Does Intelligent Life Exist on Other Planets?

[Deleted]

This is a cornerstone of Star Trek. It's even in the opening "To seek out new life and new civilizations." Without Intelligent life on other worlds, Star Trek would be kind of dull, and certainly there would be no need for a Prime Directive.

So what do you guys think? Are "they" out there or not?

[starcruiser]

I voted yes though - it's quite likely that some are no longer around (nuked themselves, natural calamity etc...) and others are probably just getting started out. It's so very unlikely that we will find this galaxy jammed to the ceiling with intelligent life as shown in Star Trek. Life in general, possibly, but not intelligent life. I suspect that's relatively rare.

[Gorn]

We won't know how rare until we find it - or fail to. Or much worse, find the radioactive/runaway greenhouse remnants of it, over and over, civ after civ. Which is exactly where humanity is headed right now.

[zaarin7]

I'm still looking for intelligent life on the third planet out from Sol.

[Deleted]

Good luck with that.

[starcruiser]

Definitely not going to find it in typical highway traffic!

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2017 21:36:12 GMT -7 Gorn said:

We won't know how rare until we find it - or fail to. Or much worse, find the radioactive/runaway greenhouse remnants of it, over and over, civ after civ. Which is exactly where humanity is headed right now.

I don't want to turn this thread into something it is not, but I have to make an observation.

The comment above, is a statement of belief. "We won't know how rare rare until we find it" assumes that intelligent life does exist on other planets without requiring the presence of any supporting evidence. The rest of the sentence, "-or fail to", implies that a lack of proof is not an indication that there is no intelligent life on other planets, only that it is more rare than we currently think it to be. Taken as a whole, the sentence is clearly stating that the author is certain of the existence of intelligent life on other planets despite the lack of any supporting evidence. As it has been explained to me several times; that is not science. To be certain of something without any supporting evidence is belief (but not a religious belief).

FWIW, I agree with the spirit of the post, if not the letter of it, but maintain that we cannot prove that life exists elsewhere until we actually meet such life. Were I a scientist, I might ask for proof, just as we ask for proof of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster (creatures I do not believe in). But I'm not a scientist. I am, however, able to state that I BELIEVE that intelligent life exists on other worlds, and I voted "yes".

"Where is everybody" - Enrico Fermi. Perhaps they are, as Gorn states above, already dead. If they are... then there is no intelligent life on other planets (which is why Drake added it to his fun-to-play-with equation)

If we are alone in the universe, we should treat one another better than we currently do because we are all there is in all of space, and we are rare and valuable creatures.
If we are not alone in the universe, we should treat one another better than we currently do because others may judge us by our actions and our history and may administer a fitting punishment.

[starcruiser]

To be fair to Gorn - we lack any usable data at this point.

Much like claiming that G*d doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence, claiming that Aliens don't exist for the same reason is rather hollow and unscientific.

(Gorn, don't go overboard on this point. We all know where you stand.)

[Deleted]

Whether deity or entity, I would say it is unscientific to assert that anything exists without some evidence.
I would say the Bigfoot does not exist, as I have never seen any credible evidence of the creature's existence. I should apply the same requirement of proof to extra terrestrial intelligence, but I don't, and neither does Gorn (nor does anyone else who asserts that we are not alone in the universe). The goal posts can't be shifted just because of personal prejudices. Either proof is required, or it isn't.

As I said, I agree with the spirit of Gorn's post, just not the letter (or the tone, actually). I believe that there are smart aliens out there right now, having a conversation similar to this one. I believe that they are so distant that we may never receive a signal from them, and we will never visit their home world (or vice versa). But these are only my personal beliefs. I have found no evidence to support these beliefs. How would anyone ever test such a theory when the only evidence is actually proof?

[Gorn]

No, it is not a statement of "belief". Once again, *sigh* "belief" does not need any data to support it.
We have loads of data:
Organic Chemistry
Geology showing millions of years and materials needed on a planetary scale
Biology proving evolution
Astronomy showing that countless planets exist, that ice is common in space, that rocky planets AND moons with organic compounds on them are common
Chemistry understanding that Si can also work as a base of life, although C is far more likely
Probability to predict large numbers

So, NO. Once again, belief is the purview of non-Scientists. I don't do belief, only hypotheses and predictions of hypotheses. Try again.

[Deleted]

The statement "We won't know how rare until we find it - or fail to" is a statement of belief. Maybe the author does not "do belief" but the words he writes do.

