have they found anything?

[LarianLeQuella]

Of the two possibilities:
a) there are no ETIs
b) there are ETIs
there is some evidence that leads us toward "a", and some that leads toward "b", but neither has any particularly compelling evidence, so the best we can do is to say, "we don't know".

Thank you! Exactly what I've been driving at. The thing that is particlarly frustrating is that in order to support position a, a myriad of unfounded assertions are made ("Rare Earth", "evolution only works as observed on earth with earthlike results", and a "60 light year buble" in particular). By making those tyeps of assertions, proposition a is weakened. The don't necessarially strengthen proposition b, but are just plain unfounded.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, in the general sense of it's saying we don't know something exists, it's the same.

In the specific sense of why he's saying it, it's very different.

Why is it different? Because there is a great deal of evidence that there is no Santa, whereas there is very little evidence that there are no ETIs.

To put that slightly differently: of the two possibilities:
a) there is no santa
b) there is a santa
"a" is the far more parsimonious conclusion.

Of the two possibilities:
a) there are no ETIs
b) there are ETIs
there is some evidence that leads us toward "a", and some that leads toward "b", but neither has any particularly compelling evidence, so the best we can do is to say, "we don't know".

Yup. We know Santa doesn't exist the same way we know phlogiston doesn't exist--through science.
ETA: Actually we can go farther with the Santa hypothesis. If you include the definition of Santa Claus to be the stuff about him visiting all the homes of children who receive Christmas presents and delivering said presents, we can show that that's impossible.

There is no scientific evidence to support the proposition that we know ETIs do not exist. Again, the best analogy is the one I've been making about the existence of dogs outside my house when a quick glance out the window reveals a complete absence of evidence of such dogs.

ETA: It's not that the absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. It's that the absence of evidence where there's no reason to assume it must exist is not absence of evidence, and that is the case here.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Well, in the general sense of it's saying we don't know something exists, it's the same.

In the specific sense of why he's saying it, it's very different.

Why is it different? Because there is a great deal of evidence that there is no Santa, whereas there is very little evidence that there are no ETIs.

To put that slightly differently: of the two possibilities:
a) there is no santa
b) there is a santa
"a" is the far more parsimonious conclusion.

Of the two possibilities:
a) there are no ETIs
b) there are ETIs
there is some evidence that leads us toward "a", and some that leads toward "b", but neither has any particularly compelling evidence, so the best we can do is to say, "we don't know".

Internet forums are where the uninformed get a chance to preach. You have ignored lots of fundamentals. For example, one fundamental you ignore is that no one cares if there is another planet with ETI with life all over it in another galaxy. In fact, Star Wars could be 100% factual. No one cares. No one cares because the distances between galaxies are too far to care.

No one cares if a creature called Santa exists in some place where we have no hope of every seeing or knowing of.

And ALL of the evidence talken completely leads us to think we are alone in the galaxy and the more we learn the more alone we seem and the fewer places for ETL AND ETI to hide get smaller and smaller.

I am discussing on another web forum the fact that the Book of Abraham has been debunked with a Mormon. I show him the facts and he simply cannot see it. It is as if his brain simply cannot see simple logic. His faith blinds him. It is also our faith in ETI that is the reason why Fermi's Observation is called Fermi's Paradox. We simply cannot see it eventhough it is very simple to understand.

Then again, maybe for some people it is not simple to understand. Maybe most people cannot fathom billions of years. I9 billion years is a hell of a long time. If ETI came about commonly in nature, the Milky Way would be 100% colonized. That is all. We came about late in the game. Our sun and planets came from an older exploded stars. There were lots and lots of star systems before then. I have explained this lots of times. Why is it, in person, I can get people to see this but on the interent I am just wasting my time?

Science works like this. If you belive something exists, you have to prove it. It does not work the other way. You do not prove that something does NOT exist. That is impossible.

Let me put it this way. It is highly improbable that there is anyone in the Milky Way like us. In fact, it is a huge waste of money.

A multi-millionare friend of mine, Paul Allen, has build a huge telescope array in California to find a signal form ETI. Paul is not a scientist. He is basically a rich guy with a lot of faith and dreams. I think that he should have thrown that money towards cancer research. Ironically enough, he has gotten cancer.

Before Seti@Home was launched people would spend their retirement money and kids college funds on radio equipment listening for signals. It seems to me that they did this because our culture raises us to believe that is it impossible for us to be alone.

The irony of ironies is that if they was ETI, they would not be interested in us at all because we are so stupid.

 

[Roboramma]

Internet forums are where the uninformed get a chance to preach.

No argument here...

You have ignored lots of fundamentals. For example, one fundamental you ignore is that no one cares if there is another planet with ETI with life all over it in another galaxy. In fact, Star Wars could be 100% factual. No one cares. No one cares because the distances between galaxies are too far to care.

I care. So clearly your assertion that no one cares is false.

There are even ways to look for such civilizations. If you are right and ETI tends to colonize its galaxy we can look for the evidence of their technology in those galaxies. Dyson spheres, etc.

