Evolution and abiogenesis

[SelfSim]

The thing is that it dosen't seem that useful or novel.

And neither is predicting more of the same, from the same basis without testing it, particularly risky, (I think).

We already have a perfectly cromulent set of features to identify life, namely living organisms perform the following functions

• Nutrition
• Respiration
• Excretion
• Growth
• Reproduction
• Sensing
• Movement

Any chemical-based life would have to do the first five of these, and proto-life would have to have analogues to perform equivalent functions for it to work as proto-life. The remaining two would arise from evolution pretty soon, and possibly are also necessary.

Which brings us back around the same familiar loop again.
This is why we need new data from tests conducted 'out there' (and not more data from inside the same mind experimented paradigms, IMO).

 

[Emily's Cat]

It hasn't happened yet beyond Earth, and if you think it has, then show us your data.

This is why we need new data from tests conducted 'out there' (and not more data from inside the same mind experimented paradigms, IMO).

Getting the data is why we're trying to look for it!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't care in the slightest about Ken Ham, or about what he believes in, nor am I a Creationist ... Your implication here is a complete red herring.

In science, predictions made from models require testing in the environment for which they apply, and in this case, that environment demands more than just a thought experiment. It hasn't happened yet beyond Earth, and if you think it has, then show us your data.

You missed the point and I merely cited Ham because a lot of us are familiar with his argument that historical science differs from 'real science'.

Are you or are you not claiming we can never know with any kind of certainly something from the distant past for which we were not their to witness it?

 

[SelfSim]

... Are you or are you not claiming we can never know with any kind of certainlty something from the distant past for which we were not their to witness it?

No.

What I know, is that the scientific process produces 'objective reality' on the sole basis of its testing ... and not before that. Predictions are not part of science's objective reality until they have been found as being consistent with the data resulting from its tests.
The outcome of this process then forms the basis for the knowledge of which I think you are referring to above(?)

There are many examples (evidence) for what I say above, from science's history (eg: the Higgs Boson, Black Holes, Newtonian Gravity, etc, etc).

 

[marplots]

No.

What I know, is that the scientific process produces 'objective reality' on the sole basis of its testing ... and not before that. Predictions are not part of science's objective reality until they have been found as being consistent with the data resulting from its tests.
The outcome of this process then forms the basis for the knowledge of which I think you are referring to above(?)

There are many examples (evidence) for what I say above, from science's history (eg: the Higgs Boson, Black Holes, Newtonian Gravity, etc, etc).

The thing is, all that starts with someone's intuition about "how things might be." We don't just randomly poke and prod and gather data. We get ideas. When those ideas don't immediately conflict with what we already accept, we use them to direct our investigations. Hunches matter.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No.

What I know, is that the scientific process produces 'objective reality' on the sole basis of its testing ... and not before that. Predictions are not part of science's objective reality until they have been found as being consistent with the data resulting from its tests.
The outcome of this process then forms the basis for the knowledge of which I think you are referring to above(?)

There are many examples (evidence) for what I say above, from science's history (eg: the Higgs Boson, Black Holes, Newtonian Gravity, etc, etc).

The thing is, all that starts with someone's intuition about "how things might be." We don't just randomly poke and prod and gather data. We get ideas. When those ideas don't immediately conflict with what we already accept, we use them to direct our investigations. Hunches matter.

The scientific process allows observations to be part of objective reality as well. Many of those observations occur prior to having anything resembling a testable model.

Humans are quite good pattern finders. We may not be able to specify the explicit pattern, but a good chunk of intuition is the subconscious recognition of a perceived pattern. That's part of what drives us to form hypotheses to test in the first place.

 

[SelfSim]

The thing is, all that starts with someone's intuition about "how things might be." We don't just randomly poke and prod and gather data. We get ideas. When those ideas don't immediately conflict with what we already accept, we use them to direct our investigations. Hunches matter.

I agree that the scientific process may turn carefully formed speculation into something useful.

However, speculation attempted to be tested in 'thought experiements', is a very slippery path indeed.

 

[SelfSim]

The scientific process allows observations to be part of objective reality as well. Many of those observations occur prior to having anything resembling a testable model.

Descriptions of observations form models (that's what minds do with their perceptions). Models may, or may not, be testable via the scientific process. The ones that aren't testable via that process, don't end up as being part of science's objective reality. Some truth posited as existing independently from a mind, for example, is not a testable proposition in science and therefore, can not form part of objective reality. Some beliefs are also not testable. Some beliefs are testable, but haven't yet been tested, therefore they are not yet part of science's objective reality.

