Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
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.

And this ms Savant.
It wouldn't be the same Marilyn vos Savant that is a fellow of CSICOP would it? The very organisation you have criticized for scepticism?

I guess some PhD folk don't gamble.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

And this ms Savant.
It wouldn't be the same Marilyn vos Savant that is a fellow of CSICOP would it? The very organisation you have criticized for scepticism?

I guess some PhD folk don't gamble.

Considering how unusual her name is, I would guess it's the same person.  But in saying that I have criticized that organization, you are wrong.  Perhaps you are lumping me with someone else? 

I'm afraid I must repeat:  The first step in doing good science is accurate observation.

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.

...which would give us a probability of 1/1.  Yes, certainty has a probability ratio, too. 

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...

My guess is that UFO enthusiasts who are hoping for "disclosure" in their lifetimes are doomed to be disappointed.  Let's assume there are ET's, with craft that can do all the amazing things as reported, and that they've been flying around in our skies since at least the 1940's.  They could at any point have landed on the White House lawn and said "We come in peace," or Give us your women," or whatever.  That would have ended the debate.

But for whatever reason, they haven't.  And whatever the reason, I'd think it's something powerful, like the Prime Directive.

Meanwhile, terrestrial technology continues to advance at a rapid and ever-increasing rate, without any help from ET's (to our knowledge).  Seems to me, a point will soon be reached when our own technology will be so advanced that even if ET did land on the White House lawn, it would be no big deal.  We would say, "Nice to meetcha.  Please drive on the right."

Likewise, if at that point, there was "Disclosure," and the US government admitted that they've been working with the space aliens all along, again it would be "no big deal."  We just wouldn't care all that much, since aliens and alien technology would be nothing special at that point.

Well, politicians would demand impeachment of the President for one thing or another in that connection, but that's par for the course...no big deal.

Tony-S wrote:

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.

You have completely missed that we have exactly ONE point of data to use to answer those questions - and also missed that the questions may not even be the correct ones.

We don't know that carbon is the only suitable basis of life - it is the basis for our life. We don't know that all those elements are required - they are required for life here, but may not be other places.

NO data.

Second, we have no idea what the probability of life is. If we go based on the one point of data we have, it is a certainty, not lower at all, but dead certain.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
You have completely missed that we have exactly ONE point of data to use to answer those questions - and also missed that the questions may not even be the correct ones.

All probabilities have assumptions. That's the entire basis of statistical analysis, and those that I laid out are a conservative minimum criteria for life. Probability does not mean certainty. No statistician worth their salt has ever said so.

We don't know that carbon is the only suitable basis of life - it is the basis for our life.

Unless you have a universe where the laws of physics as we know it don't apply, carbon is almost certain to be the required atom for life. If one is attempting to look for life, then carbon-based organisms are the only game in town since, as you have stated, it's about probabilities. None of the other elements have the attributes for such life.

We don't know that all those elements are required - they are required for life here, but may not be other places.

It's what we have to look for because anything else would only be found on Star Trek.

NO data.

There's plenty of data to show, unequivocally, that if you want to find life, the best place to look is carbon-based molecules and right or left chirality.

Second, we have no idea what the probability of life is. If we go based on the one point of data we have, it is a certainty, not lower at all, but dead certain.

There may not be, but if those minimal requirements are met, and there are billions of places where those criteria are met, I'd bet real money that you'll find carbon-based life forms on thousands or millions of those places.

Tony-S wrote:

Al Lock Photography wrote:
You have completely missed that we have exactly ONE point of data to use to answer those questions - and also missed that the questions may not even be the correct ones.

All probabilities have assumptions. That's the entire basis of statistical analysis, and those that I laid out are a conservative minimum criteria for life. Probability does not mean certainty. No statistician worth their salt has ever said so.

We don't know that carbon is the only suitable basis of life - it is the basis for our life.

Unless you have a universe where the laws of physics as we know it don't apply, carbon is almost certain to be the required atom for life. If one is attempting to look for life, then carbon-based organisms are the only game in town since, as you have stated, it's about probabilities. None of the other elements have the attributes for such life.

We don't know that all those elements are required - they are required for life here, but may not be other places.