And ALL of the evidence talken completely leads us to think we are alone in the galaxy and the more we learn the more alone we seem and the fewer places for ETL AND ETI to hide get smaller and smaller.

So make this case. So far all you've said is, "you can't talk about ETI because you haven't proven that it exists, and it's not my job to show that it doesn't." If you have evidence that there are no ETIs, present it.

It is also our faith in ETI that is the reason why Fermi's Observation is called Fermi's Paradox. We simply cannot see it eventhough it is very simple to understand.

Wrong. As I said before, it's called Fermi's Paradox because it is the observations of two apparently contradictory things.

Then again, maybe for some people it is not simple to understand. Maybe most people cannot fathom billions of years. I9 billion years is a hell of a long time.

I would go so far as to say that no one understands billions of years.

If ETI came about commonly in nature, the Milky Way would be 100% colonized. That is all.

That is not all, and you have completely ignored all the arguments to the contrary. Rather than simply continue to make this assertion, why don't you address those arguments?

We came about late in the game. Our sun and planets came from an older exploded stars. There were lots and lots of star systems before then. I have explained this lots of times. Why is it, in person, I can get people to see this but on the interent I am just wasting my time?

Because while that's all well and good, none of it shows that ETIs tend to colonize their entire galaxy.

Nor does it show that, for instance, we're not one of three technological civilizations. The choice isn't between "very very many" and, "only one." There could be thousands, but if you think that an argument that shows there aren't thousands shows that there are no others, I think you've failed to examine your own argument.

Science works like this. If you belive something exists, you have to prove it. It does not work the other way. You do not prove that something does NOT exist. That is impossible.

So, if I say that there is at least one animal species that is not yet known to science, I am necessarily wrong, correct?

Let me put it this way. It is highly improbable that there is anyone in the Milky Way like us.

How do you calculate that particular probability?

 

[amb]

How do you calculate that particular probabilty

Because of the many almost miraculous events that lead to the first life forms on Earth.

 

[Roboramma]

Because of the many almost miraculous events that lead to the first life forms on Earth.

Can you show me that math?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For example, one fundamental you ignore is that no one cares if there is another planet with ETI with life all over it in another galaxy. In fact, Star Wars could be 100% factual. No one cares. No one cares because the distances between galaxies are too far to care.

I care. I'm very curious about this universe we live in. I want to know more about it.

At any rate, if you're going to redefine ETIs to mean only ETIs we can interact with, I probably agree with your position. (Rhetorically, though, I don't think that redefinition is honest.) See my first post in this thread (from about a year ago) where I said,

It could be that everything is just so freakin' spread out in space and time, and life forms with whom we'd be able to communicate are so (relatively) rare that it's extremely unlikely that two will ever be in near enough proximity in time and space.

And from my second:

And again, "extremely rare" is a relative idea.

Stuff is really spread out. Higher life forms could occur pretty regularly but still be rare enough that no two such planets would be in proximity in space and the life forms at the appropriate levels to communicate close enough in time for there ever to be communication.

I've been arguing against amb's idea that complex life other than our own probably doesn't exist in the galaxy (and at one point he said there are probably no more than a dozen in the entire universe). As I've been saying all along, the evidence we have doesn't warrant such a conclusion. About all we can say is that we don't know.

Further, we have no reason to suspect there's something actually unique about us. The laws of physics, the availability of various elements, the duration of time--all are the same in many other points in the galaxy.

The Carl Sagan quote I provided several times best expresses my position. Here it is again:

I'm often asked the question, "Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments--there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course as yet there is no compelling evidence for it. And then I'm asked, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" I say, "I just told you what I really think." "Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?" But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgement until the evidence is in.

I got this quote from Sagan's introduction to The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal edited by Joe Nickell.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because of the many almost miraculous events that lead to the first life forms on Earth.

Can you show me that math?

It doesn't matter anyway, because that's a backward way of looking at things. Life evolved to fit conditions, not the other way around. Calculating the odds of everything that had to happen for humans to evolve and then asking (even as a rhetorical question) "Whoa! What are the odds against that?!" is a form of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

And I think it's no accident that when he tries to argue this way, amb ends up using religious words like "miraculous". This backward approach is the same one the Fine Tuning argument uses. (ETA: And I think Fine Tuner is the next in the series of repackaging a theist idea as something sciency: Creationism, Creation Science, Intelligent Design, and now Fine Tuner. Whatever the label, they're talking about a supernatural/religious non-explanation for natural phenomena.)

 

[Bill Thompson]

It is a faith.
Science looks for things before deciding if they are there.
Faith assumes something is there and ignores all science that says it is not there.

 

[Roboramma]

It is a faith.
Science looks for things before deciding if they are there.
Faith assumes something is there and ignores all science that says it is not there.

Your view of science is somewhat naive, but anyway, no one here has "decided they are there". You have decided they are not, the rest of us are uncertain.

 

[amb]

Can you show me that math?

Not to specification but around billions to one. Remembering that science has yet to solve the riddle of life's beginnings.

 

[Roboramma]

Not to specification but around billions to one. Remembering that science has yet to solve the riddle of life's beginnings.