All the data says is that given all the correct conditions, life can happen, not that it will happen or must happen.

"Where is everybody" - Enrico Fermi.

[rabid]

lol don't start on the Fermi paradox again. I'm going out on a limb and say there is life on other planets...I.e microbes, maybe even insects.

But intelligent life? There's every possibility within natural selection that the evolutionary pressure that created sentient life is unique. Not to be reductive but you only find certain birds of paradise in very specific locations.

Besides that the reported tendencies of aliens who may have come to earth are weird to say the least. You'd fhink they'd have reached the limits of what rectal probing could teach them by now. That or they aren't smart enough to conceive an oral thermometer.

[starcruiser]

Yep - the whole Aliens invaded "me" B.S. has gotten very old (and "Ancient Aliens" isn't helping).

I agree that life -can- exist on other worlds. We simply have no evidence, at this time, that life -does- exist on other worlds. And I agree that intelligent life is probably truly rare. I would not be surprised to find that Issac Asimov and Frank Herbert were both quite right to claim that humans are it in this galaxy - as far as intelligent life goes.

[Gorn]

No, the statement "We won't know how rare until we find it - or fail to" is NOT a statement of belief.
The non Science educated layman would not understand that, and ironnerd clearly doesn't: given all the correct conditions, life absolutely will happen; it's an inevitable end of organic chemistry reactions and combining. Given the majority of laymen default to "invisible magic skydaddy!" when they don't understand a natural phenomenon on this planetary scale; it's not surprising they automatically assume others engage in the same manner of belief (just substituting 'Science' for a fantasy figure, despite Science being entirely incompatible with belief - another sign they don't understand what it is.)

I would not presume to "lecture" ironnerd about aircraft maintenance. It's hilarious he's "lecturing" on this.

[rabid]

Life absolutely happened on ONE planet. Until someone finds life on another planet it's just idle speculation.

Strange how some are willing to treat inductive arguments as if they are settled fact. That would be that evidence for things not seen.

[Deleted]

It actually is a statement of belief. It was not meant to be, but it is. Restated, Gorn is asserting that lack of evidence forever, is only proof of rarity. Replace "life" with "pixies".

"We won't know how rare pixies are until we find them - or fail to." How do you prove that pixies do not exist*? If you tell me, "Because no one has ever found a pixie. Not a pixie skeleton, or pixie house, or even a pixie fossil." I could argue "That just means they are very rare".

Even if it is taken as a given that under ideal circumstances life will always happen (and I am highly skeptical of that), intelligent life is still not certain at all. As far as we currently know the odds are 1:8,700,000 under ideal circumstances. I'm not taking that to Vegas.

---

* - I do not believe pixies exist. I am using these mythical beings as an example.

[zaarin7]

It takes as much faith to believe in God and creation as not too. One day we all will know the truth. I'll choose to follow God. I don't condemn anyone who doesn't and will defend your right to choose not too.

[rabid]

I still like the notion of alien life being completely alien. There's an anecdote of biology students who were asked to design alien life from physiology up for a contest. One group got second place because their alien creature didn't have an anus...

But there has been speculation of silicon based life, methane breathing chordates, aliens that breathe oxygen and exhale cyanide. Imagine that on Star Trek?

Alien: we come in peace *coughs*
*everybody dies*

[Gorn]

Reread my post. Go learn some Science. That's all I can say; right now some insistent people are sounding like I would lecturing a brain surgeon on how to do his job, on the basis of my 2 courses in brain chemistry and behavior.
Pixies violate Evolutionary Biology; they are chimeras. They are not at all the same thing as xeno life that have not yet been found because we haven't gone far in our own solar system to look, much less into interstellar space. If I see a cat box with fresh cat shit in it, partially eaten fresh food, cat hair all over your house, then I don't need to see your cat to know it is there. There is no "belief" in that.

[Deleted]

The cat example is dreadful! Just dreadful! Of course if I go to a house, see cat food, cat poop, a litter box, cat hair, and cat toys, I don't need to see the cat to deduce that a cat lives in the house. Your statement is saying that you walk into a house and see no evidence of a cat at all. Not one hair in the whole place. You keep going back every day for a decade and spend hours each time looking for evidence of a cat and still come up with nothing. The only logical conclusion you can draw is that the cat is in the house, he's just hard to find.

