Further to “Is universe, complex as human brain, conscious?” (You know something’s up when people who discuss science at Forbes are even having this conversation), Pos-Darwinista writes to ask, re a recent astrobiology article: “Case for Gaian bottleneck?,” “Is this a case for removing the label ‘science’ from some efforts at astrobiology?”
From Astrobiology:
The Case for a Gaian Bottleneck: The Biology of Habitability
Abstract: The prerequisites and ingredients for life seem to be abundantly available in the Universe. However, the Universe does not seem to be teeming with life. The most common explanation for this is a low probability for the emergence of life (an emergence bottleneck), notionally due to the intricacies of the molecular recipe. Here, we present an alternative Gaian bottleneck explanation: If life emerges on a planet, it only rarely evolves quickly enough to regulate greenhouse gases and albedo, thereby maintaining surface temperatures compatible with liquid water and habitability. Such a Gaian bottleneck suggests that (i) extinction is the cosmic default for most life that has ever emerged on the surfaces of wet rocky planets in the Universe and (ii) rocky planets need to be inhabited to remain habitable. In the Gaian bottleneck model, the maintenance of planetary habitability is a property more associated with an unusually rapid evolution of biological regulation of surface volatiles than with the luminosity and distance to the host star. Key Words: Life—Habitability—Gaia—Abiogenesis habitable zone
(AHZ)—Circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ). Astrobiology 16, 7–22. (paywall) – Chopra Aditya and Lineweaver Charles H., Astrobiology. January 2016, 16(1): 7-22. Volume: 16 Issue 1: January 20, 2016 doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1387.
Pos-Darwinista snorts, “If this is science so is astrology, runes, animal entrails, horoscopes, divination.”
Understandable frustration. There is no evidence of life anywhere outside the vicinity of Earth. Mythical histories, as presented above, are fun and can be instructive, but they are not science. Astrobiology, as has been said before, is a discipline without a subject.
Why is the space alien science, but Bigfoot — on the same level of evidence — is not science? Seemingly, the space alien serves certain agendas that Bigfoot doesn’t.
We look forward to a paper that unpacks the psychology behind the choice to consider the unseen life of alien worlds as “science.”
See also: How do we grapple with the idea that ET might not be out there?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I’m guessing that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t contacted us is because they’re waiting for us to progress to the point that we regard political ambition as a mental illness.
I think you might be underestimating the level of evidence for Sasquatch. Besides numerous sightings by reputable witnesses, there are scientific papers examining physical evidence, DNA and tooth marks on bones (see below).
From this blog:
Everything You Believe Is Based on Personal Experience and Testimony
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....testimony/
Scientific research on Sasquatch:
Sasquatch Are People DNA sequence studies by Dr. Melba Ketchum show that the Sasquatch are a hybrid of human and an unknown primate species:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....eople.html
Wood Ape Sightings: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat Zones by Daryl Colyer & Alton Higgins
http://woodape.org/index.php/a.....l-patterns
Using Biotic Taphonomy Signature Analysis and Neoichnology Profiling to determine the identity of the carnivore taxa responsible for the deposition and mechanical mastication of three independent prey bone assemblages in the Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem of the Cascade mountain range by Aaron Mills, Gerald Mills, M. N. Townsend
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=25BBCABF2DE517FF!108&ithint=file%2cpdf&app=WordPdf&authkey=!AOLzbmAVbvcVkIM
I read on this blog that it is incorrect to say that evidence that does not convince you is not evidence.
From this blog:
A Final Word on “Evidence”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-evidence/
Here is some of the evidence:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/6.....ubject_ufo
Exactly. Perhaps if we study it hard enough we can come up with the gene that is responsible for producing belief in aliens.
Back in December, they had a conference in New York about the ethics of looking for genes that contribute to intelligence. Some were afraid of pursuing such a study because of how it could lead to discrimination and designer babies etc.
Perhaps there is a gene for a tendency to believe in aliens just as they think there might be a gene(s) that contribute to intelligence.
Probably there is also a gene for atheism as well as a gene for people who tend towards a religious worldview.
We’re all just slaves to our genes anyway!
See “Are There Genes for Intelligence – and is it too Racist to Ask” http://news.nationalgeographic.....m-science/
Of course the article did not mention the historical errors of this type that were
Pos-Darwinista snorts: “If this is science so is astrology, runes, animal entrails, horoscopes, divination.”
Um, no. Astrology makes claims without basis. Astrobiology proposes hypotheses based on the one example of a known planet harboring life, and other known facts about the universe.
Frankly, my problem with astrobiology is etymology. “Astro” means star. “Bio” is life, “Logy” comes from “Logos” meaning word or study or knowledge. So “astrobiology” is the study of life on stars. But there isn’t any life on stars. So this field needs only a paragraph to be completely understood.
What happened, I surmise, is that Goddard Spaceflight Center had already stolen the word “Exo-biology” and so disgruntled sorts wanted to start an independent group/magazine and came up with astro-biology. I suppose we can look forward to astro-hydrology, astro-geology and astro-oceanography next.
I think that astro (exo) biology can be examined using science. But I don’t think there should be any tax funding until extraterrestrial life has been identified. Or, maybe, I should apply for a Leorechaunology grant.
The search for and, should it be found, the study of life outside our solar system is certainly a scientific enterprise. At the very least in the same sense that an exploratory or observational undertaking can be deemed science.
Whether the scientific exercise is likely to yield the desired results, whether the headlines and the pronouncements sometimes go awry, whether some of those engaged in the exercise bring unwarranted a priori philosophical assumptions to the table — all of those are separate questions.
Science
http://xkcd.com/1633/