Schlake wrote:
I think the answer is easy to the question as posed.  There is definitely life in the universe besides that on earth.  The proof is the people we've put into orbit.  They aren't on earth.  They are instead near it, lingering, hovering, orbiting.  In essence, the ISS astronauts are creepy stalkers.

Clever. 

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Most people who have posted on this subject have said that it is  likely that there is life somewhere in the universe besides on Earth. But "likely" is a question of probabilities, and probabilities is a question of numbers.

"Likely" does not have to refer to hard numbers; if people had numbers, they would indeed give the probability.  The term is an estimation based on an educated guess.

Truly, it would be strange for there to be so much life teeming on this one planet, but absolutely no where else within the vastness of the universe.  The estimation of likelihood is based on how well life thrives in many different conditions (including, as others have mentioned, the extremophiles) and then taking into account how large the *known* universe is. 

Basically, to say that there is life only on the planet Earth in the whole universe is to side with odds that are worse than one in one trillion if you give a very low estimate of how many planets are in the universe.  If you're worried about how I came up with one trillion, just read here about how many stars there may be in the universe, and you'll see that I'm seriously underestimating the potential number of planets: http://www.space.com/26078-how-many-sta … there.html

Let's just say, though, that the probability of life *only* existing on Earth in the entire galaxy is one in one trillion.  Given that probability, would you bet on it being true?

Calli Pygian wrote:

"Likely" does not have to refer to hard numbers; if people had numbers, they would indeed give the probability.  The term is an estimation based on an educated guess.

Truly, it would be strange for there to be so much life teeming on this one planet, but absolutely no where else within the vastness of the universe.  The estimation of likelihood is based on how well life thrives in many different conditions (including, as others have mentioned, the extremophiles) and then taking into account how large the *known* universe is. 

Basically, to say that there is life only on the planet Earth in the whole universe is to side with odds that are worse than one in one trillion if you give a very low estimate of how many planets are in the universe.  If you're worried about how I came up with one trillion, just read here about how many stars there may be in the universe, and you'll see that I'm seriously underestimating the potential number of planets: http://www.space.com/26078-how-many-sta … there.html

Let's just say, though, that the probability of life *only* existing on Earth in the entire galaxy is one in one trillion.  Given that probability, would you bet on it being true?

To me, likely is a synonym for probably.  If something is probable, it is so because of the probabilities.  We are entitled to assert the probability of something only after we have experienced a number of instances of it.  One instance tells us nothing about the probability of it happening.  And we only have one instance of a planet having life:  Earth.

I haven't said that there is life only on Earth.  What I'm saying is that we lack the empirical data to assert whether life exists somewhere other than Earth, and we lack enough instances of life existing in some other location.  Since we don't know the odds, and we haven't yet studied all the celestial bodies with an eye to determining if they have life, we have no basis for asserting that life elsewhere than Earth is probable...or likely.

Your argument that (a) there are extremeophiles in extreme environments on Earth, (b) there are extreme environments in locales other than Earth, and therefor (c) there probably are extremeophiles in extreme locations other than Earth, isn't logical, IMO.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

To me, likely is a synonym for probably.  If something is probable, it is so because of the probabilities.  We are entitled to assert the probability of something only after we have experienced a number of instances of it.  One instance tells us nothing about the probability of it happening.  And we only have one instance of a planet having life:  Earth.

I haven't said that there is life only on Earth.  What I'm saying is that we lack the empirical data to assert whether life exists somewhere other than Earth, and we lack enough instances of life existing in some other location.  Since we don't know the odds, and we haven't yet studied all the celestial bodies with an eye to determining if they have life, we have no basis for asserting that life elsewhere than Earth is probable...or likely.

Your argument that (a) there are extremeophiles in extreme environments on Earth, (b) there are extreme environments in locales other than Earth, and therefor (c) there probably are extremeophiles in extreme locations other than Earth, isn't logical, IMO.

Since we know that biological life exists on Earth, that means the probability that it exists somewhere else is >more than nil.  We can't assert that it exists elsewhere without evidence, but the probability and likelihood is that it does.

Tropic Light wrote:

Since we know that biological life exists on Earth, that means the probability that it exists somewhere else is >more than nil.  We can't assert that it exists elsewhere without evidence, but the probability and likelihood is that it does.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

That doesn't make sense to me.

The rule of infinity, maybe.

Tony-S wrote:
I think we ought to forget about Mars and send a submersible to Europa.