I can't read what you meant to write, only what you wrote. And you wrote a statement of unprovable/undisprovable belief. "Absence of evidence is only proof of rarity," is pretty much the definition of a bullshit statement. How about, instead of arguing about whether or not it's a statement of unshakable belief, you simply rephrase the statement? After all, good writing is rewriting.

“The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” - Mark Twain.

Do pixies* violate evolutionary biology or just the currently understanding of evolution? Using the logic of your statement, we won't know until we find a pixie. If we never find one, we'll just have to assume they are rare.

---

* - Pixies were selected simply out of convenience, I could have picked the Yeti or Jersey Devil.

[Gorn]

Pixies violate evolutionary biology. Did you not read the statement? I'm not responsible for your inability to follow the logic of a standard Science statement. You'll have to take evolutionary biology to understand why pixies are impossible. Once again, the example of searching for a pixie is entirely different from searching for alien life. In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges.
"Evidence" would be the accouterments of owning a cat. When you have many lines of evidence that all point to the same thing, you can call it "proof"; stronger or weaker depending on how much evidence.
In fact, the case for exo life is far more solid than the cat example. We don't NEED definite signs of exo life to know it must occur in some fraction of billions of worlds in this galaxy alone.The question is what fraction. If you want it restated in a form you can understand, go learn evolutionary biology, organic chemistry, probability statistics, do a minor in geology, and then do a minor in astronomy. Otherwise, take the word of people who know what they're talking about when you clearly don't. It is NOT "belief" to make statements based on many more lines of evidence from those disciplines than the cat example.
It is impossible to mix hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide and NOT get a reaction. This is the level of what you are insisting.
As I said, I would not presume to lecture you about aviation mechanics. Unless I were deliberately trying to troll.

[rabid]

I believe there is extra terrestrial life. The argument is not how life originated (I accept the current chemical evolution theory and the naturalist interpretation on this just FYI if anyone cares. The question is whether someone can be so confident of life on other planets to treat it as a certainty. It may as well be certain (why *shouldnt* there be life on other planets?) but there is no conclusive proof yet.


The cat analogy is faulty for this argument. This is tantamount to finding the evidence of a cat in one house and presuming since they all have doors, windows, central air and heat, that there must be a cat in every other house on the block.

You have evidence---the abundance of life on earth and the basic building blocks.
For something you have not seen---extraterrestrial life.

Until someone can show me a single microbe they have bupkis. Call it what you want, you "believe" there is life on other planets based on the evidence at hand. You don't "know" that for a fact. Unless you've arrogated that God like clairvoyance to yourself again. Anyone would say they believe it to be so pending further proof. There is really nothing wrong with that statement, but this freak show is always fun to watch.

impossible to mix hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide and NOT get a reaction. This is the level of what you are insisting.

using a simple binary reaction as an example for the complex origin and function of life isn't reductive at all. Life can survive in a variety of extreme locations but amino acids don't form or link into proteins outside of a particular temperature and PH range. Thus life has the potential to form in circumstances that are far more limited than the binary reaction implies.




Strange, (but entertaining) to see people getting heckled over a singularly bizarre obsession with a strange and limited usage of every day language. If you say you don't "believe" then show us a microbe. (Before you go running off to find dr hoover's NASA meteorite report from 2011, I'll kindly remind you that has already been debunked. ) Anyway I'm out.

[Deleted]

And so far that fraction is 1/∞. Not taking that to Vegas.

Seriously though, it's not about pixies* at all, it's about bad writing. Your point about a complete lack of evidence being proof of rarity is an example of bad writing. It's couched in science-talk, but it's crap.

Your Cat example is an even better illustration of really bad communication.
Cat poop+cat food+cat litter+cat hair+cat toys+cat nip = Probably a cat.
Cat poop+cat food+cat litter+cat hair+cat toys+cat nip+cat = definitely a  cat.

What you say in the oft-quoted sentence is "We won't know how rare cats are until we find them - or fail to." That is akin to stating:
No cat poop+no cat food+no cat litter+no cat hair+no cat toys+no cat nip+no cat = Probably a cat.

I'm not saying "GORN believes" I am stating that "Gorn has made a statement of belief". These are two really different things. You're not seeing that either, which shows another shortcoming in the education you received. I would recommend a remedial "Expository Writing" class to brush up on some important skills. Perhaps "Speech and interpersonal communications". These are normally offered at local community colleges as night classes at very affordable rates.