It's what we have to look for because anything else would only be found on Star Trek.

NO data.

There's plenty of data to show, unequivocally, that if you want to find life, the best place to look is carbon-based molecules and right or left chirality.


There may not be, but if those minimal requirements are met, and there are billions of places where those criteria are met, I'd bet real money that you'll find carbon-based life forms on thousands or millions of those places.

You are making a BUNCH of assumptions. None of which there is actually any evidence for.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
You are making a BUNCH of assumptions. None of which there is actually any evidence for.

Like what?

Tony-S wrote:
Like what?

Start with the one about carbon. A number of biologists (including Isaac Asimov) have theorized on life based on elements other than carbon. There is no reason to believe that life requires carbon, and your claim about physics is immaterial. You seem to be defining life as "carbon-based life that resembles what we already know". Which isn't the definition of life.

The definition of life that applies is:

"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

Of course, once you dump that assumption, the rest of your assumptions all fall apart as well.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Start with the one about carbon. A number of biologists (including Isaac Asimov) have theorized on life based on elements other than carbon. There is no reason to believe that life requires carbon, and your claim about physics is immaterial. You seem to be defining life as "carbon-based life that resembles what we already know". Which isn't the definition of life.

The definition of life that applies is:

"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

Of course, once you dump that assumption, the rest of your assumptions all fall apart as well.

Not,quite

We know non carbon based life forms on earth http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 04183.html

So it will likely exist elsewhere. But as intelligent life is a one off unique even in a rich carbon.mix, I wouldn't expect it to be anything like as common from arsenic, silicon etc.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … -the-basi/

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

My guess is that UFO enthusiasts who are hoping for "disclosure" in their lifetimes are doomed to be disappointed.  Let's assume there are ET's, with craft that can do all the amazing things as reported, and that they've been flying around in our skies since at least the 1940's.  They could at any point have landed on the White House lawn and said "We come in peace," or Give us your women," or whatever.  That would have ended the debate.

But for whatever reason, they haven't.  And whatever the reason, I'd think it's something powerful, like the Prime Directive.

Meanwhile, terrestrial technology continues to advance at a rapid and ever-increasing rate, without any help from ET's (to our knowledge).  Seems to me, a point will soon be reached when our own technology will be so advanced that even if ET did land on the White House lawn, it would be no big deal.  We would say, "Nice to meetcha.  Please drive on the right."

Likewise, if at that point, there was "Disclosure," and the US government admitted that they've been working with the space aliens all along, again it would be "no big deal."  We just wouldn't care all that much, since aliens and alien technology would be nothing special at that point.

Well, politicians would demand impeachment of the President for one thing or another in that connection, but that's par for the course...no big deal.

Cited for Al just as we are talking about making assumptions

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Considering how unusual her name is, I would guess it's the same person.  But in saying that I have criticized that organization, you are wrong.  Perhaps you are lumping me with someone else? 

I'm afraid I must repeat:  The first step in doing good science is accurate observation.

Indeed. I clocked your approval of Aspergians crit of CSICOP, and the five pages or so where you attacked scepticism of UFOs in general, and as the organization leads that, I think its a fair cop don't you? You lumped yourself in.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Indeed. I clocked your approval of Aspergians crit of CSICOP, and the five pages or so where you attacked scepticism of UFOs in general, and as the organization leads that, I think its a fair cop don't you? You lumped yourself in.

And, I still stand by my view of CSICOP/CSI.  They are quite a dogmatic organization.  In any case, most of the members aren't scientists at all.  They do have an unusual number of magicians/illusionists as members, though.

Did you read anything at all about Marcello Truzzi and his split with the organization in the 1980s?

aspergianLens wrote:
And, I still stand by my view of CSICOP/CSI.  They are quite a dogmatic organization.  In any case, most of the members aren't scientists at all.  They do have an unusual number of magicians/illusionists as members, though.

Did you read anything at all about Marcello Truzzi and his split with the organization in the 1980s?

Yes and his rationale is flawed.

In a court of law you just have to establish reasonable doubt.
Likewise a scientist has to eliminate other possibilities for possible hypothesis. Therefore all that is required is to establish they haven't followed scientific method. They have no obligation to prove it.

