[RandomLensman]

So what? Something caused that observation, but it wasn't something extraterrestrial. You also have to allow for one of the sensors to be wrong/noisy etc. and then being interpreted through the lens of observation via another.

[qaq]

None claiming it is extraterrestrial but there is no evidence to the contrary either. You have too many diverse independent sensors that lined up.

[RandomLensman]

Doesn't work that way: there is always an infinite list of possibilities without evidence to the contrary if you allow for a wide enough "solution space" (even if you have already an explanation).

[monocasa]

What you're saying is unfalsifiable.

[RandomLensman]

Isn't it highly falsible? Show that sometimes there is only a finite set of possibilities no matter the solution space.

[monocasa]

No, that's not really how that works.

You appear to be claiming that there's an infinite amount of explanations and we can't really know, while also claiming that more data points don't create greater certainty of correlation.

That's contrary to the basis of how science works.

[RandomLensman]

I did not claim the part about more data or that we cannot really know, but rather that if you have to consider any and all explanation in an analysis you have a problem - it's a line of thinking that doesn't help and leaves the realm of science.

For example, is having a simple mechanical explanation for something really evidence against some Devine intervention that is just done so that everything looks "normal"?