Go away with your logic.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

That doesn't make sense to me.

We know biological life exists in at least one place within the universe.  Therefore the likelihood of it existing in other places is >greater than the likelihood that it doesn't exist anywhere else.  That is all that is required to move the probability slightly beyond the 50th percentile.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Most people who have posted on this subject have said that it is  likely that there is life somewhere in the universe besides on Earth. But "likely" is a question of probabilities, and probabilities is a question of numbers.

Yet, no one says what the numbers are.  No one even seems to know what the order of magnitude is.  Are the odds that there is alien life out there billions to one?  Trillions to one?  Quadrillions to one?

Seems to me, if we don't know the numbers, we have no logical basis to say that extra-terrestrial life is "likely."  Maybe one day, we'll examine all the celestial bodies and see if they have life.  But we're not there yet, far from it.  So, we don't have empirical data, either.

Nothing seems to be left but feelings.  I, too, "feel" that there is life out there somewhere.  And maybe the feeling is correct.  But it's just a feeling. 

For the "What's your point?" crowd...no point other than the one I just made.

Well, do you want numbers, per se, or just odds? Well, here are some numbers based on another approach.

99% of the human body (which, stating the obvious, is that of an organic, sentient being) is comprised of 6 elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. 4 of those 6 are in the top 10 most abundant elements in the universe. Stated a little more generally, most of the elements that make us up are pretty common in the universe.

But not all. Phosphorus (a pretty important element in organic life) is a fairly rare element in the universe. 7 parts per million in the universe. Earth's crust has 1000 parts per million. The human body, has 11,000 parts per million. So a critical element in the human body is pretty rare. That last element, calcium, is not in the top ten (it's number 12) but it's more common than phosphorus.

With all of that in mind, the numbers that matter could probably be defined based on how many planets appear rich in those elements, especially phosphorus. Given how common the other elements are, I'd think that the numbers would be restricted to the likelihood of a planet in the habitable zone that has a decent phosphorus content (with a safe assumption that a planet like that has the other 5 elements).

aspergianLens wrote:
Granted, but part of the problem -- and I think this is very real -- is that there is a real reluctance to accept any UFO-related research and have it peer-reviewed.  I think there is a serious bias against UFO in the scientific community, and it doesn't help the situation at all.

In other words, how can there be reliable UFO articles when no one will peer review them?


Also, I admit that UFOlogy is not following proper scientific procedure.  I believe that the nature of the problem prevents this, largely.  There is just so little to study besides witnesses themselves, rare trace cases, and radar incidents (which are numerous but inconclusive).

As I've said before, if the subject of the inquiry weren't so elusive in nature, then UFOlogy would be a full-fledged science.

This is also a circular problem.  UFO articles don't have reliable citation because no one will peer-review them, because they don't follow proper procedure, yet they are unable to follow proper procedure because of the elusive nature of the phenomenon they are studying...

That sounds more reasonable on the face of it.

The phenomenon is elusive and unpredictable so it's difficult I grant you..
So what evidence there is has been studied by various scientists, though the,data is largerly collected by 'enthusiasts'.
The problem then is, the evidence claimed is often not reliable, or scrutinized properly. Therefore when scientists do look at it, there are problems.
Carl Sagan:
"The reliable cases are uninteresting and the interesting cases are unreliable. Unfortunately there are no cases that are both reliable and interesting"

And therefore stripped bare there isn't very much,at all to study.


I've also given you Dr David Clarke as a citation. He does employ thorough investigation and doesn't come to strong conclusions. He says for example Rendlesham remains 'unexplained'. So he isn't biased against the idea there are UFOs, but points out that it's,far from the definite evidence alleged by Nick Pope.


Alleged ridicule of the phenomena itself by academia is also mot consistent with surveys done most of which indicate scientists have a positive view that the phenomema worthy of study. Peter Sturrock is the one most famously quoted on many of your UFO websites. So theres an irony here in that on one hand they claim academic acceptance, and the other rejection.   

So as I've stated all through, its not the phenomema but the research methods. And when that includes wild claims, rejection of contrasting witness testimony, ignoring of possible other more likely explanation, ridiculously elaborate mythology of greys etc, and downright lies, it's NOT going to be accepted. And the more they cry wolf, the less likely that is to happen. Ufologists and the pseudo science being defended is therefore a travesty of real science, insulting to it , has the most outrageous bias, and ultimately is the main reason ufology is rejected.


