[Hawkeye_a]

Warning: Nerd alert.

Had an unwanted yet insightful discussion yesterday with a friend of mine who is equally as stubborn as me. Neither one of us would budge from our point of view(which is fine), but it made for some unwanted heated discussion.

Aliens.

The argument he made was we dont know much at all about our universe and that there is not only is a probability, but it's also possible that Alien life(single cell at the very least) existed, and so "he believes in Aliens".
His point-of-view, imo is heavily reliant on:
1. the lack of "evidence"/"proof" of what else is there
2. his idea that "probability" = belief
3. Wishful thinking

As for me, i concede that there is a probability(is chances >0.0), but it isnt a possibility and so i do not "believe in Aliens"(given what we know(and don't know so far)). I think there is a probability they might exist, but i don't believe alien life exists.
My point-of-view is based on:
1. the lack of "evidence"/scientific-proof
2. the probability(which imo is inaccurate) does not mean it's possible
3. Burden of proof, which has not been satisfied.... yet
(my definition of something being "possible" means the PROBABILITY of it existing is greater than 50%)

He said that made no sense, cause if i think there is a possibility they exists, it *should* mean that i believe they exist. And that even if we never get proof, that does not mean they don't exist.

My counter: admitting that there is a chance that something exist, is not the same as saying i believe they do exists. Burden of proof(scientific) he said is nothing but a probability in the end cause nothing is 100%.

I was wondering what you guy's opinion on the matter is.

Cheers
PS>> Sadly we were entirely sober

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

PS>> Sadly we were entirely sober

That's the problem right there

-t

[MrsLarry]

My husband has told me once that he thinks that what some people think are aliens-from outer space, are actually more like evolved humans-time travelers from the future.

I guess I always assumed there is a strong possibility of life on another planet, but would never go far enough to argue that there MUST be.

[CharlesS]

That’s gotta be the strangest definition of “possible” ever.

[Hawkeye_a]

In essence what i'm saying is that:
There is a probability of life on other planets(cause we have no way to say 100% that there isnt), but right now, i do not believe it exists.

Is that a contradiction ?

I find that if i say something like:
Yes there is a 'probability' and so i do believe it exists. that there is nothing but a 'guess' to go by(ie no proof) and so this statement, for someone to say it today, would be false.

To me probability/possibility is the calculated chance. belief goes beyond that and requires some sort of empirical evidence....at least in this case.

[CharlesS]

I think you’ve got the definitions of “possibility” and “probability” reversed.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

My counter: admitting that there is a chance that something exist, is not the same as saying i believe they do exists. Burden of proof(scientific) he said is nothing but a probability in the end cause nothing is 100%.

I was wondering what you guy's opinion on the matter is.

Skepticism is easy. 10 people see a UFO, you simply dismiss them as kooks and say "no scientific evidence." Interview half a dozen engineers and military types who insist we have alien technology in hangars (see Disclosure Project) and you again dismiss them as kooks.

You talk to Air Traffic controllers, Pilots, and National Defense people (you can find interviews of such people) who swear they have observed visual and radar evidence of craft exceeding all human technology -- and dismiss their statements as flaky, misinformed, or disinformation.

How is a refusal to accept evidence "scientific?"

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Skepticism is easy. 10 people see a UFO, you simply dismiss them as kooks and say "no scientific evidence." Interview half a dozen engineers and military types who insist we have alien technology in hangars (see Disclosure Project) and you again dismiss them as kooks.

You talk to Air Traffic controllers, Pilots, and National Defense people (you can find interviews of such people) who swear they have observed visual and radar evidence of craft exceeding all human technology -- and dismiss their statements as flaky, misinformed, or disinformation.

How is a refusal to accept evidence "scientific?"

Just so we are clear. the purpose of this thread is not to prove or disprove the existence of ET life, but rather the notion that someone can say that something has a chance to exist(given the fact that we have not looked everywhere) but still maintaining that, until it is 'proved' to exist beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not exist. The stuff you mentioned so far has human 'opinion' being a big part of it.....'these people claim to have seen....'. Proof/evidence imo is not corruptible by opinion.

