# Basis of science's belief that extraterrestrial life is likely? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2010, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137 "2010-11-10T03:43:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Saganist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Saganist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saganist)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/201 "2010-11-11T19:59:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The clarification is important to prevent that and indeed, because there is uncertainty therefore more research is needed. My overall point here is that yes, just recently we only could guess at the probabilities, nowadays many of the holes are being plug and it seems to me that insisting that there is no growing circumstantial and actual evidence of the optimistic view is becoming silly. (Or I should say: I’m beginning to dismiss the position of the ones claiming scientists have nothing to base the idea that life is probable out there, as they seem to not bother to check that the new evidence is changing the probabilities) I’m wondering if you can present some of this emerging evidence that life is likely to exist throughout the universe. So far you’ve mentioned the discovery of large amounts of extra-solar planets, and have said you think the evidence is large enough to warrant a guess (which may have been based on more than the planets). I’m open to updating my point of view so please let me know what you are aware of. Frankly, I think discovering that there are lots of planets, even Earth-like ones, is almost the trivial aspect of the problem. Far more complicated, I would imagine, is determining the likelihood of life coming into existence when the conditions are available for it to do so. We could either do this by observing lots of Earth planets and counting how many have life (difficult) or putting together crazy physics models to see how often self-replicating things arise out of organic compounds (also difficult). As far as I’m aware, there is no theory from either approach that says something like: “on planets with conditions L, there is a 80% confidence level that life appears 0.001%-0.005% of the time”. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/202 "2010-11-11T20:18:18Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The question is to estimate the frequency of red jellybeans in an jar. This is interesting, because I believe the question is whether or not any other red jellybeans exist. > [@](#): > > Sure, we’ve got one red jellybean (life on Earth), but that was just what was needed to start the experiment. We need to throw out that sample, because it’s biased, and wait for the next sample. > > The trouble is that it’s going to take a lot of effort to collect that second jellybean, and lots of people don’t want to wait. And so they say, hey, we got one red jellybean, and so why can’t we guess that the jar is 100% red jellybeans? I think folks are staring at a jar the size of Texas, and saying out of all those jellybeans, is it really possible that none of them are the same color as the one in my hand? The one in my hand wasn’t even designed to be red, it just turned red through purely natural processes, and out of all those trillions of other jellybeans, not a single other one also turned red. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/203 "2010-11-11T20:50:44Z")
> [@Saganist](#): > > I’m wondering if you can present some of this emerging evidence that life is likely to exist throughout the universe. So far you’ve mentioned the discovery of large amounts of extra-solar planets, and have said you think the evidence is large enough to warrant a guess (which may have been based on more than the planets). > > I’m open to updating my point of view so please let me know what you are aware of. > > Frankly, I think discovering that there are lots of planets, even Earth-like ones, is almost the trivial aspect of the problem. Far more complicated, I would imagine, is determining the likelihood of life coming into existence when the conditions are available for it to do so. We could either do this by observing lots of Earth planets and counting how many have life (difficult) or putting together crazy physics models to see how often self-replicating things arise out of organic compounds (also difficult). As far as I’m aware, there is no theory from either approach that says something like: “on planets with conditions L, there is a 80% confidence level that life appears 0.001%-0.005% of the time”. All along I was saying that it goes both ways as we are dealing with probabilities, admitting that you have no good way to calculate your “life is unlikely” position was precisely what I was referring to. What I’m trying to check was if you had a system that allowed you to dismiss the new evidence or **how in heck you are qualifying it as trivial** , what system you had to then add add/or dismiss the probabilities. Or do I have to conclude that in reality even if evidence like new planets is discovered that continues to be nothing? Or you had no reason really to be as dismissive as you have been so far? ---