One thing for sure. If an actual alien craft were to land so there was actually something to study, ufologists should not be allowed anywhere near it. Because they would manage to screw it up. As I have also said before, you don't actually need a cover up when some of these clowns are on the loose they do the best job of discrediting it as a phenomema.

aspergianLens wrote:
You probably won't accept anything as evidence, short of a alien body or an intact spacecraft.

I would accept a disproportionate amount of right or left-handed organic molecules in a sample as evidence. Of course, that would be just a start, but a very compelling one.

Justin wrote:
Given the existence of extremophiles, both in cold and heat, in various chemical environs, and given the modeling that shows the possibility of life coming about in ice crystals as well as warm liquid environments, it's certain to me that there's life that's started elsewhere. Maybe it's all still at the microbial or simple colony stage except for here, but I'm quite certain it's happened elsewhere.

I don't see how the existence of extremophiles amongst Earth life would lead to certainty about the existence of non-Earth life.

ETA:  Would you agree that Earth's extremophiles evolved from the same lineage as all the other life on Earth?

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
That sounds more reasonable on the face of it.

The phenomenon is elusive and unpredictable so it's difficult I grant you..
So what evidence there is has been studied by various scientists, though the,data is largerly collected by 'enthusiasts'.
The problem then is, the evidence claimed is often not reliable, or scrutinized properly. Therefore when scientists do look at it, there are problems.
Carl Sagan:
"The reliable cases are uninteresting and the interesting cases are unreliable. Unfortunately there are no cases that are both reliable and interesting"

And therefore stripped bare there isn't very much,at all to study.

I think we need to consider the real possibility, here, that we are simply outclassed, dealing with a phenomenon beyond human understanding (or technological development).  There are also other possibilities, of course, but if I'm actually right... then it's a serious problem.

Arch-skeptic and debunker, Philip J. Klass, before he died, wrote this in his will --

To ufologists who publicly criticize me, ... or who even think unkind thoughts about me in private, I do hereby leave and bequeath: THE UFO CURSE: No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are, or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs that you know today. As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse.

Unfortunately, it seems to have come true.  In the last 50 years, UFOlogy hasn't really learned very much aside from amassing data about eyewitness testimony.  As for how reliable that data is, it's anyone's guess.

Monad Studios wrote:
I don't see how the existence of extremophiles amongst Earth life would lead to certainty about the existence of non-Earth life.

It's just my logic, that it's apparent that life does not need supposed ideal conditions.

ETA:  Would you agree that Earth's extremophiles evolved from the same lineage as all the other life on Earth?

As I understand, that's what the DNA clearly shows, so yes.

Justin wrote:
It's just my logic, that it's apparent that life does not need supposed ideal conditions.

Extremophiles make it apparent that life doesn't need "ideal conditions" to survive.  I don't think this tells us much about what conditions are needed for life to arise.  And I don't think we have any basis for deciding, given some set of conditions, how likely it is that life will arise.

I'm just surprised that you would express certainty about something like this, and I'm wondering (still) how you get to that.

Monad Studios wrote:
I'm just surprised that you would express certainty about something like this, and I'm wondering (still) how you get to that.

It's a reasonable question, but I don't know how to refine it much more than I have.

Given the

1) modeling that's been done for life evolution outside of ideal conditions, even within ice crystals, and
2) existence of life in very adverse conditions, then

it's my strong feeling that the Goldilocks zone is a far bit wider and deeper than we might've supposed it to be.

Now, maybe life on a given planetary body wouldn't get past the microbial stage, because it finds success and balance there, particularly if the conditions are more extreme, because the more extreme the conditions, the less diversity we see. I have no opinion on how much complexity there is out there, or whether the dynamics of evolution are robust enough to inevitably force diversity.

But with the prevalence of organic molecules, with the opportunities out there for their recombinations, and with those opportunities being more wide-ranging than we might've originally though, it makes the emergence of life a certainty to my view.

Justin wrote:

Monad Studios wrote:
I'm just surprised that you would express certainty about something like this, and I'm wondering (still) how you get to that.

It's a reasonable question, but I don't know how to refine it much more than I have.

Given the

1) modeling that's been done for life evolution outside of ideal conditions, even within ice crystals, and
2) existence of life in very adverse conditions, then

it's my strong feeling that the Goldilocks zone is a far bit wider and deeper than we might've supposed it to be.

