Isaac Asimov's Nightfall [0], but on a longer cycle?
Jokes aside, what is the evidence, beyond "Ancient mystical texts"?
[0] http://www.myths.com/pub/fiction/science-fiction/Asimov/Nigh...
Isaac Asimov's Nightfall [0], but on a longer cycle?
Jokes aside, what is the evidence, beyond "Ancient mystical texts"?
[0] http://www.myths.com/pub/fiction/science-fiction/Asimov/Nigh...
I think there is no evidence for it, but I think the point of the Silurain hypothesis (which the article does not convey well) is that if there were such civilisations we would not know as its unlikely we would find any evidence.
So it not a falsifiable statement from the onset?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
I don’t think it’s necessary to falsify a statement that has absolutely no evidence for it being true.
It is falsifiable, in the sense that we have ample evidence of the many forms of life that have existed on earth... including fossil evidence, genetic evidence, preserved tissue samples and a long litany of other pieces of data broadly consilient with our understanding the biological timeline.
On the other hand, we have zero evidence of Silurians or whatever.
Those two observations are inconsistent and require explanation.
Sure, one can hedge and qualify and excuse or whatever, and on pain of irrationality we have to allow that it's possible we're missing evidence of one of a bajillion possible competing hypotheses about intelligent life... but the theory most consistent with the evidence we have is that there wasn't any.
That's falsifiable enough for me?
The criterion of falsifiability pushed by positivists is kind of crappy anyway, it doesn't speak well to how we build models of the world while doing actual empirical work (and is itself non-falsifiable), but in practical terms idk, I don't see much to recommend the Silurian Hypothesis over the null hypothesis, so to speak.