**Author:** ![Saganist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Saganist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saganist)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/204 "2010-11-11T21:33:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > All along I was saying that it goes both ways as we are dealing with probabilities, admitting that you have no good way to calculate your “life is unlikely” position was precisely what I was referring to. > > What I’m trying to check was if you had a system that allowed you to dismiss the new evidence or **how in heck you are qualifying it as trivial** , what system you had to then add add/or dismiss the probabilities. Or do I have to conclude that in reality even if evidence like new planets is discovered that continues to be nothing? Or you had no reason really to be as dismissive as you have been so far? This reads like you only read the first few lines of my post. Plus there’s a reference to me saying that life is unlikely, which I have never claimed. I don’t immediately conclude the existence of many Earth-like planets means extra-terrestrial life exists because I’m aware it is only one (arguably quite minor) factor in the overall probability. You have been claiming that _based on emerging scientific evidence_, we have good reason to think the overall probability is high. I’m just curious to see what evidence drives you to this conclusion. I really do want there to be other life out there. If you can show me scientific, not emotional or philosophical, reasons to believe that, it will make my day. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/205 "2010-11-11T21:52:48Z")
> [@Saganist](#): > > I don’t immediately conclude the existence of many Earth-like planets means extra-terrestrial life exists because I’m aware it is only one (arguably quite minor) factor in the overall probability. Me neither, what I’m trying to figure out is how you are calculating that. > [@Saganist](#): > > You have been claiming that _based on emerging scientific evidence_, we have good reason to think the overall probability is high. I’m just curious to see what evidence drives you to this conclusion. And I mentioned before: Should I bother? After all it is clear that you are discussing with no agreed way to weight the evidence. > [@Saganist](#): > > I really do want there to be other life out there. If you can show me scientific, not emotional or philosophical, reasons to believe that, it will make my day. It might, but that is not my point here. I’m trying to figure out if you based your original dismissals on reliable sources, so far I don’t see that or a method. (The new Discover magazine has a fascinating tale of how basic amino acids and other building elements of life are found all over the universe) ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/206 "2010-11-11T22:02:28Z")
You’re not getting it. He doesn’t believe extraterrestrial life is unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/207 "2010-11-11T22:08:18Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > You’re not getting it. He doesn’t believe extraterrestrial life is unlikely. I already got that, I’m trying to figure out if what he is doing regarding how probabilities are affected by evidence (he claims that other systems or planets being discovered does not change the probabilities at all or it is a trivial thing, \*\*that \*\*demands a big fat cite) are based on good information. ---
**Author:** ![Saganist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Saganist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saganist)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/208 "2010-11-11T22:14:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Me neither, what I’m trying to figure out is how you are calculating that. I don’t know what I’m supposedly calculating. I have no figure for an estimated probability of the existence of non-terrestrial life. > [@](#): > > And I mentioned before: Should I bother? After all it is clear that you are discussing with no agreed way to weight the evidence. I laid out in post 201 two scenarios for gathering evidence that could lead to a decent estimation of the life probability figure. You are free to suggest more. Generally, it’s easier to have a discussion on how meaningful evidence is when it has already been presented. > [@](#): > > It might, but that is not my point here. I’m trying to figure out if you based your original dismissals on reliable sources, so far I don’t see that or a method. (The new Discover magazine has a fascinating tale of how basic amino acids and other building elements of life are found all over the universe) Again, I’m not sure what I’m supposedly dismissing. Is it claims that finding a lot of extra-solar planets means life is likely? Ok, but I’ve explained that already. Knowing a figure for the number of planets means nothing if you multiply it by X and X could be any number. X is the probability of life arising on an earth-like planet; do you have an estimate for that? Where did it come from? Or if you think knowing the number of planets actually does mean we can make a good guess that life exists, please explain why you think so. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/209 "2010-11-11T23:35:43Z")
> [@Saganist](#): > > I laid out in post 201 two scenarios for gathering evidence that could lead to a decent estimation of the life probability figure. You are free to suggest more. Generally, it’s easier to have a discussion on how meaningful evidence is when it has already been presented. That posts reports that: > [@](#): > > Frankly, I think discovering that there are lots of planets, even Earth-like ones, is almost the trivial aspect of the problem. Far more complicated, I would imagine, is determining the likelihood of life coming into existence when the conditions are available for it to do so. We could either do this by observing lots of Earth planets and counting how many have life (difficult) or putting together crazy physics models to see how often self-replicating things arise out of organic compounds (also difficult). As far as I’m aware, there is no theory from either approach that says something like: “on planets with conditions L, there is a 80% confidence level that life appears 0.001%-0.005% of the time”. No, you are just saying that there is no theory. The cite I’m asking for is just where are you getting the idea that plugging one of the holes is useless, your opinion is good, but it is just that, I would like to check if researchers are saying that **we can not use** the current results. > [@Saganist](#): > > Again, I’m not sure what I’m supposedly dismissing. Is it claims that finding a lot of extra-solar planets means life is likely? Ok, but I’ve explained that already. Knowing a figure for the number of planets means nothing if you multiply it by X and X could be any number. X is the probability of life arising on an earth-like planet; do you have an estimate for that? Where did it come from? Or if you think knowing the number of planets actually does mean we can make a good guess that life exists, please explain why you think so. No, I’m saying that before it was claimed that figuring out that number was meaningless and before we continue it is you who has to show were are you getting your reasons on why we should dismiss the new discoveries. What I’m trying to say is that I asked first where are you getting your formulations, or can we finally say that you are just getting them from gut feelings? ---
