= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AllanCrossman comments on Rationality Quotes: October 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (276)
I'm not sure stars can be called "flying objects".
Well, you can't quite know if a skyward light is something flying near earth until you've identified it, can you? :-)
Mmm. You can usually tell that something's a celestial object, and thus not a flying object, without being able to classify it further...
You've identified it in the relevant sense for the purposes for which the UFO classification was created.
Yikes, too much nesting!
The Air Force (or whatever) invented the classification UFO for an object they don't yet know how to respond to because of the current inability to identify it. Knowing that something is a far-off celestial object is sufficient identification in this context, making it no longer a UFO. [/pedant]
Bumper sticker: "UFOs are real; the Air Force doesn't exist!"
ETA: wait, that contradicts my original point. You know, just forget this last comment. Stars count as flying. They travel without touching a planet's ground. Deal with it. ;-)