Do you believe in life elsewhere?

[12bass]

More on the etymology of 'superstition' here: Invalid Link Removed

Online Etymology Dictionary

And from Wikipedia: Superstition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Superstition is a belief in a non-physical (i.e. supernatural) causality: that one event causes another without any physical process linking the two events. The word is often used pejoratively to refer to practices (e.g. Voodoo) other than the one prevailing in a given society (e.g. Christianity in western culture), although the prevailing religion may contain just as many supernatural beliefs. It is also commonly applied to beliefs and practices surrounding luck, prophecy and spiritual beings, particularly the belief that future events can be foretold by specific unrelated prior events.

Doesn't seem to apply to belief in extraterrestrial life.

 

[Relic]

Yeah I really just don't get "superstition" in this instance. It doesn't make much sense to me..I find it even a little insulting I'd have to confess. I guess there are some out there who would equate belief in the probability of life elsewhere with belief in the the "easter bunny" etc but I think that's deliberately simplifying the argument to a level of absurdity.

 

[12bass]

Nah... not the same at all. I know that the Easter Bunny is real. Years of magically appearing chocolate is all the evidence I need!

 

[Munjibunga]

Ummm.... okay..... don't recall that I was the one quoting dictionaries to in an attempt prove my point.

In order to communicate clearly it is important to use the most appropriate terms. The term 'superstitious' is not the most appropriate, as its generally understood meaning does not apply in this case.
Still, if we were to think of paradigmatic cases of superstition, they invariably involve non-naturalistic causation - i.e. ghosts, luck, not stepping on cracks on sidewalk, avoid walking underneath a ladder, etc....

Invalid Link Removed



Is a belief in extraterrestrial life among these beliefs?

Uhhh, so your list is exhaustive?

 

[Munjibunga]

Yeah I really just don't get "superstition" in this instance. It doesn't make much sense to me..I find it even a little insulting I'd have to confess. I guess there are some out there who would equate belief in the probability of life elsewhere with belief in the the "easter bunny" etc but I think that's deliberately simplifying the argument to a level of absurdity.

Wait a minute ... are we talking about believing there is life elsewhere, or are we talking about belief in the probability? I believe it's probable that life exists elsewhere, but I don't believe life exists elswhere.

 

[flypejose]

Definition from Wikipedia (which is the exact same definition given to me in every Biology class I've taken in my life): "Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations."

Life is a word we made up. Therefore, we decide what life is and isn't, and the conditions that must be met for something to be constituted as "life" are above.



+1.

It depends on how you want to define life, I quite like the Biological requirements for something to be defined as life:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

(just copied from wiki)

Life is the manner in which cells are constructed and the molecular pathways which occur to maintain, replicate etc the cell.

Live cells and dead cells may look the same (if you nuke them with formaldehyde!). But if you look at the biochemistry within the cell, they are nowhere near the same.

Consciousness is something we'd have a harder time explaining, but, that isn't required for life.

I don't know if there is life out there, but I'd say it's a probability. Something else to take into account, the vast timescales of the galaxy, some forms of life could have come into existence and perished before life developed on life, life could develop on other planets long after life on earth is extinguished.

These definitions do not invalidate my point quite the contrary;Life is not the molecules themselves, nor is it the cells and systemic functions all organisms display, rather Life is that “something” that put living organisms in "movement", and which absence leaves them inert!

The least that could be said about any current definitions of “life” is that they have been carefully enunciated in order to avoid any legitimate ontological inquiries which could quickly turn into metaphysics! They do their best to give us a practical definition which is not supposed to be taken as a sort of religious dogma!

I am sorry to disappoint you but, to this day, the scientific community remains clueless as to what life is in essence and how it could emerge out of non-living materials (don’t let these Wikipedia definitions fool you)… Scientists Particularly evolutionary biologists have learned to live with it (I know that some will still try to demonstrate to no effect that we know a lot about life but in reality they will be referring to the effects and not the essence of life...