Now onto your post regard kooks and things ....
I will accept siting of UFOs from all members of society...kooks, scientists, etc.... as testimony of them seeing something they cannot explain. They might make claims regarding what they think they saw, but that is their 'opinion' at best. I will not however accept testimony as evidence or proof of ET life. There is a huge gap between seeing something one cannot explain, and then jumping to the conclusion that it must be ET life. There could be any number of natural phenomena or combination of phenomena that could have created those 'sightings'. If you believe they were aliens, what would say to the *theory* that they could be time travelers(humans from the future)... or any number of other fictional(at the moment) possibilities. I say it could be either or none, but i will not say it is definitely one of those without proof. Come to think of it, given the indisputable fact that humans do exist as both you(i hope ) and i are human, and the theories we have of time travel...it is more probably that what those people saw were time travelers from the future than Aliens/ET Life. So what would qualify as "proof".... UFO sightings would be the least likely as they could be any number of terrestrial phenomena that could explain them. Even a "captured" Alien vessel, would not "prove" the existence of ET Life....as that still does not eliminate it being a ship from the future, etc. An ET Life specimen (dead or alive) however would qualify as proof of the existence of ET Life....that and he source of that information has to be sound(no kooks of course) and the specimen should be available to scientists from around the would for examination.

As an analogy:
Many people(including doctors) have reported seeing a terrestrial beast called the Lochness Monster...... there was even photographic and video "evidence" (which has now been proved to be natural phenomena). Yet those who wanted to believe so badly accepted anything and anyones word as 'proof'....which they were not. The 'opinion' factor of those offering the 'testimony' was astronomical. the photographic "evidence" was obviously fabricated. And in the end, we do not have an actual Lochness Monster to point to, to say that it exists. Did it "exist" in the minds of those who said it did ? sure.... did it exist in reality ? most probably not.

[Spheric Harlot]

To continue on the tangent:

A bunch of ignorant weirdos not being able to explain something does not in any way suggest that it is beyond our realm of logical explanation.

I point you to this thread:
http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou.../nasa-footage/
for a prime example of how this works.

Lots of evidence of aliens there, except that anybody who's actually dealt with cameras and lenses can tell you *exactly* what's happening.

[wolfen]

When it comes to the unknown, I've known very few people who understand how their intellectual, cultural, and social parts work together to form their epistemological framework. The honesty and insight required are rare IMHO. The real issue in so many discussions of the "unprovable" is the participants' openness to self awareness and self discovery. Without this vital dimension, people are just acting out default programs/following internal scripts.

[Spheric Harlot]

True.

However, acknowledging the *possibility* of something is far removed from accepting the *probability* that it is actually the case.

As far as I know, quantum physics teaches us that it is *possible* that all the atoms that comprise your internal organs could spontaneously jump six feet to the left. (That would be a funny sight.)

Do you accept this fact and allow for it in everything you do throughout the day?

Does honesty have anything to do with it?

[Doofy]

42.

[wolfen]

A physicist once calculated that if 2 cosmic rays hit each other just the right way, the entire universe could be sucked up in a sort of tsunami vacuum -- and possibly change all the "rules" of physics. I cannot possibly know if this is possible or probable. But I'm grateful for the way thinking about this stretches my mind.

One facet of this example is my acceptance that I know very very little. But I simultaneously walk through each day confident in the knowledge I can apply, and constantly looking for new knowledge that could unravel that "knowledge."

That's intellectual honesty. I ain't got much, but that I got. Thinking is either a constant feedback loop or a banal regurgitation of knowledge and beliefs already held.

Possibility is not probability unless you're arguing for the impossible that already exists --like human life. Point being, if it's unknown you cannot distinguish the 2. And if it is known, neither matters.

[nonhuman]

I think that it's highly probable (the sheer size of the universe, number of star systems, number of planets, and time since the beginning for things to happen makes it almost unimaginable that life only happened once), strongly possible (even within our own solar system there are planetary bodies with conditions that could support some of the more extreme forms of Earth life), and I very much want it to be true (because how awesome would that be?).