I have to have eliminated the possibility that something I claim as evidence isn't something else through chemical analysis. If I haven't, then
someone can just point out I haven't and say 'how do you know it's not x as you haven't eliminated that possibility'

I agree with his 'agnostic' position. But don't believe sceptics are against the hypothesis just the utter disregard of the nature of evidence and respect for scientific method in attempts to prove it.


And as usual your assertions are incorrect re the members

http://www.csicop.org/about/csi_fellows_and_staff/


But I'd be the first to agree that Richard Dawkins for example does nit have an 'agnostic' disposition.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
And as usual your assertions are incorrect re the members

http://www.csicop.org/about/csi_fellows_and_staff/


But I'd be the first to agree that Richard Dawkins for example does nit have an 'agnostic' disposition.

"As usual?"

Sorry, I really thought there weren't many scientists among their ranks.  Maybe at one point that was the case, like when they were first formed.

I do know that one of the co-founders (aside from Truzzi), Paul Kurtz, was a philosopher.  Truzzi was a sociologist.

Even so, the argument is moot -- despite the fact that they do have many scientists among their ranks, they are still not a true scientific organization.  I am not sure if they actually conduct any experiments of their own, either.

For instance, I've never heard of them doing parapsychological experiments.

From what I gather CSI is just a lobbying organization, and nothing more.

aspergianLens wrote:
"As usual?"

Sorry, I really thought there weren't many scientists among their ranks.  Maybe at one point that was the case, like when they were first formed.

I do know that one of the co-founders (aside from Truzzi), Paul Kurtz, was a philosopher.  Truzzi was a sociologist.

Even so, the argument is moot -- despite the fact that they do have many scientists among their ranks, they are still not a true scientific organization.  I am not sure if they actually conduct any experiments of their own, either.

For instance, I've never heard of them doing parapsychological experiments.

From what I gather CSI is just a lobbying organization, and nothing more.

Indeed. I am inclined to agree. They have a humanist agenda; an ideology. So I'm not altogether dismissive of your claim. Nevertheless, it does not excuse bad science.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Indeed. I am inclined to agree. They have a humanist agenda; an ideology. So I'm not altogether dismissive of your claim. Nevertheless, it does not excuse bad science.

Of course not.

But I think the term "materialist" would also be accurate.  They are also apparently anti-spiritual as well.

Also, I'm not sure of what relevance to the topic CSICOP/CSI is, anyway.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
It depends where you start from.  If your concept excludes the possibility of a conscious origin to the universe, then I suppose you are left with trying to work out what the likelihood of the precise conditions necessary for life, as we know it, occurring else where might be.
If your concept includes a conscious origin to the universe, then life will be everywhere.

To be sure, I don't discount the possibility of sort of universal mind or consciousness.

But that's philosophy and not science...

aspergianLens wrote:

Of course not.

But I think the term "materialist" would also be accurate.  They are also, apparently anti-spiritual as well.

Quite. Dawkins is among their ranks. They are a subsidiary of a humanist organization as I said.
I have by contrast never ever judged the existence of alien life or God etc in the negative. But it doesn't stop me saying Genesis as literal is crap, and that the claims of UFO evidence are crap. I am agnostic. I have asked for claimed evidence however of UFOs that suggest alien origin. I have no problem with saying they might be. But they are more likely to be explained with other, reasonable means.

Tim Griffiths wrote:
It depends where you start from.  If your concept excludes the possibility of a conscious origin to the universe, then I suppose you are left with trying to work out what the likelihood of the precise conditions necessary for life, as we know it, occurring else where might be.
If your concept includes a conscious origin to the universe, then life will be everywhere.

Not so. Many religious groups exclude the possibility.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Quite. Dawkins is among their ranks. They are a subsidiary of a humanist organization as I said.
I have by contrast never ever judged the existence of alien life or God etc in the negative. But it doesn't stop me saying Genesis as literal is crap, and that the claims of UFO evidence are crap. I am agnostic. I have asked for claimed evidence however of UFOs that suggest alien origin. I have no problem with saying they might be. But they are more likely to be explained with other, reasonable means.