Simply put, those in charge of crafting the definition of the word “life” have made the conscious decision to let aside the hard-to-describe reality but instead focus on the easy-to-deal-with phenomenological aspects of the reality of “life”!

Yet the essence of what “life” is remains in question and does not change even if we have to speculate about potential life in the uttermost part of the universe. Also the problematic of life springing out of non-living material would not lose its acuteness by the same token!

 

[12bass]

Uhhh, so your list is exhaustive?

No... but the paradigmatic examples clearly do not fit the assertion. Nor do most of the definitions or etymological sources, if we consider the necessary criteria.

If someone were to say that they were afraid that aliens were going to rectally probe them if they slept outside near Devils Tower... well... that might be closer.... Still, it fails to have the supernatural causality which is apparent in the paradigmatic examples.

 

[Kwesi]

Yeah I really just don't get "superstition" in this instance. It doesn't make much sense to me..I find it even a little insulting I'd have to confess. I guess there are some out there who would equate belief in the probability of life elsewhere with belief in the the "easter bunny" etc but I think that's deliberately simplifying the argument to a level of absurdity.

I agree with this. It's not as if belief in extraterrestrial life is completely unfounded or without reason, just no certain evidence exists to support it currently. There isn't any sort of doctrine to go with it either. I don't see how it could be considered as illogical either. To assume that Earth really is one of a kind -- that Earth and what lead to it's creation and its sustenance of life -- is that unique among the millions and millions of cosmic bodies bodies out there seems, at least to mer, more illogical belief.


...unless I don't under the word logic as well as I think I do .

Also, hasn't basic life been found on Mars? Like, bacteria or single cell organisms of some kind?

 

[12bass]

I agree with this. It's not as if belief in extraterrestrial life is completely unfounded or without reason, just no certain evidence exists to support it currently. There isn't any sort of doctrine to go with it either. I don't see how it could be considered as illogical either. To assume that Earth really is one of a kind -- that Earth and what lead to it's creation and its sustenance of life -- is that unique among the millions and millions of cosmic bodies bodies out there seems, at least to mer, more illogical belief.


...unless I don't under the word logic as well as I think I do .

Also, hasn't basic life been found on Mars? Like, bacteria or single cell organisms of some kind?

Life found on Mars? Nope.. not yet... though it may have existed billions of years ago.

The charge of illogical stems from the basic issue of believing something to be true without sufficient evidence. Sure, believe that extraterrestrial life is possible; that seems to be a reasonable scientific postulate. However, making the leap to believing that it actually exists is like putting the cart before the horse. Rationally speaking, first comes evidence, then follows belief.

 

[Simo98]

I don't disbelieve anything, its safer that way.

When it comes to life outside of our planet, I'm about as sure as I could possibly be with the data I have at my disposal. Infact, I would say I can barely fathom the possibility that earth is the only home to life in the universe. That being said, I can see it is a possibility, however it seems to be to be the far less likely option, given the sheer scope of the universe.


As far as belief in Aliens being a superstition, Munji is correct in my opinion. If you believe aliens are out there, that in your head you are sure they are out there, 100% sure, without having any specific evidence to support your claim, no shadow of a doubt, aliens exist even though you have never actually seen them. Then THAT is a superstitious belief. Unless of course you have had some sort of encounter with aliens personally and can confirm their existence.

However, if when you say you believe in extra-terrestrial life, you mean you are fairly sure exists because of the evidence present to support your claim; an unimaginably big expanse of space and the fact that life has and still does exist in at least one tiny little planet right here. If you accept the fact that it might not exist, but you think it probably does, then that is not a superstitious belief, that is simply logical reasoning.

In my opinion..

 

[anonymous122511]

There's so much fuzzy logic in this thread reading through it my eyes got sore rolling them.