**Author:** ![Saganist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Saganist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saganist)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/210 "2010-11-12T00:01:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The cite I’m asking for is just where are you getting the idea that plugging one of the holes is useless, your opinion is good, but it is just that > … > before we continue it is you who has to show were are you getting your reasons on why we should dismiss the new discoveries. I said one particular hole-plugging was useless and gave an argument for that position. Please address that instead of just saying “it’s just your opinion”. You seem to be under the impression that you could bring up all sorts of evidence and I would just go “Nope, that’s worthless” and nothing more. Why would you have that idea? The one specific example you did bring up I gave an actual argument for why I don’t think it affects the probability (in a meaningful way). > [@](#): > > What I’m trying to say is that I asked first where are you getting your formulations, or can we finally say that you are just getting them from gut feelings? Of course my arguments are just my intuition. But let’s remember that I’m not the one claiming anything here. You said: > [@](#): > > it seems to me that insisting that there is no growing circumstantial and actual evidence of the optimistic view is becoming silly. In other words, you claim evidence exists to support a position of high probability of extra-terrestrial life. So far you presented one piece of that evidence, which I attacked. If you want your position to be taken seriously, you ought to either defend the evidence you presented, or present more. Just saying that my arguments against your evidence are only “gut feeling” isn’t doing anything for you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/211 "2010-11-12T00:16:10Z")
> [@Saganist](#): > > In other words, you claim evidence exists to support a position of high probability of extra-terrestrial life. So far you presented one piece of that evidence, which I attacked. If you want your position to be taken seriously, you ought to either defend the evidence you presented, or present more. Just saying that my arguments against your evidence are only “gut feeling” isn’t doing anything for you. Nope, the reason is that I read the conclusions of researchers at Nasa and others and when they come with conclusions like: > **[Read "The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems" at NAP.edu](https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11919/chapter/10#84)** > > Read chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations: The search for life in the solar system and beyond has to date been governed by a model based on what we ... > [@](#): > > **The committee’s investigation makes clear that life is possible in forms different from those on Earth.** Different specific biomolecules may be considered highly likely in extraterrestrial life. Different architectures at the microscopic and macroscopic levels must also be considered likely. Advocates of replicator-first theories hold that—with reasonable interactions between minerals, polar refractory solvents, and organic species—the spontaneous emergence of genetic biopolymers may be expected. Other scientists feel that the chances of such an event are infinitesimal but that other circumstances may suffice for the origin of life. Whichever group is correct, the likelihood of encountering some form of life in subsurface Mars and sub-ice Europa appears high. Life-detection strategies should be redesigned to maximize the possibility of successful detection of life by seeking intermediates common to the two theories. > > Furthermore, life should be considered possible in aqueous environments that are extreme in their solute content, in their acidity or alkalinity, and in their temperature range, especially with ammonia as an antifreeze in low-temperature water-ammonia eutectics. The committee sees no reason to exclude the possibility of life in environments as diverse as the aerosols above Venus and the water-ammonia eutectics of Titan. It seems that life is less likely in more exotic solvents—such as liquid dinitrogen, liquid methane, and supercritical dihydrogen—but this conclusion is based on few data. So yes, more capable scientists are concluding that life is likely our there, now can you gave us a cite of where you got your gut feelings? 🙂 I have to clarify something here, I have looked at the current research and it is thanks to new discoveries that researchers are more confident about the chances of life out there, I’m still genuinely curios to check if there were experts in the matter that are just pessimistic and if their reasons are valid and with support. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/212 "2010-11-12T00:27:23Z")
