Originally posted by twhiteheadAh yes, the Drake equation. Sorry, I did not have the patience to read all prior ten pages of the thread, so my long post may be off-topic.
The calculations this thread is responding to, put such a fantastically small figure on the probability that a reasonable conclusion would be that it is impossible. The problem is that the figures were not explained. Sonship keeps waffling on about how the figures may be debatable but are still useful, yet fails to explain where they come from or if they ...[text shortened]... claims to have done such a calculation and come up with an explicit figure is talking nonsense.
The problem with the argument based on the Drake equation, as I see it, is that, while the number of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe is mathematically impressive, the argument form has a serious logical weakness: the conclusion is an induction from a single case--we know of life in only one place, here now. Logically speaking, there is only one argument form which is weaker than a singe-case induction: induction from zero cases.
The probability of life in other solar systems would rise dramatically if even the basic chemical components of life were discovered elsewhere in our solar system.
BTW: The analogy between God and a hypothetical trans-plutonian planet does not quite hold. First, because the procedure (of calculating the approximate mass and orbit of an unknown planet to account for observed perturbations in the orbit(s) of known planets) has already been successfully applied in the discovery of a planet. Second, because we are not on the verge of discovering another God to account for perturbations in the known universe. So, in the case of a hypothetical planet, we are in fact dealing with a set of possible outcomes in a way which is not analogous to the probability that one sui genris God exists.
Granted, God either exists or God does not exist, so the probability there is exactly calculable: 0.5. But that is trivial, since it applies to anything at all: New Jersey either exists or it doesn't = 0.5, the tooth fairy either exists or it doesn't = 0.5.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkEvolution has been observed and is reproducible. It is unclear to me how Nebraska Man changes this situation. It was once thought that there are only four elements. Does that mean hydrogen does not exist?
Apologies seems like the 'observed and reproducible' sarcasm was lost on you.
Originally posted by moonbusThe Drake equation actually doesn't imply that there are many planets with life - it depends on what numbers you put into the equation, and for many of the variables we have no good estimates. When I was a TA we had one question involving the Drake equation to practice order of magnitude calculations. No "correct" answer for the number of planets with life is available, but the students' estimates ranged from <1 to many trillions.
Ah yes, the Drake equation. Sorry, I did not have the patience to read all prior ten pages of the thread, so my long post may be off-topic.
The problem with the argument based on the Drake equation, as I see it, is that, while the number of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe is mathematically impressive, the argument form has a ser ...[text shortened]... New Jersey either exists or it doesn't = 0.5, the tooth fairy either exists or it doesn't = 0.5.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDon't be fooled by the numbers, it doesn't matter how one jiggles them; it's still a single-case induction, which is a very weak form of argument.
The Drake equation actually doesn't imply that there are many planets with life - it depends on what numbers you put into the equation, and for many of the variables we have no good estimates. When I was a TA we had one question involving the Drake equation to practice order of magnitude calculations. No "correct" answer for the number of planets with life is available, but the students' estimates ranged from <1 to many trillions.
Originally posted by moonbusYour posts have been welcome and I wasn't disputing what you have said (well mostly), only clarifying where it touches on the main topic of the thread or adding more for side topics.
Sorry, I did not have the patience to read all prior ten pages of the thread, so my long post may be off-topic.
The problem with the argument based on the Drake equation,...
I am not aware of any arguments based on the Drake equation for the very reason you cite. A key figure is missing. The Drake equation nevertheless gives key insight into what it would take to estimate the amount of life in the universe.
Granted, God either exists or God does not exist, so the probability there is exactly calculable: 0.5.
Only if you have no information either way.
But that is trivial, since it applies to anything at all: New Jersey either exists or it doesn't = 0.5
Really? New Jersey only has a 50% chance of existing?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSarcasm doesn't work very well in a discussion forum. Sarcasm is basically a very vague claim along the lines of 'well I don't really believe you and it should be obvious to you why not'. Such claims generally fall flat and are indicative of the fact that the speaker lacks an actual argument.
Apologies seems like the 'observed and reproducible' sarcasm was lost on you.
Originally posted by moonbusThe Drake equation makes no such induction. Some people do in order to try and fill in the Drake equation, but that isn't the equations fault.
Don't be fooled by the numbers, it doesn't matter how one jiggles them; it's still a single-case induction, which is a very weak form of argument.
Originally posted by Great King RatHow much time did you spend on this bit of sarcasm ?
Why, sure you may. And I may freely contribute a tenet of the Dragons.
See, the Dragons were the ones who made a pact with the Evil Lord ZaZau.
Zazau was envious of the Dragon's Fire Breath since he thought obtaining the Dragon's Fire Breath would secure his place as ruler of the universe. The Dragons, meanwhile, with their Golden Hearts and une ...[text shortened]... ess. Watches with delight as the wandering souls suffer. Suffer from the Dragon's Pact.
Yeah.
We're going to get the sarcasm police after you.
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution has been observed and is reproducible. It is unclear to me how Nebraska Man changes this situation. It was once thought that there are only four elements. Does that mean hydrogen does not exist?
Evolution has been observed and is reproducible.
Change is observed. Change in, for example, sizes and shapes of finch beaks has been observed. Other changes of natural selection have been observed.
The question is how much can this be extrapolated?
Can we extrapolate this kind of change to propose that a unguided and purposeless process produced some 8.7 million (give or take 1.3 million) estimated total number of species on the planet?
Some evolution observed ? Yes, in breeding of dogs and experiments with flies, plants, bacteria.
But shall our enthusiasm for the discovery be extrapolated out to such an extent as to make it an explanation for the development of all species from a common simple first organism?
Do you think we can go overboard ?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf evolution happens over millions of years how would it be observed and reproduced? I guess you could find a fossil like a tooth and guess what the rest of the creature looks like. More like art than science. Requires a lot of creativity and imagination.
Evolution has been observed and is reproducible. It is unclear to me how Nebraska Man changes this situation. It was once thought that there are only four elements. Does that mean hydrogen does not exist?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkEvolution takes place over all timescales just as fast as organisms reproduce. It can be observed over mere days for fast reproducing organisms.
If evolution happens over millions of years how would it be observed and reproduced? I guess you could find a fossil like a tooth and guess what the rest of the creature looks like. More like art than science. Requires a lot of creativity and imagination.
As for millions of years, observations can be made via the fossil record and other observations of the past. It cannot be reproduced on those time scales, but nobody is claiming it has been.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThere have been experiment on drosophila (fruit flies) where they have bred them in different artificial environments and speciation, at the level of mating preference, occurred. From memory it required fifty generations. Not only are such experiments possible, they have been performed.
If evolution happens over millions of years how would it be observed and reproduced? I guess you could find a fossil like a tooth and guess what the rest of the creature looks like. More like art than science. Requires a lot of creativity and imagination.
Originally posted by moonbusEntropy is positive semi-definite (greater or equal to zero) for any system and any component of a system. The normal way of expressing the concept you seem to want to express is in terms of an entropy pump where the organism maintains its internal structure and keeps itself in a state of relatively low entropy by increasing the entropy of its environment.
Ok, how's this: life is little pockets of intense negative entropy, and then you die.