What I'm getting at is that you are giving a rather specific result, but not giving us the details of how you get that result.

Saying, "Well, it's hard for life to come about, because X, Y, Z" doesn't do it: that could lead to billions to one or tens to one, and you haven't distinguished between those two, so how do you expect to convince us to do so?

Basically, so far all the arguments here have been very vague, which isn't surprising given that, once again, the real conclusion is we don't know.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Joe, in this issue, your only barrier to knowledge is the perception that you already have it.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Your view of science is somewhat naive, but anyway, no one here has "decided they are there". You have decided they are not, the rest of us are uncertain.

But to go with what we know so far, it is unlikely and as time goes on it become less likely as we learn more. Experience shows that once something points one way it does not reverse itself.

It is not just a game or a matter of opinion. It is a gamble. Do we gamble our time and resources towards looking or do we spend our money on more immediate and pressing issues -- issues that can save lives?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, in this issue, your only barrier to knowledge is the perception that you already have it.

Gee that's quite an insightful and well-reasoned response to the content of the arguments I've made.

Oh wait--no it's not.

ETA: And to repeat for about the umpteenth time: my position is that we don't know. So how is that the perception that I already have knowledge? In fact, your ad hominem remark seems to apply to your position better than it does the one most of us hold--i.e. that we don't know whether or not ETIs exist or if they do how rare or common they are.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But to go with what we know so far, it is unlikely and as time goes on it become less likely as we learn more. Experience shows that once something points one way it does not reverse itself.

What?! That's not in the least bit true. It was once thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was once thought that humans were separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. The trend, if any, has been the repeated lesson that there is nothing special or unique about humans or that the Earth has any special central location in the cosmos.

It is not just a game or a matter of opinion. It is a gamble. Do we gamble our time and resources towards looking or do we spend our money on more immediate and pressing issues -- issues that can save lives?

We discussed this aspect very early in the thread. SETI is privately funded. It doesn't take money away from anything else.

Also, pretty much any scientific endeavor produces side effects that might benefit us in unrelated areas. (One example I gave is that the SETI@home project probably taught us a lot about distributed information processing. Also, I'm sure the algorithms used to analyze the data from Arecibo have probably improved.)

However, these considerations only apply if you are certain that no ETIs exist, and as has been shown, we have no such certainty. (Again, we've only just barely glanced out the window to get a peek at our own backyard, to use my dog analogy again.)

The Kepler mission, for example, is not a waste of money. There is great value in learning about our universe. If for no other reason but that we humans have curious minds. We ask questions, and remain curious while those questions remain unanswered. And when our questions are answered (provisionally at least), those answers lead us to new questions.

 

[amb]

University of California physicist and astronomer Ben Zuckerman is on record as having said that if the Milky Way were home to technologically advanced civilisations, we would know.

Prof. Zuckerman is no idiot.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

University of California physicist and astronomer Ben Zuckerman is on record as having said that if the Milky Way were home to technologically advanced civilisations, we would know.

Prof. Zuckerman is no idiot.

You've presented a false dichotomy here. You're suggesting that either Zuckerman is an idiot or his statement is correct. It could be that he is not an idiot and his statement is false.

Also, you're arguing by improper use of authority. The position Zuckerman expressed is by no means the consensus view in the field (see point 4 in the Exposition section here), and it's not based on sound reasoning. (I've argued all the assumptions you'd need to make to think that evidence of ETIs would necessarily be ubiquitous in the galaxy.)

Or maybe you're lifting something out of context and he's talking about a super-advanced technology in a super-long-lived civilization that has motive to spread throughout the galaxy. (And in that case, why not postulate super-advanced technology capable of hiding evidence of their existence from us?)

Zuckerman is involved in the search for extra-solar rocky planets. He's also concerned about environmental issues such as wildlife conservation, deforestation, sprawl, wilderness preservation, overpopulation, energy alternatives, and climate change. (He's also very involved with the Sierra Club.)

He certainly doesn't share the opinion that looking for potential extra solar Earth-like planets that might sustain life is a waste of money.

Did you get that quote from this book?

 

[amb]

No but thanks for that title. I have ordered it. I read that reference from a local newspaper article on SETI. Paul Davies also does not think it's a waste of money, but thinks the odds of finding anything are astronomical. The man who did more for SETI than almost anyone Carl Sagan if he was alive today would be surprised at the results so far, but I'm certain he would lobby the US government to increase the effort.
My only hope is that I'm still alive if ever we get any results. For me, nothing else is as important as finding intelligent life on another world. Alas, I have been born in the wrong era. In around fifty or so years I feel we will know one way or the other whether we are alone in the galaxy or not.

 

[Roboramma]

In around fifty or so years I feel we will know one way or the other whether we are alone in the galaxy or not.

What particular data do you think we'll have in fifty years that will tell us one way or the other?

Personally I think it's possible but extremely unlikely that we'll find out that, yes, there are other civilizations out there in the next fifty years.

We will have some evidence that impacts on the question and can alter our predictions slightly one way or the other: the search for earth like planets will have some interesting data by then, for instance.

But I'm curious what particular data you think we'll find that can give us a definite conclusion.