“I don’t think that generic aliens should be considered especially improbable a priori—before the evidence is considered. I think that they are unlikely a posteriori—based on the fact that we don’t see them. I think that any intelligent space-faring life would be busy building spheres around stars (if not outright disassembling the stars) as quickly as they spread out into the cosmos. So we’d notice them by the wake of solar systems going dark. At the very least, there’s no reason to think that they would hide from us, which is what these scenarios tend to require (though I haven’t watched the documentary).”
is at best secondary evidence and thus shouldn’t be weighted as high as primary evidence such as sightings or knowledge of time+space-correlating weather balloon flights.
As mentioned elsewhere, this kind of reasoning:
“I don’t think that generic aliens should be considered especially improbable a priori—before the evidence is considered. I think that they are unlikely a posteriori—based on the fact that we don’t see them. I think that any intelligent space-faring life would be busy building spheres around stars (if not outright disassembling the stars) as quickly as they spread out into the cosmos. So we’d notice them by the wake of solar systems going dark. At the very least, there’s no reason to think that they would hide from us, which is what these scenarios tend to require (though I haven’t watched the documentary).”
is at best secondary evidence and thus shouldn’t be weighted as high as primary evidence such as sightings or knowledge of time+space-correlating weather balloon flights.