I would change that to "... our opinions to be as grounded in reality as possible," since opinions, by definition, are not truths and therefore accuracy, a measure of their proximity to an absolute truth or value, is not applicable to them. Otherwise, agreed.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Do you believe in life elsewhere?
- Thread starter pica
- Start date
I would change that to "... our opinions to be as grounded in reality as possible," since opinions, by definition, are not truths and therefore accuracy, a measure of their proximity to an absolute truth or value, is not applicable to them. Otherwise, agreed.
Yes, I'd broadly agree with this. I have expressed some opinions in this thread, but the fact that we have no way at all to judge the probability of life on other planets is not one of them. Belief in either direction is equally unjustifiable with what we currently know, despite several assertions to the contrary in this thread.
And to Relic - with much respect - you seem to be saying that a belief one way or the other is somehow equally "valid", which is missing the point a lttle. I'm saying that either view is of zero validity. There's no merit in holding a view as valid as the next guy if they're both unfounded.
"My opinion is as valid as anyone else's" sounds great and maintains a certain level of dignity. "My opinion is just the same unsupported, blind speculation as anyone else's" sounds less impressive, but the two statements are identical in reality.
"My opinion is as valid as anyone else's" sounds great and maintains a certain level of dignity. "My opinion is just the same unsupported, blind speculation as anyone else's" sounds less impressive, but the two statements are identical in reality.
Related is the popular notion that "everyone has the right to believe whatever they want". This suggestion corrupts the very core of epistemology, where belief necessarily aims at the truth. Conceptually, if there is such a thing as truth, it cannot be multiple, and therefore self-contradictory.
Often, I've found, people confuse a rigorous approach to epistemic matters with what they take to be an attack on their personal freedoms. No one is going to forcibly stop anyone from having irrational or unfounded beliefs. However, do not be surprised when ill-supported convictions fail to be taken seriously. Evidential support is exactly what gives one's beliefs credibility. Belief without sufficient evidence is akin to jumping head first into the luminiferous aether...
Often, I've found, people confuse a rigorous approach to epistemic matters with what they take to be an attack on their personal freedoms. No one is going to forcibly stop anyone from having irrational or unfounded beliefs. However, do not be surprised when ill-supported convictions fail to be taken seriously. Evidential support is exactly what gives one's beliefs credibility. Belief without sufficient evidence is akin to jumping head first into the luminiferous aether...
There's organic life on one planet out of virtually countless planets. I think the odds of other planets having the exact same conditions are extremely high and life popping up somewhere else in the universe are nearly as high--for the sake of simplification--so near 100% that no other number is necessary. The odds of such life spanning the distances necessary to ever interact with or even witness another instance of life, however, seem virtually impossible to me.
You are correct anent me. I've already said that I think it's highly likely life exists elsewhere in the universe. But I still say there's no reason to believe that it does, since there is no evidence for it.
what is more likely?
is it more likely that out of a million billion planets we are the only one that has actually evolved life (because, perhaps, of GOD'S intervention)?
or is it more likely that we are just one of, perhaps, dozens of such planets which have evolved life because conditions exist that make it not only possible, but likely?
now... do i BELIEVE that life exists elsewhere? well, no I do not either believe nor do I disbelieve. either position would be foolish in the absence of evidence--(I discount the supposed sightings etc of "flying saucers", as feynman called them, by people whose veracity i cannot verify)
in the same way I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of GOD or the afterlife or Santa Clause or anything else about which there no evidence of existence or non-existence.
let's just wait and see---- if we ever do...
is it more likely that out of a million billion planets we are the only one that has actually evolved life (because, perhaps, of GOD'S intervention)?
or is it more likely that we are just one of, perhaps, dozens of such planets which have evolved life because conditions exist that make it not only possible, but likely?
now... do i BELIEVE that life exists elsewhere? well, no I do not either believe nor do I disbelieve. either position would be foolish in the absence of evidence--(I discount the supposed sightings etc of "flying saucers", as feynman called them, by people whose veracity i cannot verify)
in the same way I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of GOD or the afterlife or Santa Clause or anything else about which there no evidence of existence or non-existence.
let's just wait and see---- if we ever do...
If you have enough evidence for the existence of a thing then you can know that thing exists.
When you know something you have no need for belief.
Belief only exists in a vacuum of adequate information (sometimes a self imposed one)
and is used in lieu of knowledge or qualifiers like "(im)probable", "(un)likely, "(in)consistent".
Belief serves no good purpose.
We have no way of knowing what the odds are. There's no reliable way for us to mathematically estimate the probability or improbability of the origin of life. Intuitive opinions like this might be correct, or they could be way, way, way out and underestimate the improbability of life by orders of magnitude. There's no way to tell.
I don't know, and neither do you, nor anyone else.
Earlier in the thread, one person alluded to some "statistical math" that was strong evidence for widespread life. But he hasn't returned to post it. Without that sort of analysis, any comments about whether life is likely or unlikely to exist elsewhere are just personal opinion based on nothing at all. And we don't have sufficient data to do the analysis (there's too many parts of the Drake equation for which we have no way of knowing the values).
Well, no. What I'm saying is that none of us really know do we? Of course not.