It took a while, but I realized that it's this lack of ability to clearly communicate that causes the ALL CAPS, and BOLD TEXT, and vulgar language. I got marked down in High School and Jr. College for the same things. But once I learned to communicate a bit better, I found I no longer needed all those crutches.

---

* - I know pixies do not exist, nor do bigfoot, yetis, or Jersey Devils.

[Gorn]

Yes, rabid, there is no conclusive proof of exo life. But, ONCE AGAIN, we cannot be said to have even looked much at all. That's why the cat example is good enough for laymen.
NO; once again, I have evidence of organic chemistry. Geology. Evolutionary Biology for the Archean Earth. Astronomy that proves ice and water to be common, and for rocky- earth sized planets in habitable zones to look like they're very probably common, too. Plug some OBSERVED number estimates into some probability equations, taking several BILLION years into account, and even the most uneducated religious person will have a hard time dismissing the large number result. It isn't belief to think there's a cat where your friend has all kinds of cat accouterments. It's belief to insist no cat lives there because you didn't see it. Sounds like something the religious would do - refusing something to be true because they don't experience it.
Amino acids don't NOT form within that limited range. That is what's being put forth by people not educated in those Sciences.
So stop with your constant stream of bullshit, because what you say is demonstrably WRONG.
Or you can heckle all you like, and keep getting your lack of understanding demonstrated. I don't need to show a microbe; any Science literate person would understand that. A philosopher wouldn't.

________________________________

"We won't know how rare cats are until we find them - or fail to." That is NOT AT ALL akin to stating:
No cat poop+no cat food+no cat litter+no cat hair+no cat toys+no cat nip+no cat = Probably a cat.
It's not a substitute statement to begin with. Your illogic equation also is entirely non-sequitor.
If we start finding alien life on planet after planet after planet, we will know it occurs as often as we estimate it should. If we find life devoid rocky habitable zone world in the vast majority of places we look, then we will have a new mystery to solve. Basically the polar OPPOSITE of each condition you mention in your word equation. In other words, a logical statement instead of the opposite. And btw, ONCE AGAIN there's no statement of belief in what I write.
I don't need any remedial classes in English writing; I achieved a B+ in essay writing at the University level, voluntarily took the English leaving test to prove students passing that class need not take the test, and then took advanced essay writing the following term with another above average grade. If anyone needs remedial college classes to understand English writing at affordable rates, it would be you and ironnerd. I don't think that's your problems, though. I think it's a lack of Science education. those courses are somewhat more expensive, but so well worth freeing you from the mire of ignorance.

You may eventually learn that strict rule adherence in arts, such as writing, is for beginners and neophytes. Masters will tell you that you have to eventually develop your own style. My style is shared by a number of Science communicators FOR THE LAYMAN. I think I will choose the method of my peers over philosophers'. Also, don't assume my fast writing on a blog is = my polished writing.

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2017 19:59:04 GMT -7 Gorn said:

"We won't know how rare cats are until we find them - or fail to." That is NOT AT ALL akin to stating:
No cat poop+no cat food+no cat litter+no cat hair+no cat toys+no cat nip+no cat = Probably a cat.


Also, don't assume my fast writing on a blog is = my polished writing.

Actually... it is. It's exactly the same, you just have really bad communications skills and can't see it. You poor ability to make yourself understood is on display in your post. ALL CAPS and BOLD TYPE, are not supporting arguments, they indicate a lack of ability to argue the position. I learned that in High School.

It's not a blog, it's a forum. It's not an assumption, it is an observation based on my time in this forum reading your dreadful arguments, and anti-religious hate speach. Besides, you take everything everyone else "fast writes" as their "polished work", why should I not make the same assumption? It seems the logical thing to do.

And again:
I'm not saying Gorn is wrong, I'm saying his communication skills need improvement. The fact that he cannot see that is supporting evidence of my statement.

You got a B+! Might have gotten an "A-" had you learned to spell "a lot". While I am flattered that you dug up that one grade form your old University Transcripts just to impress me, we're not talking about "English Writing". It's "Expository Writing" and "Speech and Interpersonal Communications". In English Writing you learn how to structure a sentence and a paragraph. In Expository Writing you learn how to structure an argument and support an idea, point of view, or opinion. It's a very structured form of writing. In "Speech and Interpersonal Communications", you learn how to get people to listen to you and even agree with you.

I'm trying to imagine the High School debate where one kid just yells "THAT'S BULLSHIT!", and wins.