Humans are quite good pattern finders. We may not be able to specify the explicit pattern, but a good chunk of intuition is the subconscious recognition of a perceived pattern. That's part of what drives us to form hypotheses to test in the first place.

Ok .. I actually largely agree with what you say here.
Forming testable hypotheses is a normal part of science.
Not all speculative hypotheses, (or even parts of them), are testable, therefore they, (or their piece-parts), can not form part of objective reality (see above).

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Descriptions of observations form models (that's what minds do with their perceptions). Models may, or may not, be testable via the scientific process. The ones that aren't testable via that process, don't end up as being part of science's objective reality. Some truth posited as existing independently from a mind, for example, is not a testable proposition in science and therefore, can not form part of objective reality. Some beliefs are also not testable. Some beliefs are testable, but haven't yet been tested, therefore they are not yet part of science's objective reality.

Ok .. I actually largely agree with what you say here.
Forming testable hypotheses is a normal part of science.
Not all speculative hypotheses, (or even parts of them), are testable, therefore they, (or their piece-parts), can not form part of objective reality (see above).

Italics added.

I'm going to continue tiptoeing around the mind-dependence tar pit, but let's agree that science is a body of knowledge derived from a set of practices that make it highly reliable. I will further agree that science informs and shapes objective reality, for those who subscribe to its postulates.

What I think you gloss over a bit is the reliance in testing and formulation of hypotheses on probabilities. Even if we only agree it is a question of efficiency under resource constraints, scientific practice heavily relies on looking at the most probable results and interpretations first, only then moving on to less likely scenarios.

With respect to the thread topic, this does advocate directed searches based on the probable, and should translate into looking at Earth-similar life first. Where I would agree with your viewpoint, as I understand it, is in not stopping there, meaning that further examination of chemical processes we have access to within the solar system could reveal non-Earth-like mechanisms for abiogenesis as well.

 

[SelfSim]

... I'm going to continue tiptoeing around the mind-dependence tar pit, but let's agree that science is a body of knowledge derived from a set of practices that make it highly reliable. I will further agree that science informs and shapes objective reality, for those who subscribe to its postulates.

What postulates?
A scientifically thinking mind doesn't need a necessary condition (a postulate) for observations, it just does them, and then uses the scientific process for building science's concept of reality, from the outcome.

Reality (or 'existence') is an output of science, not a precondition for it.
That's not a metaphysical assumption either, it's an observation of science in action.

What I think you gloss over a bit is the reliance in testing and formulation of hypotheses on probabilities. Even if we only agree it is a question of efficiency under resource constraints, scientific practice heavily relies on looking at the most probable results and interpretations first, only then moving on to less likely scenarios.

Nope .. see my above response .. no preconditions .. no postulates .. just observations.

With respect to the thread topic, this does advocate directed searches based on the probable, and should translate into looking at Earth-similar life first. Where I would agree with your viewpoint, as I understand it, is in not stopping there, meaning that further examination of chemical processes we have access to within the solar system could reveal non-Earth-like mechanisms for abiogenesis as well.

Observations by scientifically thinking minds, require no preconditions.

Project managers might need priorities, (and 'probabilities'), but not science.

 

[marplots]

What postulates?
A scientifically thinking mind doesn't need a necessary condition (a postulate) for observations, it just does them, and then uses the scientific process for building science's concept of reality, from the outcome.

Reality (or 'existence') is an output of science, not a precondition for it.
That's not a metaphysical assumption either, it's an observation of science in action.

Nope .. see my above response .. no preconditions .. no postulates .. just observations.

Observations by scientifically thinking minds, require no preconditions.

Project managers might need priorities, (and 'probabilities'), but not science.

I disagree. The nature of an observation necessarily collapses reality in a fundamental way. And I'm not even talking about QM here, but regular old observations.

One way to express the idea is to think of an observation as cherry picking from the pool of all that could be observed but isn't. The precondition is a selection process about what to observe and how to observe/measure that thing.

Even if it were possible to simultaneously measure the color of the front and back of the elephant, the inside and the outside, the temperature, weight, sounds, smell, chemical composition, ongoing metabolic reactions... even if you could capture all that, the moment would pass and you'd need another set of observations. Being finite, we are incapable of processing such stuff. We "lump" instead and report that we saw an "elephant."

So the selection process is always in play. The ranking of data into more and less importance, of greater interest or not. And all this before you get to the price. Some data is expensive to get. Some is unethical to get. I must reject the notion that "data" is some kind of sterile thing, "out there" we interact with at arms' length - it's more vivid, more connected and more constructed than that.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What postulates?
A scientifically thinking mind doesn't need a necessary condition (a postulate) for observations, it just does them, and then uses the scientific process for building science's concept of reality, from the outcome.

