[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"?

[qaq]

It's a bit of a straw man we know for a fact that advanced lifeforms can develop in the universe because we are one.

[RandomLensman]

Not really. How do those lifeforms travel to earth? Needing new physics would be right back to allowing pretty much anything.

[qaq]

Why do they have to travel to earth ? A robotic probe can travel X thousand years with no need for new physics. Also there are life forms on earth that basically live forever. Also pretending that a theory that we invented a 100 years ago that is not even fully consistent is some hard limitation on some advanced civ is pretty crazy. Is it more believable that some entity on earth has discovered new physics and kept it secret vs some advanced extraterrestrial civ is more developed than we are ?

[RandomLensman]

Kind of back to my point: You can, of course, invent any weird hypothetical, but there is no justification to consider it in any hypothesis absent any need for it.

[qaq]

There are not many possible explanations this is either earth tech e.g. someone discovered new physics and kept it very secret and has this tech (but for some reason decided to flash it) or it's not earth tech.