That's just blatantly incorrect.

Humanity believes that it has the ability to estimate the intelligence of other animals.

And the way that it does so is always by measuring how well the other species imitate human behaviors.

It doesn't take into account whether those other animals care to imitate human behavior or whether they know they're imitating human behavior or whether they want to imitate human behavior. And it most certainly doesn't understand how well those other animals' intelligence applies within their own niches. You can't test animals' intelligence by testing how closely they behave to human beings when operating mimicking human niches and human goals.

Speaking as someone who's autistic, I've done the research on that. In autistic people, there seem to be a higher number of certain specific neanderthal genes. I'm also very gifted, and work in STEM.

Neurotypical human beings are BLOODY TERRIBLE at recognizing any type of intelligence that is different than neurotypical human beings. It is ASTOUNDING how bad they are at it.

Neurotypical people can't even recognize the intelligence of autistic people. And good luck determining our goals. Other people think I am stupid when they first interact with me, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. I'll just say that revealing too much here would reveal my identity, and I'm not going to do that, but I have a list of accomplishments that I literally couldn't imagine most neurotypical people accomplishing, and I know many other autistic people who are very intelligent. Does this discount neurotypical intelligence? No, not in the least, and it's not intended to. But it does demonstrate that Fermi's Law could be nothing more than humanity's inability to identify other forms of intelligence. And hell, whether you even consider autistic people to be a different kind of intelligence, that's not even referencing animals.

What neurotypical humanity HAS developed is not the only civilization, but the only widespread manipulation of the environment in ways that significantly distorted the environment in such a way that their presence was undeniable long after an absence. That's not the same thing.

You’re treating scientific uncertainty as if it means “anything is possible.” It doesn’t.

We don’t assume variables on other planets match Earth. Astrobiology, planetary science, and exoplanet studies are built on the opposite assumption: that most planets don’t resemble Earth. When scientists estimate what life or civilizations could be like elsewhere, they work from measurable constraints (gravity, density, stellar flux, atmospheric composition), not wishful thinking. For example, we know that: A planet with 3× Earth’s gravity constrains organism size, structural strength, locomotion, and escape velocity. A planet with a dense hydrogen atmosphere changes chemistry and energy availability. A star’s light spectrum dictates photosynthetic possibilities. These aren’t guesses. They follow from basic physics and chemistry, which apply everywhere.

“They misestimated a heat shield” ≠ “we don’t understand planetary physics.” Engineering uncertainty in a single atmospheric re-entry doesn’t invalidate the underlying physics. Weather variation, material tolerance margins, and modeling limits don’t erase Newtonian mechanics or thermodynamics. If your argument were valid, airplanes would disprove gravity because turbulence is hard to predict. Scientific uncertainty does not mean lawlessness.

An organism the size of a mountain on a 10g world can’t simply evolve because “maybe their brains are bigger.” Biology cannot override: stress limits of matter metabolic scaling laws biomechanics gravity energy density limits An advanced species might innovate, but it doesn’t get to ignore basic constraints. A billion-year-old civilization would know more than we do, but they still can’t accelerate to escape velocity without energy, or support infinite mass with finite-strength materials. Knowledge does not nullify physics.

For all we know, they could be scientifically a billion years ahead of us and might be able to manipulate time or matter in ways we couldn't conceive

This is pretty much just “We can’t rule out magic, therefore you’re wrong. Science can only operate on what’s known to be possible or what follows from tested theories. Speculating about physics-breaking abilities isn’t meaningful without evidence; it’s equivalent to saying “you can’t disprove dragons.”

When scientists say “a civilization on a super-Earth would struggle to reach orbit,” they base it on: the planet’s mass and radius → calculates escape velocity atmospheric density gravitational load on structures realistic energy sources We don’t need to know the exact geology to know that a planet of a given mass requires a minimum amount of energy to launch mass into space. That’s just conservation of energy.

Saying “we don’t know everything” is true. Saying “therefore any extreme scenario is viable” is not.