Avi Loeb does not deserve the hate he receives

Post Reply New Topic

Nice try. If you bothered to watch the ted talk I uploaded he is responding to his detractors (infact his target audience probably was intended to include you, funeralempire and naturalplastic). the recent nature of the tedtalk means he is engaging in scientific debate and this is his latest response. therefore I am not duplicating anything.

Looked at this just now.

Looks like ʻOumuamua was too small to have been seen well enough, by the telescopes that looked at it, for anyone to draw any definitive conclusions about it. Scientists aren't even sure what its general geometric shape was. They know it was very non-spherical, but they don't know for sure whether it was oblate (closer to a disk shape) or prolate (closer to a cigar shape). Nor are they sure of its chemical composition.

So I don't see how ʻOumuamua can be taken as evidence of much of anything at all, much less evidence of extraterrestrial technology.

I do agree with Avi Loeb that "extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary funding," and that we shouldn't expect evidence of extra-terrestrial civilizations, if indeed there are any, to just drop into our laps. I agree with him that the search for possible evidence of alien technology shouldn't be limited to SETI-style search for radio signals.

But I also think Loeb is too quick to speculate about hypothetical alien tech explanations of things for which either (1) other explanations are more likely or (2) there just isn't enough evidence to conclude anything at all.

I think Loeb has been very careful with his language. He does not state Oumuamua is evidence of extraterrestrial tech. He is saying that option should not be ignored. He has also been careful not to draw on Drake equation probability algorithms to give a specific probability of the likelihood of it's possible artificial origin. My own take is while the probability is still low, the current scientific consensus can't adequately explain this phenomena.

From an ontological perspective he has been criticised for drawing on a concept to generate a hypothesis that is unable to be proved, namely, that advanced alien life could exist. the irony, is the argument completely ignores logic. the fact is we (humans) evolved and exist. We are a life form now capable of and on the cusp of long range space travel. therefore our existence in the space time continuum and the unlimited volume of earth like planets in the known universe plus the antiquity of the universe prior to earth means there is a high likelihood for life forms to have evolved in other parts of the universe who are older than humans and more advanced. A number of mathematical models beyond the now famous Drake equation actually predict there being an infinitesimally low probability we are the only advanced life form in the universe.

Secondly Loeb has infact been very conservative. He is taking the most conservative view possible: that in the history of the universe perhaps advanced life has arisen only a few times. third, there is no evidence they are flying around over our heads. this is perhaps the argument most commonly aimed at Avi Loeb. But he had an answer. A civilisation may have arisen, perhaps even billions of years ago, they entered space (like us), but perhaps collapsed due to some sought of cataclysm or inability to survive. the ancient remnant's of that civilisation might have been left in space. Floating through the universe. Over time, relics from that civilisation would eventually over millions/billions of years make it to our solar system. therefore it nullifies the argument that aliens could not travel the vast distances of space (which in itself is an ignorant argument) as he does not require this to be a pre-requisite for Oumuamua to be of alien origin.

According to the rules of the scientific method, if known paradigms do not satisfactorily explain a phenomena, you can draw on other explanations and seek evidence to support alternative explanations. As I have explain in my prior post, an alternative explanation, namely this object's origin could be artificial has its basis in simple logic. Loeb is now seeking that evidence, instead of being allowed to pursue his quest, he is being ridiculed, his tenure threatened. Harvard was forced for the 2nd time in its long history to investigate Loeb's tenure. And for the 2nd time it reached the conclusion Loeb was a) following the scientific method and b) was not bringing the reputation of Harvard into disrepute. the first ever investigation into academic freedom was the investigation in the 1990s into Harvard professor the late John Mack, Professor of Psychiatry (infact the founding professor). that investigation into Mack's investigation into alien abduction (one could also call it a witch hunt) came to the same conclusion. He was following the scientific method.

