as to be less ambiguous, something you accuse me of? Why not try practicing what you preach?

Conde Lucanor: a movement which comprises much more than just lights in the sky.
SpheresOfBalance: Yet who can say that they can only be lights?

Conde Lucanor: You just have to see what UFOlogists "research" to realize that they don't just talk about lights in the sky.

SpheresOfBalance: Obviously then, it cannot be said that they are simply Ufologists, can it?

Conde Lucanor: Von Daniken goes so far as to mess with archaeology.

SpheresOfBalance: A reasonable possibility to explore, so as to leave no stone unturned, no? (Pun intended!)

Who cares what anyone's measures are, as long as questions are ever asked? Who decides to close the book; prematurely? In this universe, of ever dimension, like ones mind, born of it, ever open, expanding, surely the truth shall come when the animal, no longer is capable, of asking questions, as the universe surely, eventually provides!

I'm terribly sorry, please excuse me but: Socrates, 'I only know that I know nothing.'

================================================================
Conde Lucanor: a) is still within common sense, although no evidence supports it yet.

SpheresOfBalance: That you’re aware of.

Conde Lucanor: b) and c) are unreasonable, being c) absolutely ridiculous.[/quote]

SpheresOfBalance: Why, because 'you' said so; omnipotent are you; visions of grandeur, do you see? And you are completely wrong as to c. as the dictionary says, and I so happen to agree in this case, that in fact:

"Ufology [yoo-fol-uh-jee]
noun
the study of unidentified flying objects."
That's it! They could be any number of things, including vehicles/probes from another planet. At least it's possible. Who's said anything about probability?

Conde Lucanor: Well, no. That's a ridiculous idea. Vehicles from another planet? Oh, yes, of course, you omnipotent being, your visions of grandeur assure you that highly technological civilizations just grow up like mold everywhere. You have absolutely no evidence to support that idea, you cannot explain how it can happen, but you just happen to know that is possible.

SpheresOfBalance: Or so you've just said! Which is why I think you approach megalomania, as that was absurd. Yet you can only infer that which, that which is contained in your own mind, allows you to, if you indeed claim that limits me, yet I beg to differ, rather it all depends on ones knowledge of psychology. One has to understand ones approach. Why am I being vague, that is indeed the question, on your mind. That which you happily fill in, with your projection of self, in my blanks that I have yet to expound, just like a fool that has shown his ass to those in the know, on this forum. I hope you’re not one of them. I had initially given you the benefit of doubt, that you are not.

I'm sorry, this seems to becoming a habit: Socrates: 'I only know that I know nothing.'

================================================================
SpheresOfBalance: You're being evasive, as surely any fool can see that the dictionary does not tell one how to verify what is in fact considered common sense as to any particular subject. So what's the matter, you know that you can't do it? Is that it?

Conde Lucanor: Actually it's not being evasive. It's just that you are confused, really messed up with your dictionary definitions.

SpheresOfBalance: Incorrect!

Conde Lucanor: Of course that a dictionary will no tell you how to verify something, that's not what dictionaries do. But you're the one who brought the dictionary, not me.

SpheresOfBalance: Yes I did, because you tried to define it your way, and I was just trying to show you the way I see it, which just happens to be the way that dictionary sees it.

Conde Lucanor: I agree you have to go further and deeper to define concepts properly,

SpheresOfBalance: You seem to be confused, there is a big difference between defining a concept, and showing how it applies, can be obtained, can be tested, can be proven, etc. The concept of Common Sense is exactly as those dictionaries defined it. It is not within their scope to then explain how one is to compute/calculate, which particular bit of sense, is in fact common. You have attempted to “dictate,” what is, in fact, commonsensical, as it pertains to the possibility of ET’s, while I have not. I’m saying that the very essence of common sense precludes any ‘one’ entity dictating it’s contents/value/composition. That in fact common sense is that sense that is in fact the most common, i.e., shared by the largest group of people. That is in fact what is meant by “common.” Look up “common” if you don’t believe me. So how can one then find the answer as to that which is the most commonsensical, as it pertains to anything? And the only answer is, “A COMPLETE SURVEY, WHERE ‘EVERYONE’ IS ASKED.” But today that’s impractical isn’t it, maybe a small tribe/town or city, but the whole of the world, good luck, you’ll be at it for quite some time. Remember that ‘practical’ is contained within its definition. So the only recourse anyone has as to ascertain the contents of “common sense” as it pertains to the existence of ET’s, is to look to surveys, which at least gives you some idea as to probability, in the absence of a “COMPLETE SURVEY, WHERE ‘EVERYONE’ IS ASKED. It’s the only way to come to terms with the answer as to the common sense of anything.