> [@Saganist](#): > > I said one particular hole-plugging was useless and gave an argument for that position. Ahem, that is not a cite. I know that it is a good opinion, but I’m still trying to find out who is the closest expert that is telling us that the discovery of new planets and systems is just a trivial thing. ---
**Author:** ![Saganist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Saganist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saganist)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/213 "2010-11-12T00:34:31Z")
I get the strong feeling from your posts that you don’t understand what I am saying at all. I have never said I believe life is unlikely, nor that any evidence should just be dismissed out of hand because I have a “gut feeling” that life is improbable. Now you present what I asked you to present, specific evidence (maybe at least; obviously I can’t go through the book and what you quoted sounds like typical speculation, not research), and you are presenting it like it just destroyed my position. I appreciate the cite, but for now I am still agnostic about the high probability, just because a quote saying “in conclusion, we (qualitatively) claim life is likely” is not the most convincing statement on its own. Edit: > [@](#): > > Ahem, that is not a cite. I know that it is a good opinion, but I’m still trying to find out who is the closest expert that is telling us that the discovery of new planets and systems is just a trivial thing. Good arguments stand on their own regardless of who presents them. Please address the argument instead of simply saying I’m only a non-expert. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/214 "2010-11-12T00:41:12Z")
> [@Saganist](#): > > I get the strong feeling from your posts that you don’t understand what I am saying at all. I have never said I believe life is unlikely, nor that any evidence should just be dismissed out of hand because I have a “gut feeling” that life is improbable. > > Now you present what I asked you to present, specific evidence (maybe at least; obviously I can’t go through the book and what you quoted sounds like typical speculation, not research), and you are presenting it like it just destroyed my position. That was a test BTW, that comes from Nasa and the National Academics Press, with citations too. And that is why so far my gut feeling of you being capable of dismissing things out of hand is confirmed. > [@Saganist](#): > > I appreciate the cite, but for now I am still agnostic about the high probability, just because a quote saying “in conclusion, we (qualitatively) claim life is likely” is not the most convincing statement on its own. Of course, but after looking at the information it is clear that experts in different fields were consulted and contributed on the matter. Now, can you please clarify where you got your info? Where I’m coming from is that positions without citations can be good, but I believe that no one in a message board (even me) should be trusted just by their say so’s. I have found before that citations can also show how aware and/or serious posters are in a discussion. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/215 "2010-11-12T00:55:55Z")
> [@Saganist](#): > > Good arguments stand on their own regardless of who presents them. Please address the argument instead of simply saying I’m only a non-expert. Frankly IMHO that point is just rhetorical, once again: before there was no evidence for planets out there around other stars. Without them it is logical to assume that whatever formula of your choice used to calculate the probabilities of life out there was affected negatively. Now we are discovering exo planets constantly, and the most I have seen coming from you is that it is a trivial thing. Nope, before the exo planets I would agree that the possibilities of life out there were remote. I’m more optimistic now because of the current discoveries and the support of the experts in the matter regarding other items besides the billions of planets that are out there (based on the sample of investigated areas in outer space so far). ---
**Author:** ![Saganist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Saganist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saganist)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/216 "2010-11-12T02:17:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That was a test BTW, that comes from Nasa and the National Academics Press, with citations too. > > And that is why so far my gut feeling of you being capable of dismissing things out of hand is confirmed. I didn’t dismiss it at all. I’m not quite sure how to phrase this, but I guess I just take issue with a identified conclusion that is just the vague “we think it’s likely”. But then again, I admit the methodologies they used may very well make it unambiguous what likely means. There’s also the fact that in that quoted paragraph, it mentions there is still large disagreement about the odds of “the spontaneous emergence of genetic biopolymers” > [@](#): > > Now, can you please clarify where you got your info? Where I’m coming from is that positions without citations can be good, but I believe that no one in a message board (even me) should be trusted just by their say so’s. I have found before that citations can also show how aware and/or serious posters are in a discussion. I looked back over my recent posts and I admit there were instances when I said things like there is no evidence when what I meant was I’m not aware of any evidence. I think the equivalent only factual statement I made is that research has not set a lower bound on the probability of life forming high enough so as to conclude it must be common in the universe. I admit I am unable to cite this as searching for low odds of abiogenesis just turns up creationist stuff. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Frankly IMHO that point is just rhetorical, once again: before there was no evidence for planets out there around other stars. Without them it is logical to assume that whatever formula of your choice used to calculate the probabilities of life out there was affected negatively. > > Now we are discovering exo planets constantly, and the most I have seen coming from you is that it is a trivial thing. > > Nope, before the exo planets I would agree that the possibilities of life out there were remote. I’m more optimistic now because of the current discoveries and the support of the experts in the matter regarding other items besides the billions of planets that are out there (based on the sample of investigated areas in outer space so far). I think my reasoning on the trivial comment is clear. IF we don’t know the probability of life arising on earth-like planets, it could be anywhere from 1 to almost 0 THEN it doesn’t matter how many exoplanets we discover, that still doesn’t let us conclude anything about the likelihood of life. You are absolutely right that seeing more planets should make us more optimistic. But if we don’t know how much more optimistic, it seems silly to claim that’s a useful fact. No I can’t cite the idea that the probability might possibly be that low. I would be surprised if all researchers were fairly convinced we know enough to conclude the probability is high, though. Anyways, I have to take off tonight. I will be happy to continue posting this weekend when I can get my thoughts about this more in order. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/217 "2010-11-12T12:12:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, before the exo planets I would **agree** that the possibilities of life out there were remote. Emphasis mine. How many times do you need to be reminded that the people you’re talking to in this thread _do not think that the possibility of life out there is remote_? Will _this_ post do the trick? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/218 "2010-11-12T13:30:09Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Emphasis mine. > > How many times do you need to be reminded that the people you’re talking to in this thread _do not think that the possibility of life out there is remote_? > > Will _this_ post do the trick? 😕 Did you read the last reply of \*\*Saganist \*\*? (Still insisting that we can not conclude anything) I thought I had granted that virtually all here think that there is life out there. The problem now is what the probabilities are, The beef with \*\*Saganist \*\*(that he already took care of in that post BTW) was an issue on why the discovery of other planets seemingly had no effect whatsoever in changing the probabilities of finding life out there. It is a pity that the Discovery article is not online yet, because what current researchers are concluding is that the components of life form not only on planets, but in space. And the most fascinating theory is that the origin of life depends on both items. Hence my beef on the attempts at minimizing the contribution of planetary discoveries. Without planets there is indeed no base where life as we know it (and also life as we don’t know) can arise. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/219 "2010-11-12T14:02:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 😕 > > Did you read the last reply of \*\*Saganist \*\*? (Still insisting that we can not conclude anything) Do you not see the difference between the following two claims? A. There is probably not any extraterrestrial life. B. We cannot conclude anything about whether there is probably extraterrestrial life. **Saganist** , as you said, makes claim B. But that is different than claim A. In other words, in paraphrase, you just told me "Of course Saganist is saying A. After all, in his last post, he said B! But that doesn’t make any sense, since B and A are not just different claims, they’re _incompatible_ with each other. Do you not see the distinction between the two claims? ---
**Author:** ![wintertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c68b51/32.png) [@wintertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wintertime)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137/220 "2010-11-12T14:49:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The problem now is what the probabilities are (..) But this is no problem at all, **GIGObuster**. Our observations show that certain building blocks of the life that we know, exist beyond our planet, a number of experiments (done for example by the group around Michel Nuevo at the Ames Research Institute) support not just the observations but also improve our understanding about the processes behind these phenomena. Other observations indicate that locations exist for these building blocks to gather and to find an environment that makes chemical reactions among them possible. The idea that life may exist out there is supported by such findings and no observation or experiment so far disproves such a possibility. We also do know pretty well the characteristics of the one solar system that contans life and the planet where it is located. So, I see no reason to refuse to search for life; it might exist and we even have an idea where looking for it first might prove to be useful. We can come to such conclusions without having any idea at all about the probability of life within the observable universe. We can even support the search for it while facing people who believe firmly in the uniqueness of life on earth by pointing out that such an endevour will invariably lead to an improved understanding of the cosmos as well as life itself regardless of the success of the search. In no way do we have to know enough first for a computation of probabilities to look further. I think, it’s actually counter-productive to give anything the appearance of probable or, shudder, certain success when we, in fact, know so little (I am looking at you, AI researchers of the 80s). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/basis-of-sciences-belief-that-extraterrestrial-life-is-likely/560137.md?page=12)