Now, maybe life on a given planetary body wouldn't get past the microbial stage, because it finds success and balance there, particularly if the conditions are more extreme, because the more extreme the conditions, the less diversity we see. I have no opinion on how much complexity there is out there, or whether the dynamics of evolution are robust enough to inevitably force diversity.

But with the prevalence of organic molecules, with the opportunities out there for their recombinations, and with those opportunities being more wide-ranging than we might've originally though, it makes the emergence of life a certainty to my view.

I think we're a bit biased as to what we consider "life as we know it", because we only have one example -- life on Earth itself.

Justin wrote:
It's a reasonable question, but I don't know how to refine it much more than I have.

Given the

1) modeling that's been done for life evolution outside of ideal conditions, even within ice crystals, and
2) existence of life in very adverse conditions, then

it's my strong feeling that the Goldilocks zone is a far bit wider and deeper than we might've supposed it to be.

Now, maybe life on a given planetary body wouldn't get past the microbial stage, because it finds success and balance there, particularly if the conditions are more extreme, because the more extreme the conditions, the less diversity we see. I have no opinion on how much complexity there is out there, or whether the dynamics of evolution are robust enough to inevitably force diversity.

But with the prevalence of organic molecules, with the opportunities out there for their recombinations, and with those opportunities being more wide-ranging than we might've originally though, it makes the emergence of life a certainty to my view.

I'm totally with you up until that last comma.  The last bit strikes me as an unexplained leap.  But I accept that you can't fill that gap.

To my thinking, the origination of microbial life might turn out to be the unlikeliest part.  For the evolution from microbial life to intelligent multicellular life we at least have a working theory.

aspergianLens wrote:
I think we're a bit biased as to what we consider "life as we know it", because we only have one example -- life on Earth itself.

Minimal criteria include:

-A planetary body with liquid water
-Temperatures between 0 and 100 C
-Circular orbits (although free bodies with liquid water from molten cores could also provide suitable habitat)
-Organic carbon, which is the most likely basis of any living organism
-External energy source

Of course, the other elements commonly found in life would be necessary (i.e., hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, potassium and a few metals).

Monad Studios wrote:
For the evolution from microbial life to intelligent multicellular life we at least have a working theory.

The RNA World is the leading hypothesis leading to the origin of cellular life.

Monad Studios wrote:
I'm totally with you up until that last comma.  The last bit strikes me as an unexplained leap.  But I accept that you can't fill that gap.

I guess you see a gap and I don't.

To my thinking, the origination of microbial life might turn out to be the unlikeliest part.  For the evolution from microbial life to intelligent multicellular life we at least have a working theory.

There are plenty of working theories on the beginning of life. To me, that indicates the real possibility of more than one available causation, which would make the advent of life in a given environment even more likely.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
To me, likely is a synonym for probably.  If something is probable, it is so because of the probabilities.  We are entitled to assert the probability of something only after we have experienced a number of instances of it.  One instance tells us nothing about the probability of it happening.  And we only have one instance of a planet having life:  Earth.

I haven't said that there is life only on Earth.  What I'm saying is that we lack the empirical data to assert whether life exists somewhere other than Earth, and we lack enough instances of life existing in some other location.  Since we don't know the odds, and we haven't yet studied all the celestial bodies with an eye to determining if they have life, we have no basis for asserting that life elsewhere than Earth is probable...or likely.

Your argument that (a) there are extremeophiles in extreme environments on Earth, (b) there are extreme environments in locales other than Earth, and therefor (c) there probably are extremeophiles in extreme locations other than Earth, isn't logical, IMO.

It sounds to me like you are confusing probability with certainty.  You're saying we have to find life elsewhere in order to develop a probability of it, but that doesn't make any sense; that would tell us *definitively* that life does exist elsewhere.

I brought up the extremophiles as an example that life is a lot hardier than we often think it is, and the existence of life in places we wouldn't think possible to harbor life make it more likely that it is also easier than we think for life to begin.  The Earth was not exactly a terribly hospitable place when life first developed on it.

Your summary of my argument was only taking away one aspect that I used in supporting my case; you ignored the low estimate for the probability of life *only* existing on Earth.

Calli Pygian wrote:
The Earth was not exactly a terribly hospitable place when life first developed on it.

Carbon dioxide was abundant. Oxygen pretty much absent. Sun about 70% of current luminosity. Much more volcanic activity. We couldn't have lived there.