Gosh, Ss. I did mean outcomes.

Reality (or 'existence') is an output of science, not a precondition for it. That's not a metaphysical assumption either, it's an observation of science in action.

I think I said that, too.

Nope .. see my above response .. no preconditions .. no postulates .. just observations.... Observations by scientifically thinking minds, require no preconditions.... Project managers might need priorities, (and 'probabilities'), but not science.

Here aren't you just taking things to the logical extreme and ignoring real constraints? Of course we could say that all data anywhere observable are of interest and, say, study it all equally. But that doesn't allow for making a hypothesis to be tested, meaning, a more likely explanation in principle, based on known relations, and so more probable than a wild guess.

Not a math guy, but maybe you or someone else can tell me: what does it mean to get a 5 or 6 sigma result and call it confirmation? Isn't that like saying that probabilities are vastly, but not absolutely, in favor of an interpretation? I think the difference between the possible and the probable is that between pure speculation and grounded exploration.

 

[Emily's Cat]

However, speculation attempted to be tested in 'thought experiements', is a very slippery path indeed.

I don't think testing via thought experiment is being suggested.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Some truth posited as existing independently from a mind, for example, is not a testable proposition in science and therefore, can not form part of objective reality.

This statement implies that NOTHING exists as a part of objective reality. There is no truth that exists independently from a mind, because the only observers remarking on those truths are observers possessing minds.

I think your statement is too vague and philosophical in nature to be useful.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What I think you gloss over a bit is the reliance in testing and formulation of hypotheses on probabilities. Even if we only agree it is a question of efficiency under resource constraints, scientific practice heavily relies on looking at the most probable results and interpretations first, only then moving on to less likely scenarios.

In short... if you hear galloping, you first look for horses, then look for zebras, and you only look for fish if you don't find anything else.

With respect to the thread topic, this does advocate directed searches based on the probable, and should translate into looking at Earth-similar life first. Where I would agree with your viewpoint, as I understand it, is in not stopping there, meaning that further examination of chemical processes we have access to within the solar system could reveal non-Earth-like mechanisms for abiogenesis as well.

I agree that this is the most practical and reasonable way to approach the situation.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

This statement implies that NOTHING exists as a part of objective reality. There is no truth that exists independently from a mind, because the only observers remarking on those truths are observers possessing minds.

I think your statement is too vague and philosophical in nature to be useful.

You are most wise to stay out of the quandary that is mind-dependent reality. The long answer is infinite. The short answer, and good for science, is "carry on." The takeaway is: be mindful of models. (Except those on fashion runways.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

Reality (or 'existence') is an output of science, not a precondition for it.

No, this is incorrect. Elsewise you are claiming that Neptune didn't *exist* until after physics identified the anomalies in Uranus' orbit and created a model that predicted a planet there. That's absurd. We have every reason to believe that Neptune has existed for several millions of years, and we only recently caught up to it.

That's not a metaphysical assumption either, it's an observation of science in action.

No, it's metaphysical. It's a parallel to saying that nothing exists until someone observes it. Thus a tree falling with no one to hear would make no noise... in fact there wouldn't even be a tree to fall unless there was someone to observe it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are most wise to stay out of the quandary that is mind-dependent reality. The long answer is infinite. The short answer, and good for science, is "carry on." The takeaway is: be mindful of models. (Except those on fashion runways.)

Be mindful of them too - they're pretty

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Be mindful of them too - they're pretty

Heh. But not if the wife catches me; she'll grab me by the ear again.

 

[SelfSim]

... Here aren't you just taking things to the logical extreme and ignoring real constraints? Of course we could say that all data anywhere observable are of interest and, say, study it all equally. But that doesn't allow for making a hypothesis to be tested, meaning, a more likely explanation in principle, based on known relations, and so more probable than a wild guess.

The process admits testable hypotheses. That doesn't make 'a more likely explanation in principle', prior to testing them.
In fact, the whole purpose of hypothesing/testing is for figuring that out.

Not a math guy, but maybe you or someone else can tell me: what does it mean to get a 5 or 6 sigma result and call it confirmation? Isn't that like saying that probabilities are vastly, but not absolutely, in favor of an interpretation? I think the difference between the possible and the probable is that between pure speculation and grounded exploration.

Even a probable outcome, is not a sure thing that 'exists' on its own (independently). So ... test it!
No preconditions.