|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 7, 2007 17:22:38 GMT -4
That's a lot of "maybes", "coulds", "probablies", and "possiblies". Edit: Spelling, minor quote correction, and extra emphasis on the line that shows the article's authors don't completely rule out complex life on other planets. Again, so is the case with science. I forgot about several multiples of the Real Drake Equation that pushes the probability even lower. Liquid water is one of the least common elements in The Galaxy (sorry, I should say, "It is reasonable to assume that liquid water must be one of the least common elements in The Galaxy" ). Even if a planet is in the right habitable zone, it takes more than just temperature to allow for the existence of liquid water. It also requires the right amount of pressure. Remove the pressure and you have vapor. I have the hardest time convincing non-scientist that water will "boil" in room temperature in a vacuum. It is one of those things I think you have to see to believe.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 10, 2007 11:17:06 GMT -4
Okay, so someone asks you for evidence that there can be only one "sweet spot" in the galaxy, and you present an article from Scientific American. The article authors themselves make that case that their research will allow scientists searching for extra-terrestrial intelligence to direct their search towards other "sweet spots".
In other words, the only evidence you have presented so far directly contradicts your argument.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 10, 2007 14:41:03 GMT -4
Okay, so someone asks you for evidence that there can be only one "sweet spot" in the galaxy, and you present an article from Scientific American. ... It is not so simple. As I have mentioned, there are lots of layers and multiples to consider. And these are just the ones we know of so far. The direction things are going, prospects look bleak. When we think of a multiple we often think of something getting bigger. But this is a case where the weights to the Drake Equation are fractions and this pushes the probability even lower. This is just one article. There are other articles, books, and even interviews I have conducted myself. Here is one. When I attended the annual AAAS meeting in Saint Louis I spoke with a few biologists. The problem I have with the optimism that a lot of space enthusiasts and amateur astronomers have is that they are not biologists. There are lots of question marks still left in biology. And this is why you will hear a lot of space enthusiasts and amateur astronomers resign themselves to saying "all I have to know is that what exists here must exist elsewhere". That is a leap of faith. That is saying that they are willing to convince themselves that the roadblocks and questions in the evolutionary trail can be brushed aside. This is good faith. It is bad science. The default scientific view is that something does not exist. It is bad science to be so convinced that something exists when the data coming in says otherwise. Now, here is why this is such a big deal. In the days after radio technology had advanced to the point where we could scan the skies and before SETI@HOME took off, a lot of people mortgaged their homes, and their future on equipment to listen and record and analyze data. I saw a special on television where they talked about a few people whose lives were ruined in this pursuit. What is more is that the Seti@home project is wonderful technology. It is technology were a multitude of computers are strung together to behave like a super massive super computer (for lack of a better term). Such number crunching capacity could be used to do so much more worth-while projects. It could be used to unravel the processes enzymes take to create cancer. Since many of my close friends and relatives have died of cancer, this is a personal issue with me. I am not saying that it is wrong to look. But we should weigh things with a level head. I am not alone. As I understand it, according The Planet Society, SETI@Home has already been bundled in with another software project that does such sort of number crunching to serve humanity. In fact Seti@home is taking a smaller and smaller percentage of the cpu cycles nowdays.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 12, 2007 19:31:04 GMT -4
Okay, so someone asks you for evidence that there can be only one "sweet spot" in the galaxy, and you present an article from Scientific American. The article authors themselves make that case that their research will allow scientists searching for extra-terrestrial intelligence to direct their search towards other "sweet spots". In other words, the only evidence you have presented so far directly contradicts your argument. Other galaxies? How about other universes? I don't know, Jason. What are you getting at? What do you think my "argument" is? =========== I found another multipe to the Drake Equation. Our moon. A huge moon in relative size to its planet is not common and essential: Planets (exept ours and probably few others) have a yaw: space.com articleWhy our set-up with our stablizing moon is rare: read The Big Splat
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 11:46:05 GMT -4
Other galaxies? How about other universes? I don't know, Jason. What are you getting at? Did I mention other galaxies and universes? You mean you don't know either?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 13, 2007 13:34:55 GMT -4
Other galaxies? How about other universes? I don't know, Jason. What are you getting at? Did I mention other galaxies and universes? No, and that is why I asked. That could be places elsewhere to look for life. The article, by the way, talks about places where life can be found and that area is shrinking. If the area where life can be found is small, the area where intelligent life can be found is much smaller. "Looking for other places" would include other gallaxies and that is just unrealistic. "Looking for other places" would not include other universes because everything and anything exists in other universes. You mentioned that I had an argument. What do you think it is? Do not dodge the question or make this a contest of wills to save face. Listen, Jason, believing in ETI looks more and more like a faith. Faith is supposition. And when science says that this is not something likely, it is no longer something that is logical to believe in as being real. Wanting to believe something might make you believe it. But it will not make it real.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 13, 2007 14:01:44 GMT -4
The article, by the way, talks about places where life can be found and that area is shrinking. Yes, shrinking, not absent. Science has, by no means, excluded the entire Milky Way galaxy save for the lowly planet Earth from "places where life might be found." As does believing in a cure for cancer. Scientifically, the exact DNA sequence that resulted in your personal development is not very likely. And yet, apparently, you are real. Searching for evidence that something is real does not constitute belief that it is real. [Edit: pROPER nOUN] [Edit 2, the sequel: Odd sentence structure, fixed I did]
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 14:52:17 GMT -4
Actually, the article does not argue that the area where life can be found is shrinking. It argues, instead, that as we discover more about where life is likely to be found it seems likely that less areas we thought were viable previously actually are so. It is largely speculation at this point, and rather than ruling out the possibility of other "sweet spots" for life in this galaxy the authors make the argument that their research could be used to find such spots. Any attempt to say "this proves Fermi was right" is contradicted by the article itself.