Tropic Light wrote:
We know biological life exists in at least one place within the universe.  [b]Therefore the likelihood of it existing in other places is >greater than the likelihood that it doesn't exist anywhere[/be else.  That is all that is required to move the probability slightly beyond the 50th percentile.

Sorry, Tropic, I can't go where your syllogism leads.  Anyway, my point in the OP is that some people claim that extra-terrestrial life is way more likely to exist than your 50+ % figure suggests.

aspergianLens wrote:
You probably won't accept anything as evidence, short of a alien body or an intact spacecraft.

Tony-S wrote:
I would accept a disproportionate amount of right or left-handed organic molecules in a sample as evidence. Of course, that would be just a start, but a very compelling one.

As with the oceanographers who doubted the existence of rogue waves arising out of a calm sea, some UFO skeptics won't accept anything as convincing until they see a UFO or alien with their own eyes.  And for some, even that would not suffice.

What could be more improbable than gorillas?  Or duck-billed platypuses?  Or quantum mechanics?

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
As with the oceanographers who doubted the existence of rogue waves arising out of a calm sea, some UFO skeptics won't accept anything as convincing until they see a UFO or alien with their own eyes.  And for some, even that would not suffice.

What could be more improbable than gorillas?  Or duck-billed platypuses?  Or quantum mechanics?

All those things were proven by science. Every day scientists discover new previously unknown or find evidence to provide new explanation for existing phenomema.

The problem is they do that by eliminating all other explanations and go and examine and test the evidence to do that.

The problem with ufology is that they claim theres evidence but when it's looked at it's false, it's inadequate, heresay, vital information is purposely ignored etc. It transpires there is other probable explanation. If there is no evidence, then claiming a fantastical explanation is ridiculously premature.
It's not that scientists don't think that it's possible that there's alien life, it's the fact that what you guys claim as evidence is nothing of the sort. At best it's inconclusive. So it's the ufologists that have the closed minds by claiming it MUST be aliens.


All I can say further to that is thank goodness science has discovered duck billed platypus and fifty foot spontaneous waves or the website authors you likee to read would be claiming sightings as evidence if aliens!

Justin wrote:
It's a reasonable question, but I don't know how to refine it much more than I have.

Given the

1) modeling that's been done for life evolution outside of ideal conditions, even within ice crystals, and
2) existence of life in very adverse conditions, then

it's my strong feeling that the Goldilocks zone is a far bit wider and deeper than we might've supposed it to be.

Now, maybe life on a given planetary body wouldn't get past the microbial stage, because it finds success and balance there, particularly if the conditions are more extreme, because the more extreme the conditions, the less diversity we see. I have no opinion on how much complexity there is out there, or whether the dynamics of evolution are robust enough to inevitably force diversity.

But with the prevalence of organic molecules, with the opportunities out there for their recombinations, and with those opportunities being more wide-ranging than we might've originally though, it makes the emergence of life a certainty to my view.

I agree and so do the bookies. You can get 100/1 to 1000/1 against for it to be discovered before the first probes to the gas giant moons are expected. But 1/80 on after that.


So they are looking at Enceladus , Europa or Ganymede.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25349395
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/344/6179/78
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short … nymed.html
http://m.space.com/24926-nasa-europa-mi … udget.html


But nobody will be expecting this long odds on shot to be intelligent.

Otherwise we are  relying on SETI and they are looking in the distant past. So we wont be able to contact it even if it's found. Unless of course they are way more technologically advanced but we could also be listening to a long dead civilisation.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
There are living microorganism that live in lava like the Archae Bacteria

That's not the point.

There's no evidence, so chances are tending to 0

Archaea are not bacteria though. Nor are they Eukaryota. They are a third domain




And while they are often abundant in extreme conditions, they can also live comfortably in your belly button or among plankton


From DNA evidence, they are suspected to be more closely related to us than to bacteria, though both evolved from a common ancestor.

Not that they are all extremphiles as I said, but while they are thought by some to represent the earliest forms of life, some scientists think they are actually simply the oldest survivors of cataclysmic events which destroyed earlier forms including the common ancestor. They are not dependent on the sun.


The new classification is important because it puts a new emphasis not on the differences between the three groups but their similarity. Which has important implications when we consider the possibility of life elsewhere.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01zm.html

Carl Woese, who reclassified, was undecided as you can read there. Sadly he passed away recently.