Conde Lucanor: that's one of the tasks of philosophy, isn't it?

SpheresOfBalance: Not as far as common sense goes, no! As at least to me it’s obvious that as to ability it’s the saturation of knowledge amongst the populous, pure and simple. An example: long ago it was in FACT “common sense” that the world was flat. You could ask anyone of that time, and most would say “flat.” However today, the “common sense” as to the worlds shape is spheroid. So what changed? The saturation of knowledge as it reaches the majority of the masses, that’s what changed, pure and simple.

Conde Lucanor: But surveys are not that much valuable to philosophical discussion, although you seem to think it is.

SpheresOfBalance: Not at all! Rather that’s all we’ve got, else you and I go back and forth throwing straw men at one another, pretty non productive, wouldn’t you say? It’s probably true that no one can ‘know’ if there are ET’s or not, yet no one can know for certain, as someone may know. Mans understanding of possibility and probability, doesn’t ‘necessarily’ speak of any sort of truth, rather only what he can believe, that his computational skills are potentially capable of uncovering truth.
================================================================
SpheresOfBalance: Sure anyone can try an split hairs as to meaning, as a means of subterfuge, but in fact common sense is any sense, that is in fact most common amongst people, that's in fact what it boils down to, need I say, period!

Conde Lucanor: Because you said so, oh, ommipotent you!!

SpheresOfBalance: "TELL ME HOW ONE CAN KNOW WHICH PARTICULAR BIT OF, BELIEVED TO BE, KNOWLEDGE, IS COMMON SENSE AND WHICH IS NOT!" What? Your magical mind-reading ring of confidants? Do you hear voices in your head? Are you schizoid? A (complete)survey of the people is only that which can be used to find the truth as to what is in fact common sense. You dictator you! Are you sure you're not from Cuba? OK, that was uncalled for, as if all Cubans are would be dictators. Yet you whom are guilty know of exactly whom I'm speaking. Really it has nothing to do with culture, only ever crazy individuals, that would try and dictate ones thinking, trying to dictate which of any particular bit, believed to be knowledge, is or is not common sense.
================================================================
SpheresOfBalance: Strawman! I like your obsessive compulsiveness at believing you know how most people think, such that I may be starting to see a bit of either arrogance, elitism or megalomania.

Conde Lucanor: No wonder that you like it, because if there's someone who's been consistently claiming how most people think, well...that's you.

SpheresOfBalance: No not at all, I’ve simply only ever stated what ones words convey, not what one thinks. Unless one assumes that what one says is in fact an accurate representation of what’s in their mind. In other words I only ever judge ones words, as what else can I do?

Conde Lucanor: I have never claimed to know what most people think, I just made the distinction that it really doesn't matter what most people believe to define what is common sense, and what is not.

SpheresOfBalance: Bullshit, as that is what the dictionary says, let us be clear as to what common sense is. It is the sense that is most common. Look up common, please. OK, I'll do it for you, here are the first five definitions:

com·mon [kom-uhn]
adjective, com·mon·er, com·mon·est.
1. belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question: common property; common interests.
2. pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community, nation, or culture; public: a common language or history; a common water-supply system.
3. joint; united: a common defense.
4. widespread; general; ordinary: common knowledge.
5. of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar: a common event; a common mistake.

Conde Lucanor: Remember, you are the one waving statistics, not me.

SpheresOfBalance: Exactly, meaning while mine is based upon some facts, though arguably potentially containing some margin of error, yours is simply your opinion, that you project upon others.
================================================================
SpheresOfBalance: The fact that we are here, lends to the possibility that there are others.

Conde Lucanor: No, it's not. That's poor reasoning.

SpheresOfBalance: Not at all!

Conde Lucanor: The fact that we are here just means that we are here,

SpheresOfBalance: No, it means that the universe is such that it can cause life to exist as it has here on earth.

