Some of us still think Loeb is way off the beam about Oumuamua but at least he is talking about how you would know that something is designed. If anyone is interested, it is called the design inference.
He ends up, we are told, sounding like an ID type.
“Nature does not produce such things”
They raise the question whether progress of science and technology inevitably lead to the destruction of civilizations.
Would they have different values from ourselves or do all enduring civilizations end up having similar values?
Walker: “A popular definition that “life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution” excludes any organisms that can’t reproduce because they are not capable of evolution—therefore mules and many senior citizens are excluded if you read the definition too strictly.”
These are curious times in science, as fact and reason appear less attractive every day to just the people one would expect to value them and people who might have been able to get away with tabloid news show more sense instead.
Like space junk Oumuamua, it’ll almost certainly turn out to be nothing. So why … ? It’s a legitimate question, at this point, whether “science” is just cultural territory now—a way of saying that one is Woke, Cool, and progressive. Depending on where you work, no actual results may be required.
“Science” is heading downhill pretty fast in one really important sense: It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between “science” and “sciencey.”
The stuff that comes out of Harvard these days and gets published in Scientific American used to be tabloid news. What has changed?
Andrew Zic: But given Proxima Centauri is a cool, small red-dwarf star, it means this habitable zone is very close to the star; much closer in than Mercury is to our Sun.” That would mean those planets would be “sterilised” by dangerous ionising radiation that came from their Sun.
There may or may not be other intelligent life forms out there. As it happens, we may be in a position to get hard evidence in the next century. But there is no time where it more pays to be sceptical than a time when we could get genuine information. Or not.
Researcher’s view: “it’s more than likely that the chemistry that led to the existing biology on Earth is no longer evident in the biochemistry we see. This means it may be impossible to reverse engineer what prebiotic chemistry on early Earth—or another planet—might have looked like solely from the life that’s present today. “
He points to the increase in the number of exoplanets identified and the increase in computing power.
Seriously, there is considerable evidence that the universe is fine-tuned for life. Maybe we should look at a simpler explanation for why we and ET don’t communicate.