Calli Pygian wrote:

It sounds to me like you are confusing probability with certainty.  You're saying we have to find life elsewhere in order to develop a probability of it, but that doesn't make any sense; that would tell us *definitively* that life does exist elsewhere.

I brought up the extremophiles as an example that life is a lot hardier than we often think it is, and the existence of life in places we wouldn't think possible to harbor life make it more likely that it is also easier than we think for life to begin.  The Earth was not exactly a terribly hospitable place when life first developed on it.

Your summary of my argument was only taking away one aspect that I used in supporting my case; you ignored the low estimate for the probability of life *only* existing on Earth.

Think of it this way. You have a deck of cards. There are 1 trillion cards. One card is face up. It is a two of hearts. What is the probability of another heart in the deck? Note - you have no information on this deck. It could be 4 suits or a trillion. Every other card could be blank. Or every other card could be a heart. No data. And with no data, no probability.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Probabilities requiring statistically valid sampling.  So far we have a sampling of one, and we don't even know if life on a planet like earth was inevitable of happened against astronomical odds.

I don't think this is how the probability is estimated. The first probability centers on the presence of liquid water, an energy source (e.g., sunlight, thermal, chemical, etc.), carbon (the only suitable basis for life), phosphorus, sulfur, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, and perhaps to a lesser extent calcium and certain metals. What are the odds that all of these are found a particular planetary body? Probably rare, but considering the billions of planetary bodies in the universe I suspect it's quite common.

The second probability is, on those planetary bodies that possess the constituents of the first probability, what is the likelihood of life forming? That question is difficult to assess, but of course it will be rarer than the first probability.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Think of it this way. You have a deck of cards. There are 1 trillion cards. One card is face up. It is a two of hearts. What is the probability of another heart in the deck? Note - you have no information on this deck. It could be 4 suits or a trillion. Every other card could be blank. Or every other card could be a heart. No data. And with no data, no probability.

Great explication.

I learned years ago that even otherwise smart people, even those with multiple advanced math degrees, can fall on their faces when confronted with probabilities issues, especially if the issue suggests an obvious right answer.  The Monty Hall Problem is a prime example.  A few words therefrom:

"Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation confirming the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999).

The problem is a paradox of the veridical type, because the correct result (you should switch doors) is so counterintuitive it can seem absurd, but is nevertheless demonstrably true."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

How can a popular magazine smart lady be right and almost 1,000 PhD's be wrong?  My theory is that understanding probabilities is a special kind of smartness that few people have, and that includes even brilliant mathematicians.

Of equal interest to me is the fact that all the brilliant mathematicians thought, in rejecting the right answer, that they were doing math.  Actually, they were leaning on their intuitions, and they had no idea they were doing that.

So, as I was saying, we have no basis for asserting the likelihood of life in places in the universe other than on Earth.

Side note:  Many of Ms. vos Savant's critics savaged her ruthlessly.  But when they were shown to be wrong, and her right, there were few apologies.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
So, as I was saying, we have no basis for asserting the likelihood of life in places in the universe other than on Earth.

Side note:  Many of Ms. vos Savant's critics savaged her ruthlessly.  But when they were shown to be wrong, and her right, there were few apologies.

Ah, yes. That old thing. Really enjoyed following the kerfuffle that ensued from the appearance of the Monty Hall Problem in Parade. Just goes to show how few people truly understand set theory and game theory as they apply to actual practical situations, and yet how meaningful they can be when they are applied correctly.

In terms of the original point of the thread, indeed: we have such a dearth of substantial data regarding other worlds, it's simply meaningless to make any assertions about them, especially about their potential for sustaining anything approximating what we call "life", never mind intelligent life.

The good news is that ANY such topic--- no matter what the topic, whether scientific or otherwise, in which the available data is either small enough to be statistically insignificant, or, even more meaningfully, where data is simply unverifiable by any means--- approximates irrelevance in almost no time flat.

While it is fun to speculate about things that exceed the spectrum of knowledge, the bottom line remains: those things, by virtue of their unknowability, are, for all practical purposes, utterly meaningless, and should, by reasonable people, be prioritized accordingly, being that we have a whole mess of actual solvable problems to which our current knowledge can and should be applied.

Tony-S wrote:
I think we ought to forget about Mars and send a submersible to Europa.

Nope. We've been warned about that already.

kickfight wrote:

Nope. We've been warned about that already.

Enceladus may be our real-life Europa.  See above.  Of course, Europa may turn out to be our real-life Europa.