Conde Lucanor: unless you give supporting evidence that the contingent processes of life on Earth can be replicated exactly the same somewhere else.

SpheresOfBalance: Rather this is your ‘assumption,’ that it can only be that way. Why? Because that’s the only way you know? What’s that got to do with it? Can you say, “Anthropomorphize?”

Conde Lucanor: What happens is that you have a very simplistic idea of the evolution of life on Earth,

SpheresOfBalance: There you go reading my mind again! Tell me, what am I thinking right now?

Conde Lucanor: so you just think it can be replicated everywhere just that easily.

SpheresOfBalance: Life, yes! This way, not necessarily! And who said it was easy, for the universe, yes, for us no! You mind reader, you! Can you say Billions of years?
================================================================
SpheresOfBalance: Again, arrogance to believe we are the only ones. I believe you fail to grasp the immensity of the "known" universe' let along the potential unknown universe.

Conde Lucanor: Well, actually I have not seen a debate about UFO's and SETI where that ad hominem statement doesn't come to the surface.

SpheresOfBalance: Not necessarily ad hominem, as in this case I speak of everyone whom it applies to, not necessarily you.

Conde Lucanor: I always thought that it's just the opposite: human arrogance is behind the anthropocentric view of the universe: we are so important and necessary that the universe must be filled with people like us.

SpheresOfBalance: Yet you are the one that is anthropomorphizing ET’s, not I. I do not necessarily believe they are anything like us. Crap for that matter the actual UFO’s, that have not been staged, as so much special camera effects, could in fact be ET’s themselves, as far as I’m concerned.
================================================================
SpheresOfBalance:As no "one" person can dictate "common sense", as it is the sense that is most common. That is how I've always seen it, and shall continue to see it, as I bow down to no mans sense, only my own...which in this particular case, happens to be the most common,

Conde Lucanor: I'm not sure if I'm getting it, but you're saying that no man can dictate what common sense is, except yourself. and just by mere chance, it happens to be what everyone else dictates...right?

SpheresOfBalance: What are you talking about? Is this a language barrier problem? You sound as though you've flipped your lid; must be a language issue; I'll give you the benefit of doubt!

Conde Lucanor: You said that you "bow down to no mans sense, only my own". But you also said that "no one person can dictate common sense".

SpheresOfBalance: While reading one must always keep context in mind or they get lost, as in this case.

Conde Lucanor: It seems like you have double standards for the issue of "visions of grandeur".

SpheresOfBalance: Good thing you used “seems,” as it makes your statement correct, as you only think I meant that, I have no double standards.

Conde Lucanor: Sure, maybe is a language issue, your language issue.

SpheresOfBalance: Concerned with blame, are you? Both are equally responsible, when one holds another responsible for conclusions drawn. All that matters is that ambiguity is eventually diminished, that people understand one another, no?
================================================================
SpheresOfBalance: What you are seemingly saying is that: "the majority does not agree with me, I don't like that, because I'm right, so everyone else is wrong, so they must not know how to think, as obviously only I do."

Conde Lucanor: I didn't ever make a statement about the majority agreeing or disagreeing with me.

SpheresOfBalance: Oh but you did, when you tried to dictate what the common sense is in this particular matter.

Conde Lucanor: The only one caring about what is a majority or a minority has been you.

SpheresOfBalance: Exactly, only I have been concerned with the actual common sense of the matter, not my own projection, as you have demonstrated.

Conde Lucanor: I only said that having a majority against me or by my side, does not determine whether I'm right or wrong,

SpheresOfBalance: Incorrect, when speaking of what is or is not common.

Conde Lucanor: neither what common sense is or is not.

SpheresOfBalance: Yet it’s required in this case.

Conde Lucanor: I don't have to know how many people believe in god to make up my own mind about the subject.

