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”.
This is interesting, because I believe the question is whether or not any other red jellybeans exist.
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.
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.
Me neither, what I’m trying to figure out is how you are calculating that.
And I mentioned before: Should I bother? After all it is clear that you are discussing with no agreed way to weight the evidence.
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)
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.
I don’t know what I’m supposedly calculating. I have no figure for an estimated probability of the existence of non-terrestrial life.
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.
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, 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.
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?
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).
Of course my arguments are just my intuition. But let’s remember that I’m not the one claiming anything here. You said:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