There is a difference between believing that intelligent life is probably out there though as yet undetected and believing that science has already proven that it definitely is not out there. One is a reasonably rational approach and one is not.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 14:58:48 GMT -4
Looking for a thing does not show belief that a thing exists, it shows a belief that a thing may exist. That is a very different thing.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 13, 2007 20:24:14 GMT -4
Looking for a thing does not show belief that a thing exists, it shows a belief that a thing may exist. That is a very different thing. Your comment is an over-simplification. As I have said before, this is much more than just looking. These are expensive projects. And in the case where the funding is provided by donations, it is still a very hi-tech project that would be better serving humankind if applied elsewhere. Simply by "looking" we decide to put off searching for cures for diseases and other pariahs. It would be great to find Klingons, I guess, but not THAT great. And science tells us, if we really study the matter, that finding them is too unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 13, 2007 20:30:32 GMT -4
The article, by the way, talks about places where life can be found and that area is shrinking. Yes, shrinking, not absent. Science has, by no means, excluded the entire Milky Way galaxy save for the lowly planet Earth from "places where life might be found." Amusing. I do not have so much fath of a 180 degree turn-around in our observation Nature as you have. Or a cure for other afflictions , sir.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 20:49:03 GMT -4
Dang it. I hate it when I do that.
What specific research has suffered this way?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 13, 2007 22:22:34 GMT -4
Dang it. I hate it when I do that. What specific research has suffered this way? Huh? What way? What is "suffering research"? How does research suffer? I just talked about how the Planetary Society has decided to bundle the supercomputer technology used by Seti@Home to try to do some number crunching for cancer. The fact that Seti@home still makes up some of those CPU cycles, the calculations to find treatment for cancer suffers. I will take a stab and guessing what you mean. And tell you a personal story. For some reason, Brazilians love naming their kids after US Presidents. I have known a Jefferson, a Hamilton, a Harding, and one of my favorite cousins was Kennedy. He was a great guy and got a degree in Forestry and he had a job in the Pantenel when he got out of college. In about a month he got skin cancer. The substandard clinic and doctor told him it was nothing and it was too late when it spread. Brazil DOES in fact spend money on a space program at the sacrifice of other programs. Did my cousin die because of the fact that Brazil was spending too much money on SETI? That would be a hard point to prove but they DO spend a ton of money on technology that only serves to gratify the fantasy of the super rich. Apart from SETI@HOME, other SETI projects are funded by donations from the bored super-rich. I remember one project begging for funding at the AAAS meeting in Saint Louis. I am glad that Bill Gates is too smart for such delusions. The Gates Foundation is not looking for ETI at all.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 13, 2007 22:28:19 GMT -4
Actually, the article does not argue that the area where life can be found is shrinking. Strawman. It states as a historic fact that the area where we have looked for life in the universe is shrinking in the first few lines. Saying that it "does not argue" is strawman. It does not argue because there is no argument.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 14, 2007 0:35:11 GMT -4
I just talked about how the Planetary Society has decided to bundle the supercomputer technology used by Seti@Home to try to do some number crunching for cancer. What a waste of effort. There is no cure for cancer, if there was, we would've found it by now. Though if you want to place blame, perhaps you could start with medical researchers who have chosen to cure impotency and baldness before cancer and AIDS. Eh? This doesn't even make sense. What, the area searched has physically shrunk?
|
|