> "These ideas that came to explain specific properties of 'Oumuamua always involve something that we have never seen before," said Loeb.
"If that's the direction we are taking, then why not contemplate an artificial origin?"
This reasoning seems strange to me. We discover new things in nature all the time. Why would we consider an artificial origin, when we're constantly revising our knowledge of the natural world?
"If that's the direction we are taking, then why not contemplate an artificial origin?"
This reasoning seems strange to me. We discover new things in nature all the time. Why would we consider an artificial origin, when we're constantly revising our knowledge of the natural world?