[Chuckit]

On the specific issue of alien life, I don't think it's possible (at least for most people) to say whether they think it's probable. It's possible in a very general sense for a transvestite to be standing behind me with a knife right now, but since I don't know how or why that situation would come about, I don't worry about it.

In the case of life, we have exactly one data point where we even know it exists — Earth. And even then, we don't know all that much about how that life came about or under what other circumstances it might have done so. So any probability we assign to extraterrestrial life is going to be little more than wishful thinking. May as well be arguing over leprechauns or giants.

[downinflames68]

The universe is a very very very big place. Know how many galaxies there are?

Hundreds of BILLIONS. Most recent estimate is 500 billion galaxies.

So you have hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with about ONE HUNDRED BILLION STARS. Now each of these 100 billion stars most likely has a planet system.

So. Yeah. To even begin to think there isn't life out there somewhere is fairly retarded, IMHO. There is definitely some sort of life out there.

[downinflames68]

Woah, so that's 50,000 BILLION stars. Or 50,000,000,000,000 stars. Wow.

[voodoo]

When (and if) the human race ever discovers how life begins, how inorganic substances become organic and then living - then we can start discussing probability of life in other places than earth.

Right now, we don't know anything except that the universe is very large and it defies the imagination of many.

How can life only exist in one place in this immense universe? ... well, that depends entirely on how likely it is that life is made from the inorganic compounds that make up the universe.

And we don't know. People can only assume - because the main variable is missing.

Ah but wait, given that life is very very unlikely (assuming so) it will still occur in other places in this huge universe, right? -- Well, not if the chances are approximately 1 against every planet in the universe. That life happened on earth, and even that wasn't remotely likely to happen.

[CharlesS]

Well, we know it’s possible for life to develop, since it happened here. Given that, and the unimaginable number of stars out there, and the length of time that the universe has been around, I’d be rather surprised if there hasn’t been another one somewhere, at some time, that had the right conditions.

What would be rather improbable, on the other hand, would be for us ever to manage to find out about any life outside of Earth, since if it occurred it most likely wouldn’t be in our neighborhood if the probability of its occurrence is low, and its lifespan may not necessarily have overlapped with ours either.

[Doofy]

I think, given the size of the universe, it's highly improbable that there isn't life out there. Be an awful big waste of space, wouldn't it?

[Shaddim]

Of course there's life on other planets, civilizations that are = or > our own. That's the whole point.

and, damn you Doofy, for stealing my quote from Contact.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shaddim 

and, damn you Doofy, for stealing my quote from Contact.

caps

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

When (and if) the human race ever discovers how life begins, how inorganic substances become organic and then living - then we can start discussing probability of life in other places than earth.

Right now, we don't know anything except that the universe is very large and it defies the imagination of many.

How can life only exist in one place in this immense universe? ... well, that depends entirely on how likely it is that life is made from the inorganic compounds that make up the universe.

And we don't know. People can only assume - because the main variable is missing.

Ah but wait, given that life is very very unlikely (assuming so) it will still occur in other places in this huge universe, right? -- Well, not if the chances are approximately 1 against every planet in the universe. That life happened on earth, and even that wasn't remotely likely to happen.

That was one of my points in the discussion.... we may know that a specific distance from the star, a specific temperature range, a specific molecular cocktail on the planet, etc..... but we're not even sure if those factors are the ONLY factors that sparked life here. So any attempt to even calculate the probability of life would be inherently flawed until we figure out a complete equation(imo).

Downinflames68.....
That was one of the counters...... my rebuttal was.... you could even have twice that number of stars and planets out there if you like, and for all we KNOW, the probability of life COULD just be 1:XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (ie earth). And even, if somehow we manage to figure out (through theoretical calculations) that there *should be* at least one other planet out there with life, that's still just a minute probability that has the odds stacked up against it.

I do appreciate the vastness of scope here, but i cannot accept lack of 'proof' as a reason to "believe" that it exists.

IMO, "wishful thinking" plays a huge part in this discussion.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I think you’ve got the definitions of “possibility” and “probability” reversed.