There are a whole lot of you that could stand to give some consideration to the difference between belief and knowledge. This is going to hurt some people's brains and completely elude others but there is a big difference between believing something and knowing that it is probable.

 

[12bass]

There are a whole lot of you that could stand to give some consideration to the difference between belief and knowledge. This is going to hurt some people's brains and completely elude others but there is a big difference between believing something and knowing that it is probable.

If it is so fuzzy, perhaps clarification is in order?

I made an attempt to state the definitions as I use them (and as they are generally understood in epistemology).

 

[anonymous122511]

If it is so fuzzy, perhaps clarification is in order?

I made an attempt to state the definitions as I use them (and as they are generally understood in epistemology).

Go through this whole thing and give critical analysis of every argument based on emotions and beliefs??? You have got to be kidding.
I've throw an important idea out there for y'all to chew on...or not. You're the one that has to do the analysis work though. Even if I spent the hours and hours and hours it would take to do it all for you you'd learn nothing.

Oh, and since it doesn't appear to have crossed your mind and since I didn't name names maybe you were one of the few I wasn't talking about.

 

[Audiophage]

It's quite likely.

 

[Munjibunga]

Life found on Mars? Nope.. not yet... though it may have existed billions of years ago.

The charge of illogical stems from the basic issue of believing something to be true without sufficient evidence. Sure, believe that extraterrestrial life is possible; that seems to be a reasonable scientific postulate. However, making the leap to believing that it actually exists is like putting the cart before the horse. Rationally speaking, first comes evidence, then follows belief.

Not too many billions of years ago. It's only about 4½ billion years old.

 

[Munjibunga]

No... but the paradigmatic examples clearly do not fit the assertion. Nor do most of the definitions or etymological sources, if we consider the necessary criteria.

If someone were to say that they were afraid that aliens were going to rectally probe them if they slept outside near Devils Tower... well... that might be closer.... Still, it fails to have the supernatural causality which is apparent in the paradigmatic examples.

I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree on the semantics and move forward.

 

[12bass]

Go through this whole thing and give critical analysis of every argument based on emotions and beliefs??? You have got to be kidding.
I've throw an important idea out there for y'all to chew on...or not. You're the one that has to do the analysis work though. Even if I spent the hours and hours and hours it would take to do it all for you you'd learn nothing.

Oh, and since it doesn't appear to have crossed your mind and since I didn't name names maybe you were one of the few I wasn't talking about.

Well... what you've written is vague enough that I don't know whether you're arguing in favor of critical thinking and sound epistemic practice or whether you think some sort of subjective emotionally-based notion of belief is reasonable or ???

Thus, telling me to "do the work" is not helpful at all, because I've already had a look through the thread and made what I thought were appropriate comments. It's almost as if you're asking us to play a guessing game with your thoughts and then chastising people for not understanding you... as if we're psychic or something.....

 

[12bass]

Not too many billions of years ago. It's only about 4½ billion years old.

From what I've gathered, the "fertile" period for abiogenesis on Mars may have occurred before it did on Earth.

Rocks on Mars may provide link to evidence of living organisms roughly 4 billion years ago

 

[Munjibunga]

Key word: "may." The potentiality of life on Mars at any time is currently speculative. The earliest life on earth occurred about 3.5 billion years ago. Mars and Earth are comparable in age, but it is possible that conditions on Mars may have been conducive to the occurrence of life before they were on earth, but nobody knows.

 

[anonymous122511]

Well... what you've written is vague enough that I don't know whether you're arguing in favor of critical thinking and sound epistemic practice or whether you think some sort of subjective emotionally-based notion of belief is reasonable or ???

Thus, telling me to "do the work" is not helpful at all, because I've already had a look through the thread and made what I thought were appropriate comments. It's almost as if you're asking us to play a guessing game with your thoughts and then chastising people for not understanding you... as if we're psychic or something.....

F***ed if I'm going to spoon feed anyone answers. What's the difference between belief and knowledge?