The Law of Parsimony Supports the Existence of Intelligent Extraterrestrials

Pro calls upon the Law of Parsimony to prove his case. If the Law of Parsimony is not a general law, but only applies in limited circumstances, then it does not support Pro's case. I gave reasons why Parsimony is at best suggestive, and only applies to similarly formed theories. Pro gave no rebuttal, only saying "We are not debating parsimony itself." If Pro uses it, I claim it's validity can be challenged. Would the universe be simpler with or without Tasmanian devils? With or without unicorns? Tasmanian devils do exist, and unicorns do not exist, but neither outcome depends upon parsimony. They are questions of fact. The answers of question of fact may be posed as probabilities conditioned on evidence, but that does not relate to Parsimony either. Parsimony applies when there are more or fewer variables in the explanation. A universe with or without extraterrestrials is no more simple or complex than if Tasmanian devils or unicorns are present or absent. A newspaper in New York City published an interview with a woman who witnessed a UFO hover over her back yard, do many amazing things, then take off with astounding speed. A report sent to investigate when he went to the local airport in Rhinebeck and found the restaurant was serving "UFO burgers." He later discovered that antique airplane enthusiasts were draping their biplanes with Christmas lights and flying in formation. Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to lights in the sky. There are very few observers trained to sort out what they are seeing in night events. The only eyewitness account Pro cites is from a pseudoscientific "research team" whose goal in life is prove that crop circles are made by ETs. That is not a credible source. It is like a spiritualist testifying that he saw a ghost. What is required is an impartial trained observer who is unlikely to be hallucinating, perpetuating a hoax, or easily tricked. I explained exactly how to create crop circle patterns of virtually any geometric complexity. Since there are mechanisms for creating lines, circles, measured angles, and measured distances in crop circles, Pro could counter my argument by showing a figure that could not be created with these elements. Note that two stakes and a wire loop can be used to generate ellipses, and there are simple mechanisms for other geometric elements. It does not require a genius to figure out how to form the patterns. Simple geometry overlays to make complex patterns. "Crop Circles can easily be used to help teach geometric symmetry to children K-12 because most Crop Circles seem to be created using combinations of basic mathematical symbols" http://www.papercropcircles.com... The top video shows how complex crop circle patterns are derived from the simple geometric elements. The geometry is shown in faint red lines after each crop circle. Note that there is complex pattern from Wiltshire, the site of the original hoaxers. Are we to believe that aliens are fond of Wiltshire as well? Note also the appearance of an image of movie-stereotyped ET in one of the patterns. http://www.youtube.com... The second video is an example of a complex crop circle being created by humans. That it is done by humans is revealed at the end. http://www.youtube.com... Students are documented creating a crop circle in four hours. http://web.mit.edu... The students had no prior experience in the art, so they are at the level of Doug and Dave starting out. Over time they could be expected to create more complex patterns, and to create them much more quickly. Why has the complexity of crop circles increased over the years? One possibility is that hoaxers have increased their skills. The other possibility is that aliens could travel from another planet, but could not figure out how to make complex patterns from the beginning, only figuring it out slowly over time. Which explanation is simpler? Why would aliens travel from another planet to flatten wheat fields rather than communicate conventionally? Pro claims, "They communicate through channelers, they communicate through writing on the internet, and they communicate directly on video." (I'm interested in the video. Is it on YouTube?) But they do not communicate by any means that could not be performed by a person perpetuating a hoax. They are not interviewed on the evening news, nor do they go to shopping malls. They travel from distant planets, but do not know how to communicate in any conventional way. Moreover, Pro supposes they want to communicate, but cannot master English or figure out television appearances. This does not make sense. Interplanetary travel implies technology that could also master communication. A stock market god or a hurricane god does not require anything close to omnipotence or omniscience. Their domains are extremely limited. One could alternately suppose that extraterrestrials actually control the stock market and hurricanes, and once you believe in extraterrestrials, the powers they would need are readily conceivable. More easily conceived than traveling faster than light. Pro argues that the stock market and hurricanes clearly have explanations within the realm of science, but that we just don't know what those explanations are. However, he contends that the geometric patterns of crop circles have no conceivable worldly explanation, and therefore ET or gods or something unworldly is more likely. Yet every observed pattern falls with the realm of lines and circles that can be accomplished well within the bounds of Doug and Dave technology. While the stock market and hurricane paths are outside of known science, crop circles are well within current technology. Therefore calling upon higher powers is not a simpler explanation. All the examples of crop circles Pro has shown are producible with lines and circles, using the "Doug and Dave" techniques demonstrated. Pro says "scientists" cannot explain them. What scientists? Moreover, scientists are not particularly good at explaining magic tricks, so what magicians cannot explain them? I granted that the simple round circles may be caused by wind. However, the "Doug and Dave" method would have worked fine in 1700. It is simple. It isn't necessary for science to explain each and every crop circle to be satisfied that they are all explainable. If cookies are missing from the cookie jar, but we have no evidence as to who took them, it does not follow that extraterrestrials are then the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that someone did it. Pro claims that he only needs to prove the strict wording of the resolution. First of all, the strict wording requires that he establish that the Law of Parsimony is in fact a law and that it applies as Pro supposes. He has done neither. Second, it is reasonable to suppose that his discussion of crop circles has something to do with proof of the resolution. The space allotted for typing resolutions is small, so it is common that the full exposition requires consideration of the opening argument. Pro clearly argued that the simplest explanation of crop circles was that they were created by ETs. that's not true, the simplest explanation involves Doug and Dave, or someone else, stomping down the crops. I'm inclined to believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but that's based upon probabilities applied to a hundred billion stars in each of a hundred billion galaxies. It has nothing to do with whether the universe would be simpler or not. Crop circles are far more simply explained as hoaxes rather than visiting extraterrestrials flattening wheat. The resolution is negated.