Indeed.

OAW

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

As an analogy:
Many people(including doctors) have reported seeing a terrestrial beast called the Lochness Monster...... there was even photographic and video "evidence" (which has now been proved to be natural phenomena). Yet those who wanted to believe so badly accepted anything and anyones word as 'proof'....which they were not. The 'opinion' factor of those offering the 'testimony' was astronomical. the photographic "evidence" was obviously fabricated. And in the end, we do not have an actual Lochness Monster to point to, to say that it exists. Did it "exist" in the minds of those who said it did ? sure.... did it exist in reality ? most probably not.

I cannot argue the existence of a monster in loch ness. But I cannot say people "wanted to believe so badly," or that all photographic evidence was fabricated, or that their profession had anything at all to do with their reports. Unless I simply prefer to. Nor do I feel comfortable saying it probably didn't ever exist. Probably implies too much.

I do appreciate the vastness of scope here, but i cannot accept lack of 'proof' as a reason to "believe" that it exists.

IMO, "wishful thinking" plays a huge part in this discussion.

You are demonstrating the bias that I alluded to earlier. You are impugning the thoughts of others while elevating the weight of "zero evidence" as though that constituted evidence supporting your own position. The point isn't whether or not alien life exists, possibly or probably. The point is that if we engage in a conversation of this sort, we should come prepared to confront our own biases in the matter. It is wise to check our processes, and our epistemological framework -- "How do I know what I know, and how reliable is that approach?" Because I tell you, if an alien ship landed on the White House lawn and green men came out for pictures before shooting off into space again, many many people would rely on probabilities, evidence, and so forth to completely dismiss the authenticity of the event.

If we're not honest with ourselves, or don't know ourselves well enough to understand how we think the way we do, then our interactions with the world remain superficial exercises in narcissism.

[Chuckit]

Dude, the Loch Ness Monster was a hoax. It's already been confessed to. You can say people just wanted to believe.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Dude, the Loch Ness Monster was a hoax. It's already been confessed to. You can say people just wanted to believe.

Finally it clicked..

«Dude» is used by people on the internet like the phrase «with all due respect general» is used by the characters in Stargate SG-1.

Anyway, aliens may exist but we do not have sufficient knowledge about life to even begin to make a guess. Saying it's a really big universe doesn't cut it. Size is relative anyway.

[Shaddim]

Saying it's a really big universe is an understatement. In fact, the odds that there isn't life elsewhere in our own galaxy is something like 1 in 140,000,000. I can't remember exactly, because I saw it on the science channel a few weeks ago, but it's about the same odds as finding Jimmy Hoffa buried in your back yard. You'd be 4x more likely to win the Powerball from buying a single ticket.

Yes, there's life out there. Will we, as a species, find it? Unless we can develop some type of FTL or ED travel, it's very unlikely. Of course, many scientists still aren't ruling out that something may be living inside Europa, or some similar moon. Bah, who cares? Why travel 100s of millions of miles to try and find Europan bacteria, tube worms, or a new species of krill?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

«Dude» is used by people on the internet like the phrase «with all due respect general» is used by the characters in Stargate SG-1.

Interesting. I don't know about people on the Internet (or about Stargate SG-1, for that matter), but I'm from California, where the word is actually used regularly by non-Internet people. It usually means either something like "listen to me" or "wow."

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Anyway, aliens may exist but we do not have sufficient knowledge about life to even begin to make a guess. Saying it's a really big universe doesn't cut it. Size is relative anyway.

I agree with that. Like, nobody says, "The universe is huge, so the Abominable Snowman must exist." The size of the universe is irrelevant unless we know how likely an Abominable Snowman is to exist within a given stretch of space.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course, many scientists still aren't ruling out that something may be living inside Europa, or some similar moon. Bah, who cares? Why travel 100s of millions of miles to try and find Europan bacteria, tube worms, or a new species of krill?

