At Forbes: About extraterrestrial life, “fancy probabilistic analysis” just isn’t science
| June 29, 2018 | Posted by News under Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent Design |
Alien tripod by Alvim Corréa, 1906 French edition of H.G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds”
From astrophysicist Ethan Siegel:
No amount of fancy probabilistic analysis can justify treating guesswork and wishful thinking as having any sort of scientific weight. Applying scientific techniques to an inherently unscientific endeavor, such as inventing estimates to unknowns about the Universe, doesn’t make it any more scientific. The opposite of knowledge isn’t ignorance; it’s the illusion of knowledge.
It’s still possible that life, and even intelligent life, is ubiquitous in our galaxy and the Universe. It’s also possible that one is common and one is uncommon, or that both are extraordinarily rare. Until we have more information, don’t be fooled by the headlines: these aren’t brilliant estimates or groundbreaking work. It’s guessing, in the absence of any good evidence. That’s no way to do science. In fact, until we have better evidence, it’s not science at all. More.
Enceladus/NASA
All true. But that said, we have found complex organic molecules on Saturn’s moon Enceladus, which should provide a basis for genuine research. From a minimalist perspective, what if we encounter a number of instances where the setting seems to be right but life or intelligent life is markedly absent? In certain situations, persistently not finding something can be a source of information.
See also: Are we doing theoretical physics all wrong? (Ethan Siegel)
Complex organic molecules found on Saturn’s moon Enceladus. At this point, it will be just as interesting if Enceladus has “all of the basic requirements for life as we know it” but does not have life. That would cast doubt on the thesis that life naturally evolves when the conditions are right. Of course, we will need quite a few examples to be sure.
Could Earth germs be contaminating other planets Life on other planets? Yes, for sure, if Earth’s microbes get there with our help
Looking for life in all the hard places – a guidebook Researcher: “We are using Earth to guide our search for life on other planets because it is the only known example we have,” said Timothy Lyons, a distinguished professor of biogeochemistry and director of the Alternative Earths Astrobiology Center.
and
Could alien life be buried in ET oceans?
7 Responses to At Forbes: About extraterrestrial life, “fancy probabilistic analysis” just isn’t science
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chides a more than reasonable estimate from what we DO KNOW as wishful thinking, after which he inserts his own unscientific wishful thinking as if it was anything but wishful thinking on his part. Go figure.
To tell the truth, the estimate, based on what we do know, was far to lenient.
I’d like to see Prof Tour debate Prof Szostak, and someone keep them on topic.
“The opposite of knowledge isn’t ignorance; it’s the illusion of knowledge.”
I’m not sure this sentence means what you think it means.
If your knowledge is illusory then it is in fact non-existent. You might not know it but you ARE ignorant, in that case.
The illusion of knowledge is exactly the same as ignorance. Ergo, if one is the opposite of knowledge, so too is the other.
If the researchers are claiming a higher degree of confidence in their estimates than is warranted by the available evidence then Siegel has grounds for his complaints. If it is journalists and publicists making the numbers sound more certain than it is then Siegel is criticizing the wrong people.
Seversky, might I suggest that before you, an atheistic materialist, offer others advise on what level of confidence we can have towards any particular evidence about reality that you first adopt a worldview that is capable of differentiating what is illusory from what is real in the first place?
bornagain77 @ 5
How would you distinguish between what is real and what is illusory?
If you believe that we live in a real world, rather than a Matrix-like simulation, what observational data can you offer as evidence that such a belief is reliable?
When you look at a red rose, is the color red that you see real or an illusion?
If you believe in an entity called a soul, first, how would you define it and, second, what observational data can you offer as evidence that such a belief is reliable?
I have previously cited that case of a girl who died at home of the complications of untreated diabetes while her devout family stood around her praying fervently for her to be cured. Would that indicate that belief in the efficacy of prayer was unreliable?
es58 (2):
Is Prof Szostak available for debate?
Wouldn’t it be easier to have a debate between gpuccio and Prof Szostak?
Maybe even more interesting?