That, and life is going to either be there or not be there despite how much we argue for, against, or for the need for evidence in order to make a decision on it. Therefore, is IS all opinion right now no matter how well we "package" it. Maybe "Opinion a" has more deductive reasoning behind it than "opinion B" but in the end, they're both simply opinions. That's all I'm saying.
Wasn't the OP phrased "do you believe"? As such, each subsequent post regarding the individual's beliefs on the subject should hardly be discounted simply because they do not agree with your own conclusion. As to dependable witnesses, here are a few I consider pretty fair
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Well, it seems like a simple question to me, not one where anyone should be seemingly attacked or belittled for responding to. Here it is again:
My answer - I think that the probability is so high that I'm going to say "yes, I believe it to be so".
I stand by that and don't really see a need to argue over it or belittle those who feel differently. While I understand what others are saying about the need for proof and study before any solid statement can be made, a lot of folks here are just arguing semantics at this point. It's seems like it's devolved to arguing for the sake of arguing.
Which, now that I think about it, is sucking me back into this thread!!
Ok... thought that you might be going in that direction.
Philosophers tend to view belief somewhat differently.
Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Going by the above notion of belief, can anyone take the existence of extraterrestrial life to be true? I can't.
It might be true. There's no way to rule it out. But there's also no hard evidence to show that it exists either. So, no, I cannot take the existence of extraterrestrial life to be true. Thus I cannot believe it.
It might be true. There's no way to rule it out. But there's also no hard evidence to show that it exists either. So, no, I cannot take the existence of extraterrestrial life to be true. Thus I cannot believe it.
FWIW, I tend to be "Cliffordian" in my approach to doxastic matters....
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. - William Clifford
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. - William Clifford
My answer - I think that the probability is so high that I'm going to say "yes, I believe it to be so".
I stand by that and don't really see a need to argue over it or belittle those who feel differently. While I understand what others are saying about the need for proof and study before any solid statement can be made, a lot of folks here are just arguing semantics at this point. It's seems like it's devolved to arguing for the sake of arguing.
Which, now that I think about it, is sucking me back into this thread!!
(my added emphasis)
My point, Relic - and it's not intended to belittle anyone, only to clarify what we can and can't infer about the topic - is a bit more than just stating the obvious "we don't know without the proof", and that's what makes this about more than just semantics. The point is that we can't even make any meaningful estimate of the probability and that goes considerably further than the obvious statement above about the absence of "proof".
I'm not only saying we don't know, I'm saying we can't even make a sensible guess. You're claiming here, like others, to think the probability is high, and I'm saying if you think you can meaningfully judge the probability of this, you're making an error. Intuitive feelings about what may or may not be probable based on the scale of the universe are meaningless and totally uninformative to the point of being misleading.
Understood Bill and thanks for explaining.
Again, the larger part of what I'm saying though is really quite basic - the answer as to whether it actually exists or not is a totally black and white equation. It does or it doesn't regardless of our understanding of the laws of probability, or intuitive feelings in either direction. So, while what you explain above makes perfect sense and is an intelligent and rational way to look at it, it's still just sorta "spittin' into the wind".
I mean, yes, you're doing more than just saying "we don't know", you and 12bass for instance are totally stepping outside of the question of "is there life out there" and explaining why the question itself is pointless at this stage of human culture. At least that's how I'm reading you guys.
I'm looking at it rather as an interesting question that's so open as to invite varying opinions - ie "what is reality?" etc etc where since no one can TRULY answer this, all we have are opinions and perspectives.
i respectfully disagree. of course we can make a meaningful guess. please look at the youtube video below of Feynman (taken from another thread yesterday)
Invalid Link Removed
all science starts with guesses. they are called "hypotheses". in this case, what we have is not evidence of the existence or non-existence of extra-terrestrial life.... rather, we have evidence of the existence of a million billion potential worlds that COULD support extra-terrestrial life.
so, my starting point is i think it more likely than not that somewhere in this universe, there is some planet somewhere that evolved life much as we have done on earth.
unfortunately, that is as far as we can take it, given that there is no evidence for extra-terrestrial ( let's called it "ET life" for short) life, nor is there evidence against it.
i do NOT believe in ET life nor do i disbelieve...there is no evidence either way.
In the same way I do not either believe or not believe in the easter bunny or the golden tablets that the Mormons base their religion on. there is simply no evidence (that I have seen at any rate) to prove or disprove the existence of such things.
but to say "we can't even make a sensible guess" is to close off the inquiry before it begins. i am open to receiving evidence of the existence of ET life, i have just not done so yet.
however, scientists will tell you the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. and further, they will also tell you that it is impossible to prove a negative.... that is, how could you ever prove that there are no such things as flying saucers? you can only prove they do exist if and when there is some evidence.
My hypothesis, then, in the best Feynmanian tradition, is that there is ET life based on the sheer number of worlds for it to possibly arise, but TESTING that hypothesis is not possible for me at the present time. I await, maybe faster-than-light travel to be developed so we can go see for ourselves or perhaps a visit from some form of ET life, ala THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL.
until then, my mind is open to receiving evidence. what it is not open to is arguments either way, which are not, in some manner, based on EVIDENCE.