Because finding something there would be really freakin' cool, and a major milestone for science?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I agree with that. Like, nobody says, "The universe is huge, so the Abominable Snowman must exist." The size of the universe is irrelevant unless we know how likely an Abominable Snowman is to exist within a given stretch of space.

Well, of course the odds are going to get bad if you're looking for something specific like an Abominable Snowman rather than for just any kind of life that there may be out there.

[Sealobo]

one can never prove that alien does not exist unless all planets are searched. this is simple logic.

however, it only takes one single instance to prove otherwise.

i.e. alien-believers might someday proven to be correct, while non-believer will never have a chance.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

one can never prove that alien does not exist unless all planets are searched. this is simple logic.

however, it only takes one single instance to prove otherwise.

i.e. alien-believers might someday proven to be correct, while non-believer will never have a chance.

Bingo. Thats my opinion as well.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with those who disagree to disprove it.

Ahhh... i knew PHIL101 would come in handy someday.

Also, probability and chances/odds dont count as proof, especially when we're not even sure what all the factors are that are needed to calculate those odds imo.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, of course the odds are going to get bad if you're looking for something specific like an Abominable Snowman rather than for just any kind of life that there may be out there.

"Of course"? I don't think it's obvious at all. How are you calculating the odds of these two possibilities?

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

one can never prove that alien does not exist unless all planets are searched. this is simple logic.

. Not true. I once fabricated a letter from extraterrestrials, and photographs of a ship. This proves they don't exist. Only people who desperately want to believe would even bother looking for them.

I agree it only takes one instance to substantiate existence, but how many times will that instance occur before it is accepted for what it is? And how many real instances will each fake neutralize?

Attitude and process are more important than data where the unknown is concerned.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Because finding something there would be really freakin' cool, and a major milestone for science?

Too expensive to travel so far for something like that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Too expensive to travel so far for something like that.

Well, what kind of discovery would be worth traveling to Europa if not ALIEN LIFE? That would be amazing. If we found life on Europa, that would tell us a lot about our place in the universe — it would be the missing evidence that I'm talking about to form an educated guess about whether we're alone. Beyond that, the exact form that Europan life takes would tell us volumes. Would it be like life on earth? We shouldn't expect to find bacteria or anything like that, because bacteria are a terrestrial life form. If we found bacteria there, that would be very informative as well, because it would imply that the two pools of life had a common origin.

I mean, if you have no curiosity about the world around you, sure, it might not seem interesting. But for those of us who do, it would be a very exciting prospect.

[CharlesS]

^ They probably said the same thing about the moon landings.

edit: that was in response to Shaddim, not Chuckit.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, what kind of discovery would be worth traveling to Europa if not ALIEN LIFE? That would be amazing. If we found life on Europa, that would tell us a lot about our place in the universe — it would be the missing evidence that I'm talking about to form an educated guess about whether we're alone. Beyond that, the exact form that Europan life takes would tell us volumes. Would it be like life on earth? We shouldn't expect to find bacteria or anything like that, because bacteria are a terrestrial life form. If we found bacteria there, that would be very informative as well, because it would imply that the two pools of life had a common origin.

I mean, if you have no curiosity about the world around you, sure, it might not seem interesting. But for those of us who do, it would be a very exciting prospect.

How do you get that I "have no curiosity about the world around" me? Because I don't think it's worth $1T to send a manned mission to investigate life on Europa?

[sek929]

I think furthering our knowledge of the universe is just about the only thing worth spending $1T on...

Finding life elsewhere, no matter how insignificant, would be the single most important event in human history, how is that not a worthwhile endeavor?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

How do you get that I "have no curiosity about the world around" me? Because I don't think it's worth $1T to send a manned mission to investigate life on Europa?

Yes. That would be the most amazing discovery in history. If you don't think it's worth 7% of the United States' annual GDP, you can't be very interested. We routinely spend far more on much less worthy causes.

[Shaddim]

Maybe I'm more interested in this world than you are? Rather than running around trying to find single-celled organisms on some distant moon we should fix some of the world's social and economic problems. Let's just remove the splinter from our collective eye first.

Life is out there, we may find it eventually, but it really doesn't matter if we continue to slaughter each other for money and sport.

