And proud of it.

How many times would you watch the replay of Alonso’s crash if there had been no man in that car?

That’s ridiculous.

Points taken.

"And if you have an exploration program designed to answer the F.P., but its chances of doing so are vanishingly small, that's a waste of exploratory resources."

No disagreements from me, that's for sure!

No disagreements there.

"It _may_ mean we haven't found anything _yet_. "

Note that I'm an absurdist, and I have to ask, why?

So the universe exists because we avoid a divide by zero error? Well, maybe. My opinion is, why does there have to be a reason?

By using instruments to search the universe. By doing biology. By sending some robot probes out there to look. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Maybe I just don't understand what you're saying here.

I don't really consider the Fermi Paradox a philosphical question but more of a scientific one. We can get an answer to it scientifically.

As an atheist, absurdist, I'll agree that we'll never settle these 8 issues conclusively for most people. But I've come to several opinions on several of them based on arguments of likelihood.

Sorry but Tago has convinced me. You should direct your arguments toward him. I'm bowing out.

"Science ticks on, as it should, but philosophers will be there to make sure that everything is put in its right place."

Planck's Constant, derived experimentally in the late 19th century, should not be confused with Planck's units (Proposed in the 1970s.) which are, at the moment mostly mathematical contrivances that may not have any application to reality. They may mean something, we don't know yet.

"While understanding the contents of this article is not necessary for scientists to do be able to do things, it is necessary for understanding what scientists are really doing and the rational principles that underpin their work."

"Data then theory which suggests where to look for more data."

"Philosophers will explain what a law of nature is."

Nope, I still agree with Feynman.