Kirsch on Econalk
He says there's no evidence for aliens. Just testimonials. But aren't testimonials evidence? In law, yes, but with something like this? It's weak sauce, especially when a billion cell phone cameras haven't captured a single image. (Blog Post)
Adam Kirsch is the finest scribbler this side of Sam Kriss. Bonus: He hangs out in lefty pop literary circles but he's not a lunatic.
He published another book recently: We Want to Believe: How Aliens Went Mainstream and Why It Matters. It's short and affordable, but I doubt I'll buy it. His righteous appearance on Econtalk will sate my UFO appetite for a spell.
Kirsch's take?
There's zero evidence that they exist. Freakin' zero.
My response: Zero evidence or zero proof? There's no proof, obviously, but no evidence? That seems inaccurate.
His response: There is no evidence, just lots of testimonials, and they're not the same thing.
The courts would disagree. The Federal Rules of Evidence dedicate an entire Article to testimony. If someone testifies with personal knowledge, it's going in front of the jury as evidence. That's the law.
But Kirsch is trying to get us to think scientifically about things, so he's pulling out Carl Sagan's well-worn observation, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
And mere eyewitness accounts, without more, are not extraordinary, especially when we have strong evidence that the eyewitness accounts are bogus. To wit, a billion cameras in people's pockets throughout the world, and not one of them has captured an image.
Me? I remain more uncommitted on the issue than a Mafia don to his wife. If there is something "out there," I incline to the view that it's demonic, but frick, if that's the case, I got enough demons of my own to rassle with. I don't need to go out find more.
Adam Kirsch