[downinflames68]

Everything from space travel trickles down. Space pushes the limits of engineering, design, efficiency, materials, production, manufacturing, and bravery. Anybody who wants to kill space exploration should go live in a cave.

[CharlesS]

Yeah, if it weren't for technology that was invented for the moon landings, we probably wouldn't have the computers we're using to have this conversation right now. As for fixing all the world's problems before we explore space, well, that's never going to happen. There will always be social and economic problems of some sort — it's not possible to completely fix everything, because real life isn't Star Trek.

[wolfen]

It is interesting, Charles, that you accept there will always be social and economic problems, but imply that our reluctance to accept a technological status quo is necessary for advancement. Any chance those two viewpoints are both products and causes of the disparity between the progress made in each domain? I mean, if a guy says "Of course I beat my kids, but I treat my 2nd wife great because she gives good head," then wouldn't it be logical to expect his attitude has some impact on the course of those relationships?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Bingo. Thats my opinion as well.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with those who disagree to disprove it.

Ah, but using the burden of proof cop-out doesn't mean you win the argument. Yes, there is a burden of proof on those who believe there is life on other planets. But, you *are also making a claim*. You are claiming that Earth is the only planet supporting life. Once you make that claim, you *also* have a burden of proof. In any case, neither of you can claim victory until one finds life off of Earth or the other demonstrates that no planet other than Earth has life.

Honestly, I'm beginning to realize that anyone who tries to use the "burden of proof" argument really doesn't understand that they can't make counter-claims when they do it.

In other news, Europa might have the necessary conditions to support life:
Could Jupiter Moon Harbor Fish-Size Life?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

It is interesting, Charles, that you accept there will always be social and economic problems, but imply that our reluctance to accept a technological status quo is necessary for advancement. Any chance those two viewpoints are both products and causes of the disparity between the progress made in each domain? I mean, if a guy says "Of course I beat my kids, but I treat my 2nd wife great because she gives good head," then wouldn't it be logical to expect his attitude has some impact on the course of those relationships?

Sigh, I'm not saying we shouldn't try to solve such problems. But putting everything else on hold until we do means we basically cancel those things forever. It's asinine, and if we're going that route we might as well just give up and go back to living in caves.

Besides, who knows, the technological advances we get from such a mission could help with our various other problems too. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

[Shaddim]

I love that caveman strawman, you should drag it out more often. Maybe sell it to Geico, even.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Nothing exists in a vacuum.

Don't disturb me when I'm cleaning my room!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I love that caveman strawman, you should drag it out more often. Maybe sell it to Geico, even.

A strawman? What did I accuse you of saying that you didn't in fact say?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Ah, but using the burden of proof cop-out doesn't mean you win the argument. Yes, there is a burden of proof on those who believe there is life on other planets. But, you *are also making a claim*. You are claiming that Earth is the only planet supporting life. Once you make that claim, you *also* have a burden of proof. In any case, neither of you can claim victory until one finds life off of Earth or the other demonstrates that no planet other than Earth has life.

Honestly, I'm beginning to realize that anyone who tries to use the "burden of proof" argument really doesn't understand that they can't make counter-claims when they do it.

In other news, Europa might have the necessary conditions to support life:
Could Jupiter Moon Harbor Fish-Size Life?

Oh i do know about "burden of proof", i wasn't joking about taking philosophy in college. Bear in mind that(as pointed out in my original post), i am not claiming that aliens do or don't exist (both are equally irrational given what we *know* (as opposed to *guess* or *hope*). I never said Alien life doesn't exist.... to reiterate....
I think there is a probability(what magnitude im not sure) that alien life(single cell at the very least) exists. But at the same time, given what we know thus far, i do not believe it exists.

In fact i can go so far as to say that i do hope it exists, but i think when having a serious discussion on the matter one should be able to distinguish between science and fiction(at least in matters where the thing in question has a physical dimension to it).

So i'm not going to disproof the existence of Alien life, because i never claimed it did not exist. So i guess the burden shifts back to those who seem sure that it does ?