A salient theme in 2023-24 has been the question of whether or not we are alone in this universe. This question arises from the whistleblower David Grusch who testified before the US Congress in July 2023. He presented evidence of secret government programs that have direct connections with Foreign Species of Intelligent Life (FSILs). He and several others presented this information to the US Congress. Indeed, the US Congress passed a law requiring the US government to disclose classified documents related to FSILs (the language regards Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) but the obvious issue relates to FSILs).
Even presidential candidates are jumping on board to talk more openly about FSILs and the reality that humans may not be the only species of intelligent life in this universe. In other words, what was once taboo conversation, that could result in arbitrary detention and torture in the broken Western mental hell-th system, is now propelling presidential candidates on their campaigns. This past 12 months have seen a dramatic shift in the Western attitudes toward the conversations surrounding UAPs and FSILs.
However, time and again, there are individuals who insist that “there is no evidence for FSILs.” As someone passionate about Epistemology, I feel a responsibility to insert myself into this social conversation to correct some misunderstandings of the lexicon of Epistemology and how to correctly apply it.
Ironically, a significant amount of this misapplication of Epistemology comes from the scientific community itself. Too many “scientists” are merely conditioned to strictly adhere to intra-disciplinary methodologies (which have been previously informed by Epistemology) such that they cannot “think outside the box” to save their own species. That is, the members of our population that we expect and even rely on to guide proper knowledge production have barely a scant clue on which knowledge production tools to apply to arrive at the conclusions they seek.
Induction and Deduction: Two Epistemological Tools to Help Us Navigate Reality
There is not merely a single way to ascertain truth. Indeed, Epistemology offers us at several distinct pathways for ascertaining truth. The two most salient tools are known as induction and deduction. They represent types of logic to arrive at conclusions.
Induction focuses on the bigger picture and assessing all the information in that bigger picture. Once all the available information is assessed, logical relationships among the data points can be derived. These logical relationships among the data points serve as the logical foundation for our conclusions about reality. With inductive reasoning, we begin with specific data points and we move toward forming general conclusions based on the logical relationships among the data points.
Deduction, on the other hand, works in a contrary manner. It is important to note that deduction is essentially an Epistemological shortcut. We begin with small amounts of data and use this Epistemological shortcut to generate large amounts of knowledge. However, just like anything involving a shortcut, we may overlook certain things if we rely too heavily on it.
In modern society, we have gone far beyond “heavily relying on deductive reasoning.” Rather, we are utterly dependent upon it. As an analogy, we are totally addicted to deduction. We seem to have forgotten how to engage with reality and navigate it successfully using induction, especially in the domain of social conversations.
What is worse, the scientific community that we expect to guide proper knowledge production is addicted to deduction too. However, their reasons may be related to money, prestige and power as Epistemological shortcuts serve to generate large amounts of knowledge from small amounts of input, thus garnering grant money and other necessary aspects of a career as a researcher.
Conversely, induction can be understood as producing small amounts of knowledge from large amounts of input. It seems that deduction is generally favorable to induction when we look through this lens. However, when we need specific types of knowledge, not just amounts, we may need to shift our knowledge production strategies. Especially in the domain of knowledge production, quantity is not always better than quality.
When the knowledge we seek to produce is intended to answer the question, “Are we alone in this universe?” then we have an evolutionary responsibility to focus on quality over quantity. It is counterproductive evolutionarily if we produce large amounts of useless knowledge that convinces us we are alone in the universe, when in reality we are not. Indeed, part of the Epistemological shortcut that is deduction requires us to make presumptions that our conclusions are universally applicable.
When we are in the domain of particle physics, we can presume that the behavior of electrons across the universe is similar enough to make our deductive conclusions valid. However, when we move onto more complex and varied phenomena, such as animal behavior, we may need to simply put the extra effort into using induction and producing small amounts of useful knowledge from large amounts of input.
Evidence of FSILs: What are We Actually Seeking?
Too often people in positions of power (which are generally dependent on human-centric narratives or narratives in which human affairs are the only relevant occurrences) demand to be shown “the evidence” of FSILs. Or perhaps they insist that, “there is no evidence” of FSILs. It is important to clarify what type of data points we are actually seeking. It’s not that there is no evidence or that evidence cannot be shown. Rather it is the lens through which that evidence is viewed.