I think calling UFO claims "nebulous" and "inconclusive" would be better than just outright saying they're crap.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Quite. Dawkins is among their ranks. They are a subsidiary of a humanist organization as I said.
I have by contrast never ever judged the existence of alien life or God etc in the negative. But it doesn't stop me saying Genesis as literal is crap, and that the claims of UFO evidence are crap. I am agnostic. I have asked for claimed evidence however of UFOs that suggest alien origin. I have no problem with saying they might be. But they are more likely to be explained with other, reasonable means.

Vos Savant was cited as a person who had foxed mathematicians with PhDs with a probability puzzle. She is a member of CSICOP. I dismissed this pointing out that the criticism was based on the claim the answer was counter intuitive, when in fact it isn't to a gambler or a bookie. I just thought it was ironic that Vivus had cited her as an example of someone who stands up to sceptics when she is a member of CSICOP.

aspergianLens wrote:

I think calling UFO claims "nebulous" and "inconclusive" would be better than just outright saying they're crap.

It's the absence of rigorous methodology and utter disregard for the nature of evidence that's what I call crap. If the claims were less assertive, and followed scientific protocol then I wouldn't attack them so strongly.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

It's the absence of rigorous methodology and utter disregard for the nature of evidence that's what I call crap. If the claims were less assertive, and followed scientific protocol then I wouldn't attack them so strongly.

I was referring more to eyewitness testimony here -- it's not scientific but it isn't meaningless, either.

aspergianLens wrote:
I was referring more to eyewitness testimony here -- it's not scientific but it isn't meaningless, either.

Its meaningless to assign a conclusive meaning to such eyewitness testimony. Volume has nothin to do with it.
As I've said before, I can't identity a great deal of stuff on my microscope slide. I could give it to almost anybody here and they would be able to identify hardly any of it. So you could have half a million witnesses not being able to explain what they are seeing. That doesn't mean any of it is alien. It doesn't mean it's,not either. But if we had a pollen expert, a micro mineralogy expert, an expert in insect grass etc then we'd probably eliminate 95% of it. That still doesn't mean the 5% is alien. Could be polar bear snot for all we know.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Not so. Many religious groups exclude the possibility.

If so it doesn't really hold water. You have to be a bit dim to think that there is only a God for the earth, particularly when you know the solar system follows the pattern for countless other star systems.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Start with the one about carbon. A number of biologists (including Isaac Asimov) have theorized on life based on elements other than carbon.

Not likely, unless you want to violate the laws of physics.

There is no reason to believe that life requires carbon, and your claim about physics is immaterial. You seem to be defining life as "carbon-based life that resembles what we already know". Which isn't the definition of life.

Nope, I'm not doing that at all. I'm basing that on the qualities of carbon that make it unique among the elements.

It’s clear why carbon is the most likely element upon which life will exist. The start is water because if you want a biochemical reaction to occur, it is most likely in aqueous environments. What’s special about water is that is has both a positive and a negative charged sides. This polarity is critical for biochemical reactions to occur. You really can’t use organic solvents because they are nonpolar. Thus, life is most likely to occur in aqueous solutions where charges of water facilitate controlled biochemical reactions. That means temperatures of 0 to 100 C. That rules out silicon (right below carbon on the PTE)-based life forms because its (four) bonds are nearly unbreakable in solution and it tends to form latices with itself. It also rules out atoms that have more than 2 orbitals, which typically form bonds that are either too stable or too unstable in water.

Any living entity needs to make complex macromolecules (e.g., nucleic acids, proteins, fats, carbohydrates) with bonds that can be hydrolyzed and catalyzed in the temperature range of liquid water, and it has to be able to form 3 or 4 bonds to make the macromolecular polymers.  Can’t be 5 or more because those bonds are all unstable in aqueous environments. That means the only candidates are boron and carbon. Unfortunately for boron, a 3-bond atom, it has a very low electron affinity, thus it is prone to giving up electrons to easily, thus it’s unlikely to be able to form stable bonds, let alone polymers. Carbon, is the only atom that has the physical features conducive to life. You can go fantasy all you want, but you have to change the rules of physics to do so. 

