5 ms·
It was an interesting thoery, but IMO his habit of making similar claims every time an interstellar object is discovered cast doubt on that original theory.
by blincoln 4mo ago
It was an interesting thoery, but IMO his habit of making similar claims every time an interstellar object is discovered cast doubt on that original theory.
- cubefox 4mo agoI'm not aware of any similar claims. I thought the other two interstellar objects were not anomalous.
- matt_kantor 4mo agoYou can read a summary on his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb#Claims_about_alien_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb#Claims_about_alien_li...
- cubefox 4mo agoI note that article seems quite biased against Loeb. For example, they cite USA Today strongly criticizing him, which is not a reputable source in this debate. Wikipedia also doesn't mention that many other astrophysicists think that his 'Oumuamua theory is unlikely but not crazy. They only cite very negative criticism, but not the many more neutral responses. They also don't mention that he is far from the only one believing that 'Oumuamua appears to have a highly unusual shape. Wikipedia tries to paint him in the worst light possible.
- matt_kantor 4mo agoI've got no horse in this race, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that you can edit the article[0] to fix anything that you feel is incorrect and/or not adhering to the encyclopedia's policies. You could also bring up your concerns on the talk page[1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avi_Loeb&action=edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avi_Loeb&action=e... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avi_Loeb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avi_Loeb
- cubefox 4mo agoMy edit would be reverted, and my talk page complaints would take a large amount of effort that likely ultimately goes nowhere when it's up against established editors. Instead I was telling you here that Wikipedia is not automatically unbiased just because it could theoretically be edited by anyone.