It seems to me that the problem with ʻOumuamua is not that "known paradigms do not satisfactorily explain" it, but that we don't have enough information about ʻOumuamua to have a meaningfully known phenomenon that needs to be explained in the first place. The thing was just too damned small to be seen well enough, with even the best telescopes that looked at it, for scientists to know even its basic physical shape (disk-like shape vs. cigar-like shape), much less anything else about it.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 09 Aug 2024, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not going to quote Loeb's entire book, but there are some very salient characteristics of Oumuamua that make the possibility of artificial origin plausible. According to scientific American interview with Avi Loeb:
1. the object is 10 x more reflective than one of our solar system’s typical space rocks—shiny enough to suggest the gleam of burnished metal. Loeb demonstrated the object could be as flat as a solar sail.
2. it zoomed off after swooping by the sun, the object sped up faster than could be explained by our star’s waning gravitational grip alone (this was confirmed by NASA).

Interestingly when astronomers witnessed an object doing exactly the same thing recently they thought they could debunk the "Oumuamua is artificial" hypothesis by demonstrating it was an asteroid. Embarrassingly it turned out to be an old booster rocket from the 1960s which still leaking fuel resulting in the high velocity.

Yes these are valid points. But Avi Loeb has suggested screening for future objects entering our solar system. His detractors claim there must be objects entering our solar system all the time (they use the asteroid belt in our own solar system). However, I believe as far as tracking objects these events are rare and the fact the first one should be so strange makes it all the more puzzling.

Comets appear to do this also, due to loss of matter caused by outgassing (evaporation of material that was previously frozen but heated to a gas when near enough to the Sun).

No outgassing was observed for ʻOumuamua, i.e. it did not appear to have a comet-like tail, but then again, the thing was too damned small to be seen well enough in the first place. So perhaps there was some ordinary comet-like outgassing but it just wasn't visible. We don't know, but we can't rule it out, and it would seem to be the simplest explanation.

the size of Oumuamua is not relevant to the object leaving a detectable footprint. If there was outgassing then we have the capacity to detect a gas trail around the known trajectory of Oumuamua which as we now know there was no detectable trail.

Huh??? How is the size not relevant? Not even the best telescopes are infinitely magnifying, so of course there is such a thing as too small or too faint to be seen, or to be seen well enough for a given purpose.

to put things in an accurate perspective, the object was 400m wide so it wasn't the size of a basketball. Another object tracked by NASA from outside the solar system that crashed in earth (and is currently being investigated by Loeb) was actually only 500kg. Significantly smaller < Oumuamua

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-13/ ... /102592908

Disagreeing with Loeb isn't the same as hating him.

Not believing aliens are the best explanation for Oumuamua isn't the same as hating Avi Loeb.

This is a mix of grasping at straws and appeal to emotion. Anyone who doubts that it's aliens, well they're a hater. Stop asking for actual evidence, here's a few things we don't understand yet and I won't consider any non-aliens possibilities.

Interesting take. I think Loeb has suggested professional jealousy as motivating his detractors. He's a high achiever and therefore over this issue its seen as "low hanging fruit" to become famous by publicly taking down this well known media celebrity and Harvard professor who might well be one of the most highly cited astronomers in Harvard history. the temptation to have a crack and ridicule him is quite overwhelming. Actually debating him though, has not bought fame and fortune for his detractors because he seems to have successfully rebutted everything thrown at him.

It's one thing to see that an object is there, but it's another thing to see an object well enough, in enough detail, to know much about it beyond its mere existence. The Wikipedia article about ʻOumuamua specifically mentioned that scientists were not sure of its geometric shape, whether it was oblate (pancake-like) or prolate (cigar-like) in shape.

As I mentioned, the object size was 400m which is about a quarter of a mile long. Yes the distance and timing didn't permit any clear photos but based on physical factors relating to its reflective quality and speed the dimensions were estimated. My point was the lack of any chemtrail from the known trajectory suggest there were no gasses released. this means it is not a comet but its ability to radically change course and leave our solar system means it isn't an asteroid either. Loeb's science is fairly solid on this.