SpheresOfBalance: I never said you did. Yet, that there is a god seems to still be the common sense of it.
================================================================
SpheresOfBalance: You my friend are the one coming to the table, with decisions as to the truth of the ET matter, not I. As I my friend, only ever come to the table at mans leading edge of discovery, with questions, ever questions. To try and inject ones particular hypothesis, whether it be shared or not, at the leading edge, is like flipping a coin, purely conjecture, possibly an ego trip, but certainly a fools game! You have used, some of which, is the current, accepted by some, believed to be correct assumptions, or in other words the current construct of the knowledge query, or framework of current knowledge, to come to decisions that are not yet ascertainable. What you fail to realize in your arrogance, is that your current knowledge is limited at being capable of answering the questions being posed. Instead you inject your own bias, probably fear based!

When it comes to god, I’m agnostic, as I know that no man probably currently knows with certainty whether one exists or not. Oh they can try and reason through it, but the complexity of that reasoning almost always contains more self serving bias than most are actually privy. And the same holds true as to whether or not ET’s exist. I’m on the fence, but always hopeful that a definitive solution, shall eventually come.

One more thing: "Common Sense" is synonymous with "Common Knowledge." They are one in the same thing. It matters not if the knowledge be necessarily true knowledge, or simply belief, or the way in which it trickles down throughout the populous.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I know the answer to this one, the reason there is no cellphone UFO evidence, is because no one is looking up anymore, because they have their heads buried in their cellphone LCD screens, texting friends on their social network; look up and miss something really important, are you kidding me.

Funny and sadly true.

agree
and ;the sheep look up; the pretty points of light.
What and where they are is beyond their minds. so they fall back to texting crap to other sheep.

i have no landline and my mobile is a big motorola slide out kb watch . and has not been 'connected' for years

prill
--------------------------

im sad at this but there is hope. at a party about 6or 7 years back i was talking with guy who occasionally looked up.
Once he realised i was not 'being smart' but was a walking explanation machine he went into learning mode. what are stars, how far are they and so on.
An hour later 10 people were ganking me. then one guy said 'what is a black hole?
' i have no idea i said.. i can describe some effects of one but we here on earth have no real understanding.
like amazon indian asking what is formula 1 monaco . i get told and i work from there . does the native really explain in imagination f1 monaco.
do you or i explain in imagination the titan singularity. eater of suns.
You and i friend through life in 1st world understand F1 monaco ..life means entire life.

sadly the majority of youth today find themselves in this horrible machine.they retreat to texting crap. Would die fast in amazon. i can sympathize but not empathise.
the loss of potential is mind boggling.

prill

Aliens? Ufo's..believe as you will. my agreement or not is of no import.
i could lay out huge panoply of if's and could be;s.
yes some evidence on film and group testimony have weight.
What i know is that if ufo landed in my backyard and alien said . 'come'
i would go in a heartbeat.

Yes a generation trapped in time, no necessary understanding of where they came from, are going to, or if it be contrived for only some's sake, or not. When one can only experience a portion of mans total experience, can anything be really fully understood? Trapped in a box of a particular portion of evolutionary change, blinders? One must dig deep, well beyond LCD screens.

[Conde Lucanor]

Incorrect!! You said, and I quote, "You keep forgetting," an assumption, a projection of you, onto me. Within those words, you speak as if you can probably know me, thus speaking for me, or that I have “said”/inferred as much, which you can't necessarily do, and in this particular case, you failed to do.

We had discussed earlier about more precise implications of the term "ET", which should have been enough to acknowledge that each one would take us to a different debate, but you came back to use the term vaguely, so that's why you "keep forgetting". No projections, no assumptions, no mind reading, just the obvious conclusion obtained from you arguments.

Which in fact is completely wrong. As Ufology only contains the 'study of unidentified flying objects,' in it's meaning, i.e., there appears to be objects, that are flying, that have as yet to be identified. And it is completely common sense, that some study them, so to be finally identified.

It's so obvious that you have not been familiar with UFOlogy literature, the key claims of UFOlogists, etc., so I won't argue much about it. I just will recommend that you get to know the subject a little more, get acquainted with Von Daniken's theories about aliens passing on information to ancient civilizations (supposedly, their astronomical knowledge, building skills and iconographic representations are to be credited to extraterrestrial visitors). In fact, a big part of UFOlogy is about attributing an extraterrestrial origin to almost everything on Earth. If pancakes are round, it's most likely because of some secret cultural code shared with alien visitors.