The definition of life that applies is:

"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

Of course, once you dump that assumption, the rest of your assumptions all fall apart as well.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Where did this comment even come from? Certainly not me.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Not,quite

We know non carbon based life forms on earth http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 04183.html

So it will likely exist elsewhere. But as intelligent life is a one off unique even in a rich carbon.mix, I wouldn't expect it to be anything like as common from arsenic, silicon etc.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … -the-basi/

We have no idea if Earth is indicative of anything as regards the rest of the Universe. There have been biologists that have surmised that silicon could be the base for life forms. But that is simply speculation until we actually have explored a sufficient amount of the universe to have a valid statistical sampling. We currently have exactly ONE SAMPLE.

So, NO DATA

Thanks for pointing out that life does not have to be carbon-based.

Tony-S wrote:

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Start with the one about carbon. A number of biologists (including Isaac Asimov) have theorized on life based on elements other than carbon.

Not likely, unless you want to violate the laws of physics.

There is no reason to believe that life requires carbon, and your claim about physics is immaterial. You seem to be defining life as "carbon-based life that resembles what we already know". Which isn't the definition of life.

Nope, I'm not doing that at all. I'm basing that on the qualities of carbon that make it unique among the elements.

It’s clear why carbon is the most likely element upon which life will exist. The start is water because if you want a biochemical reaction to occur, it is most likely in aqueous environments. What’s special about water is that is has both a positive and a negative charged sides. This polarity is critical for biochemical reactions to occur. You really can’t use organic solvents because they are nonpolar. Thus, life is most likely to occur in aqueous solutions where charges of water facilitate controlled biochemical reactions. That means temperatures of 0 to 100 C. That rules out silicon (right below carbon on the PTE)-based life forms because its (four) bonds are nearly unbreakable in solution and it tends to form latices with itself. It also rules out atoms that have more than 2 orbitals, which typically form bonds that are either too stable or too unstable in water.

Any living entity needs to make complex macromolecules (e.g., nucleic acids, proteins, fats, carbohydrates) with bonds that can be hydrolyzed and catalyzed in the temperature range of liquid water, and it has to be able to form 3 or 4 bonds to make the macromolecular polymers.  Can’t be 5 or more because those bonds are all unstable in aqueous environments. That means the only candidates are boron and carbon. Unfortunately for boron, a 3-bond atom, it has a very low electron affinity, thus it is prone to giving up electrons to easily, thus it’s unlikely to be able to form stable bonds, let alone polymers. Carbon, is the only atom that has the physical features conducive to life. You can go fantasy all you want, but you have to change the rules of physics to do so. 


I have no idea what you’re talking about. Where did this comment even come from? Certainly not me.

Your entire pitch is based on the assumption that life exists only as we know it.

Where in the definition of life is water required? Wait - IT'S NOT!

Your "physics" isn't anything of the sort. It's just circular logic. Defining life as we know it commonly on Earth (Eliza has even demonstrated that not all Earth life is carbon-based) and applying those criteria to life everywhere - WITHOUT ANY DATA - and claiming physics means it has to be?

You claim that a life form must make complex macromolecules - which is an assumption that you can't prove. Just because lifeforms do so on Earth doesn't mean lifeforms MUST.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
We have no idea if Earth is indicative of anything as regards the rest of the Universe. There have been biologists that have surmised that silicon could be the base for life forms. But that is simply speculation until we actually have explored a sufficient amount of the universe to have a valid statistical sampling. We currently have exactly ONE SAMPLE.

So, NO DATA

Thanks for pointing out that life does not have to be carbon-based.

We have inadequate data, but we have more than a sample of one and shortly will have more as we sample other planets. We should have found something on Mars if life was going to be common. It isn't that inhospitable, compared to say a gas giant or Mercury or Venus. There could be something there, but it would be highly unlikely to be intelligent or complex. May be wrong and note I'm not ruling it out entirely. I am certainly expecting they will find something on the gas giant moons. Could even be complex life, and possibly something we can't predict. Perfectly possible there are something like intelligent jellyfish who knows. But I think it would,be the mist exciting discovery on the history of mankind if it's just something similar to extremophiles on earth. My worry is, and it is shared by many scientists, that the importance of this will be lost on a public expecting something complex. But it's looking tremendously exciting

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/148/3/45/article

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sat … urface-sea



The claim we have no data or a sample of one is actually misleading. We have extremely varied geological timeframes which show the vast difference on Earth in terms of atmosphere and varied life eco systems. Earth is NOT one.  The Cretaceous was vastly different from now for eg. Over three billion years, and billions of species in myriad form, in thousands of different atmosphere conditions right here on Earth. What we have now is so different to the time of the first manifestations of life during the eoarchian period.  Through records in Greenland we now know it is at least 3.7 billion years old.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n … o2025.html

This period in particular has massive implications for the emergence of life elsewhere.