The great irony is that there is an abundance of both contemporary and historical evidence regarding FSILs. Indeed, as we look though historical records of various types, we can find humans engaging with FSILs or other documented evidence of sightings or interactions with FSILs. So, it’s not that there is no evidence, rather its that the specific type of data that we need to plug into our processes of deduction are not the correct kind. There are contemporary videos of inexplicable phenomena in our skies, cave paintings of non-human creatures, accounts of engagement with FSILs and just the massive size of the universe itself which creates the likelihood of a universe that can and does accommodate other forms of intelligent life. But none of these works well for deduction. We cannot plug in a cave painting as the foundational data into a hypothesis that there are FSILs and expect the logical conclusion to be that we are not alone in the universe. It’s just not the right type of data to begin with for deduction. As deduction is an Epistemological shortcut, we need a certain type of data to begin with.
What is the goal of questioning, “Are we alone in the universe?” That is, what are we trying to accomplish by asking this question? Using deduction, we are trying to arrive at a general conclusion that there are FSILs in the universe and we are not alone, or that there are not, and we are alone. We intend to arrive at a conclusion that all humans can accept. Indeed, the “we” in that question does not refer to one’s personal in-group, rather it refers to the entire human species.
In order to use deduction to arrive at this irrefutable logical conclusion, we would need some really powerful data to begin with. This vey issue humbly reminds us that such data is not always readily available. It would be convenient if we could find a crashed spacecraft with bodies of aliens in it. Indeed, such initial data could be used effectively in deductive reasoning. Who can argue against a crashed spacecraft with technologies beyond our understanding and bodies of alien pilots to back it up? It would be challenging to find humans among the 7 billion members of the human species to refuse to accept such powerful data and the related logical conclusions that we can derive.
This is exactly the problem. We cannot approach deduction with the expectation that we can control the initial input. If the initial input happens to be there for deduction, then we can apply it. However, in the pursuit of proper knowledge production, we must recognize that we cannot always control the input data. Sometimes, we have to choose the right tool to interpret the available data. However, in our collective addiction to deduction, we are helpless to do something so simple as switch tools.
Indeed, too many scientists are partially correct in their assertion that “there’s no evidence” of FSILs. To communicate that idea more precisely so that it is better understood, “there is inadequate evidence to support the use of deduction to convince all 7 billion human animals that they are not the only species of intelligent life in the universe.” This is true. Without incontrovertible initial data to use deduction effectively, we are left with only questions.
The folly of this is that we must merely switch lenses of interpretation to be able to take a fresh look at the available evidence and arrive at useful conclusions. We do not have the right type of initial input data, so we must produce knowledge the slower way, using induction. Here, we have a responsibility to assess all the evidence not just single isolated data points. Indeed, induction asks us to look at the entire system of data and derive logical conclusions based on it. Deduction does not ask us to look at things systemically, which is exactly what is required in this situation.
When we look at the entire system of data, both contemporary and historical, the obvious conclusion is that humans are not the only species of intelligent life in the universe. Too many humans both in present day and historically have had some sort of encounter with FSILs. When we look at all these data points, we can see that individually they are not strong data points, like what we sought to plug into our deductive process. However, there are so many data points that we have a responsibility to assess them and form logical connections among them. With so many data points, we have little other choice, if we seek to remain logical, but to conclude that the universe is shared among various species of intelligent life.
To use an analogy, a single feather or even a handful do not amount to much weight. However, a trillion feathers would weigh a lot. In our deductive paradigm, we are essentially attempting to find a single 4-ton feather to begin with. We can develop advanced technologies to scour the entire universe, and we still will not likely find a single 4-ton feather. However, we can collect enough feathers to amount to a 4-ton weight. Indeed, a trillion feathers may very well weigh just about 4 tons.
When we use induction, we can collect enough feathers to arrive at our 4-ton weight. However, remaining addicted to deduction will be a fruitless search as 4-ton feathers are far rarer in this universe than intelligent life.
Once we apply induction and realize that all our data points indicate that it is more logical to presume that we share this universe with other forms of intelligent life, we then have an evolutionary responsibility to prepare the human species to engage with FSILs. We cannot have social conversations on how to engage with FSILs if we cannot even apply Epistemology properly to arrive at the conclusion that the universe was not made just for the human species. Once we collectively arrive at the realization that it is more prudent to prepare to engage with FSILs instead of figuratively burying our heads in the sand, we can then begin to organize our society to engage with other forms of intelligent life, especially with advanced technologies.
The question of “Are we alone in the universe?” is not a properly formulated question insofar as it seeks to apply deduction to produce this knowledge. When we apply induction, we can arrive at the conclusion that we share this universe with other forms of intelligent life. We can further build on this knowledge by reorganizing society to prepare to engage with FSILs.
Thank you and have a content day