You tell me, where the lack of common sense is, that one should embrace ufology, so as to identify the cause of these occurrences. Considering the above, it’s absolutely true, that your initial comment was completely wrong, right from the start, not thought out very well. Probably due to your obvious lack of understanding of some English definitions; keep trying you’ll get there.

We weigh common sense in the actual study of a subject, its approach and conclusions, not in the intentions of studying the subject. It's OK to study the hypothetical influence of the stars on people's behavior, but that does not mean Astrology does not clash with common sense. The same with UFOlogy.

Von Daniken goes so far as to mess with archaeology.

A reasonable possibility to explore, so as to leave no stone unturned, no? (Pun intended!)

Who cares what anyone's measures are, as long as questions are ever asked? Who decides to close the book; prematurely? In this universe, of ever dimension, like ones mind, born of it, ever open, expanding, surely the truth shall come when the animal, no longer is capable, of asking questions, as the universe surely, eventually provides!

Well, sure, you are always entitled to such poetic licenses, but actually the universe does not speak. For people to explore possibilities, that's OK, but to come up with ridiculous theories based on poor research (if any) and even poorer reasoning, then we are entering domains that share borders with superstition and plain ignorance.

The concept of Common Sense is exactly as those dictionaries defined it.

And yet you keep using a defintion of your own, not found in the dictionary definitions that you pulled out.

You have attempted to “dictate,” what is, in fact, commonsensical, as it pertains to the possibility of ET’s,

And there you go again, moving the discussion around the subject of "ET's", as a general, vague term, despite the fact that the argument being weighed is my statement: "UFOlogy defies common sense". I didn't say "ET's defy common sense" because I'm perfectly aware that the term can imply several things. To abandon any ambiguities, I proceeded in several instances to make distinctions between UFO's, SETI, basic forms of alien life, complex forms of alien life, etc., and specified different grades of common sense between them. You can, of course, keep conveniently ignoring those statements and come back to talk vaguely about "ET's", since stepping out of that comfortable zone will place your arguments in the big trouble zone.

That in fact common sense is that sense that is in fact the most common, i.e., shared by the largest group of people. That is in fact what is meant by “common.” Look up “common” if you don’t believe me.

A sense of taste is shared by humans, and yet not all people applies this natural feature the same way and with the same results, because of cultural influences. As I explained before, common sense, even though a innate feature, only takes shape in a cultural context (experience), where the development of knowledge (education) plays a key role. For ancient stone age hunters, ignorant of basic laws of the universe, it was within common sense to think that lightning was caused by divine forces from an invisible dimension. What made it commonsensical was not how many people believed it, but that it was a reasonable explanation in proportion to the knowledge tools available. But it is not anymore within common sense to 21st century urban population, with education and enough access to knowledge tools as to know which are the real causes of lightning. Sure enough, people from anywhere can choose to ignore the fundamental pillars of knowledge of our time and wander around obscurantism and superstition. They can do so, against common sense.

Not as far as common sense goes, no! As at least to me it’s obvious that as to ability it’s the saturation of knowledge amongst the populous, pure and simple. An example: long ago it was in FACT “common sense” that the world was flat. You could ask anyone of that time, and most would say “flat.” However today, the “common sense” as to the worlds shape is spheroid. So what changed? The saturation of knowledge as it reaches the majority of the masses, that’s what changed, pure and simple.

Actually, the flat Earth myth is a good example of why common sense has less to do with statistics and more with what is reasonable expected. It turns out the Earth's roundness was known by educated cirlces in many societies since early centuries. From their perspective, it was what common sense dictated, regardless of what the rest of their fellow citizens believed (although I cannot tell whether it was something different). It can be argued that this would be a specialized form of knowledge, therefore not agreeing with one of the dictionary definitions of common sense, but it's obvious that sound practical judgement does not exclude judgement about truth propositions of any kind, so once those propositions and their rationalizations are out there, they have become available to non-specialists as general knowledge. For the same reason, no matter if someone convinced the majority of people with basic education in today's world (and it came out in a survey) that the Earth is flat, it wouldn't make all of the sudden the idea to be common sense. And yet you will stand by it as being commonsensical, even if it didn't fit your particular knowledge of the subject.

TELL ME HOW ONE CAN KNOW WHICH PARTICULAR BIT OF, BELIEVED TO BE, KNOWLEDGE, IS COMMON SENSE AND WHICH IS NOT!" What? Your magical mind-reading ring of confidants? Do you hear voices in your head? Are you schizoid?