In all these geological life time frames, we are the only intelligent species produced. So I think we can predict it's going to be rare. As are non carbon based COMPLEX life forms.

If course, given the vast size of the universe and it's great age, there could quite easily be a planet where there are gunslingers in medieval costume battling werewolves or flying spaghetti monsters. Or there could be extra dimensional species, or swarm intelligence, or the 'greys'. But leave that stuff to the realms of imagination because we are not going to be contacting it any time soon. It could come to us of course.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Vos Savant was cited as a person who had foxed mathematicians with PhDs with a probability puzzle. She is a member of CSICOP. I dismissed this pointing out that the criticism was based on the claim the answer was counter intuitive, when in fact it isn't to a gambler or a bookie. I just thought it was ironic that Vivus had cited her as an example of someone who stands up to sceptics when she is a member of CSICOP.

No, I cited the Monty Hall problem for the proposition  that even top-notch mathematicians can blow it, when it comes to probabilities.  In fact, I posted that.

You really should not assume you know other people's motives.  I'm right here.  You can ask me.

Sigh!  Magical thinking.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

And this ms Savant.
It wouldn't be the same Marilyn vos Savant that is a fellow of CSICOP would it? The very organisation you have criticized for scepticism?

I guess some PhD folk don't gamble.

I have not criticized CSICOP at all.   Eliza, you're losing it.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
I have not criticized CSICOP at all.   Eliza, you're losing it.

You made approving noises at Aspergians research on the organization and have consistently questioned sceptics in general over many pages.

As I said vos Savant is deeply sceptical of UFOs and part of that organisation whose express purpose is to debunk alleged evidence if them. So it's moot to attempt to deflect away from the total irony in that.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

You made approving noises at Aspergians research on the organization and have consistently questioned sceptics in general over many pages.

As I said vos Savant is deeply sceptical of UFOs and part of that organisation whose express purpose is to debunk alleged evidence if them. So it's moot to attempt to deflect away from the total irony in that.

I made approving noises to Aspergian's criticism and to you, that means you can say that I criticized CSICOP.  Kind of sloppy logic, wouldn't you say?

Actually, you seem to have been conflating Aspergian and me for a while.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

I made approving noises to Aspergian's criticism and to you, that means you can say that I criticized CSICOP.  Kind of sloppy logic, wouldn't you say?

Actually, you seem to have been conflating Aspergian and me for a while.

Because you are arguing the same perspective a lot of the time, I address the argument not the individual making it. So both of you have attacked the scepticism which claims of ufos are greeted. So I address that. You DID attack scepticism. You DID approve Aspergians research on CSICOP. And you DID cite vos Savant in an attempt to discredit scepticism. An irony of massive proportions given her membership of CSICOP.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
We know non carbon based life forms on earth http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 04183.html

Despite the Washington Post's headline, the life forms described in that article are indeed carbon-based.  The arsenic takes the place of phosphorus, not of carbon.  Carbon is still present in its usual central role.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
So, NO DATA

Thanks for pointing out that life does not have to be carbon-based.

Maybe there is life that isn't carbon-based. But carbon as a base is certainly an efficacious format from which life can form. And given the predominance of carbon and organic molecules in the cosmos, as seen in spectrographic analysis, and the thermal, electrical, and radioactive energy that is available to them, it's a reasonable conclusion that recombinant organic molecules have formed elsewhere and generated the spark (actually, more of a slow heating) for life.

We have the data in the form of the component chemicals and the dynamics to make them more complex. Pondering the emergence of life, or not, is a matter (so far) for logical projection.