I'm not disagreeing, in fact, before this I said it was likely we would find something we call "life" on other planets. My point is more that we can't make the argument that space is huge, thus there must be life.
I suppose the "hardly 100%" to me could be expressed as "hardly 10%". while we are gaining more and more knowledge about the universe each day, our ability to make inferences about Earth-type planets is limited. I guess I haven't followed this, but at best, we had only been able to locate planets larger than jupiter that are not around our sun, and given Earth's proximity to the sun, similar planets are difficult to find, as the sun "blocks" them. I'm not saying we wont ever know, just that, at this point, we can't be sure enough of the probability to say, a priori, that space = life.
Well, we are disagreeing, because I am saying we CAN say that. Or, more literally, "space is huge, thus there is almost certainly life." Obviously there is more to it than that, but it does encapsulate the point.
And yes, we are lacking test data; all our data on life origins comes from a single source which is not the best circumstance.
But it is still untrue to imply that we have no idea at all of the chances. We do have a workable idea.
Meanwhile, you say we don't know how earth-like other earthlike planets are. Again, we won't know for certain until we get to one- but again, we do have a very good idea WHY Earth is the way it is, and we know it's possible for that to be replicated elsewhere.
You also say that not knowing that Earth-like conditions are required makes the case weaker. No, that makes it stronger. Scientists are deliberately limiting themselves by saying Earth-like worlds only. This is not actually based on thinking that for sure; it is purely because we only have evidence from an Earth-like world. If it turns out that OTHER types can, the chances for extraterrestrial life grow still larger.
Problem is with the meaning of the term sentience itself as it is rather poorly defined. If we consider sentience the experiencing of the conscient sensations we experience such as heat, pleasure, pain, colors, etc. it's unlikely that ants experience that, unlike dogs and people.
But the meaning of knowing is also complicated. The ant perceives its environment and interprets the data, we could say it knows what is happening even without what we call "mind". Same goes for plants
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, we are disagreeing, because I am saying we CAN say that. Or, more literally, "space is huge, thus there [b]is almost certainly life." Obviously there is more to it than that, but it does encapsulate the point.And yes, we are lacking test data; all our data on life origins comes from a single source which is not the best circumstance.
But it is still untrue to imply that we have no idea at all of the chances. We do have a workable idea. [/B]
ok, let me try this. think of it like trying to see if a medicine works. it is possible that you could test one person, and then assume what happens to them is what will happen to everyone, but this will produce a huge number of false positive results. you do make a good point with knowing about earth's history, and in terms of the medical example, it would help to know the single individual's medical history, but for Earth, this is not as applicable. the only reason history would help in medicine is because we know what an average person's health is. what is necessary is is to have some idea of what normal earth-like planet development is, rather than assuming the specific history earth has had is itself normal.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Other than limiting our sources of data, that's irrelevant to the point at hand.
ok, I can understand why you might characterize it like that, but scientists have to work with knowns, rather than speculating on what might be possible. this might be acceptable in terms of theoretical science, but not statistical inference
I think you might have taken what I'm saying to mean I dont think there is life out there. this isn't true at all, however, in terms of inference, what we can say about life on other planets, what we know is essentially anecdotal.
Originally posted by inimalistDepends what you mean by 'remote'...
afaik we have yet to discover an extrasolar planet with even remotely similar qualities to earth
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/gliese_581_feature.html
[Wait a sec: it orbits a red sun, has a higher gravity than Earth (so any native humanoid life would be much stronger than us)... 😐 ]
Regards the thread: I have a feeling the universe is more akin to an ocean than a desert, one seemingly empty in part due to its vastness. On Earth, life seems extremely opportunistic and tenacious. Even if Life Out There is mostly microbial, I'd bet our solar system alone has quite a few life hotspots.
Originally posted by Mindship
Depends what you mean by 'remote'...http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/gliese_581_feature.html
[Wait a sec: it orbits a red sun, has a higher gravity than Earth (so any native humanoid life would be much stronger than us)... 😐 ]
personally i dont know if i believe there is such thing as aliens or other signs of life outside the universe. but sometimes its hard to believe that we humans are the only intelligent lifeform in the universe. Especially when the universe is still expanding but then science says that there isnt any other life form outside earth. So really i dont know what to believe in.
Of course there could be. There are billions of galaxies with solar systems. What do you think could be going on there? Compounds of different type nutrients to species that may use different types of compounds. Why is it so difficult to believe that we could not be the only ones in the whole scope? Is it pride? Is it stupidity?
It should be so simple. We are possilby not alone. Is there something wrong with that? If so, then we are small minded. Oh and we were all alone in the "New World" also. And yet we found there were others before us.
Originally posted by Mindship
Depends what you mean by 'remote'...http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/gliese_581_feature.html
[Wait a sec: it orbits a red sun, has a higher gravity than Earth (so any native humanoid life would be much stronger than us)... 😐 ]
Regards the thread: I have a feeling the universe is more akin to an ocean than a desert, one seemingly empty in part due to its vastness. On Earth, life seems extremely opportunistic and tenacious. Even if Life Out There is mostly microbial, I'd bet our solar system alone has quite a few life hotspots.
very cool. I remember when they found the first extrasolar planets, but I hadn't kept up with it.
The news is in!
NASA didn't find an alien life form in space. They found one on Earth, sort of. There is a form of bacteria in California that uses arsenic as one of its top six biological components, specifically it replaces most uses of phosphorus.
Why is that exciting? Ever heard of a thing called DNA? Code of life and all that jazz. Well it's based around phosphate groups in every for of life known to man except this one.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The news is in!NASA didn't find an alien life form in space. They found one on Earth, sort of. There is a form of bacteria in California that uses arsenic as one of its top six biological components, specifically it replaces most uses of phosphorus.
Why is that exciting? Ever heard of a thing called DNA? Code of life and all that jazz. Well it's based around phosphate groups in every for of life known to man except this one.
😈 Satan is making life just to deceive us. 😂