Certainly not statistics, since common sense has nothing to do with what the majority believes. As what is "commonly shared", it applies to the innate human features of reasoning, but also to the paradigms of science and logic reasoning, not necessarily in their specialized form. For example, since I'm aware of the existence of gravity, and not having evidence of "telekinetic" forces, I can propose that objects levitating by the influence of someone's mind is an idea lacking common sense. Those who do believe it might be in the ring of confidants of magical mind-readers, schizoids, and so on.

let us be clear as to what common sense is. It is the sense that is most common. Look up common, please. OK, I'll do it for you, here are the first five definitions:

com·mon [kom-uhn]
adjective, com·mon·er, com·mon·est.
1. belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question: common property; common interests.
2. pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community, nation, or culture; public: a common language or history; a common water-supply system.
3. joint; united: a common defense.
4. widespread; general; ordinary: common knowledge.
5. of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar: a common event; a common mistake.

Not happy with your ambiguities and generalizations, you now resort to an even more general category. Anyway, interesting to note those meanings of the word which describe groups of "two or more", "frequent", etc., do not necessarily denote a majority. On the other hand, "an entire community, nation, or culture" and "all in question", denote a complete, indivisible unit, which leaves outside any statistical separation of majority and minority.

Remember, you are the one waving statistics, not me.

Exactly, meaning while mine is based upon some facts, though arguably potentially containing some margin of error, yours is simply your opinion, that you project upon others.

It might come to a surprise to you, but statistics are far from being synonym of "facts". I will go even further and will say that is one of the poorest methods of defining what facts are. Data is never neutral, there's always some type of bias introduced (on purpose or not) by the researcher, unarguably shaped by his/her own opinions. And that's why it is always possible (and quite usual, actually) to design surveys to match the results the researcher intended. And even if surveys outlined any facts, I don't think the fact of the existence of people's opinion carries more weight than the fact of existence of any particular opinion, including yours or my own.

The fact that we are here just means that we are here,

No, it means that the universe is such that it can cause life to exist as it has here on earth.

That's just a simple speculation of yours, with no empirical basis and unsupported by sound reasoning. All we know is that life had an origin here on Earth, and since then we have a history of living nature. But your belief comes from the assumption that this was a linear, telelogical history of nature, which cannot help but go from unicellular organisms to mammals and hominids. Your speculation keeps going and you claim that maybe the process is replicated in another way, but you don't offer any description and explanation of those alternatives. It seems like you just wish they existed.

Yet you are the one that is anthropomorphizing ET’s, not I.

The concept itself of civilization is anthropocentric, because human civilization is the only one ever seen. And the UFO myth, as well as some versions of SETI, cannot stand in their feet without the anthropocentric view of aliens, regarded as highly civilized, highly technological, social animals. So one thing leads to another.

[uwot]

I'm sure I've said this before, possibly even in this thread, that the best take on common sense is Descartes'. As he says at the beginning of the Discourse on Method:
"Common sense is the most evenly shared thing in the world, for each of us thinks he is so well endowed with it that even those who are hardest to please in all other respects are not in the habit of wanting more than they have."
Common sense is frequently common to one person only.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm sure I've said this before, possibly even in this thread, that the best take on common sense is Descartes'. As he says at the beginning of the Discourse on Method:
"Common sense is the most evenly shared thing in the world, for each of us thinks he is so well endowed with it that even those who are hardest to please in all other respects are not in the habit of wanting more than they have."
Common sense is frequently common to one person only.

Well I see that "Common Sense" is simply the sense that is most common, which does not necessarily speak of truth, though it can, or not. Why does everyone seem to believe that to attest what is common sense, necessarily insists, that it's absolutely true? To say what particular bit of knowledge is common sense, largely says what goes without saying, in that, that particular bit of knowledge has reached mass saturation, to such a point, that it is the belief, that is in the majority. So surveys can be of help in knowing what is in fact "common sense," at any particular time, which can change throughout time. It matters not that some in the minority disagree, as their belief is simply not as "common," pure and simple.

There is no necessary truth value, contained in "common sense." Though of course, it's always preferable that there is.