Faith in Extra-Terrestrial Life

It seems to me that believing the universe is full of life "because you just have that feeling" is a whole lot like believing the universe is ruled by a Supreme Being "because you just feel His presence."

Neither is really provable -- or disprovable.

Both rely on gut feelings rather than logic, rationality or science.

And both unduly elevate the status of mankind over all the inanimate matter in the universe.

Boy, you really get your panties in a bunch over this subject.
What's your problem? Did you get abducted by aliens and don't want anyone to know how much you enjoyed the anal probe?

NoCoPilot wrote:

It seems to me that believing the universe is full of life "because you just have that feeling" is a whole lot like believing the universe is ruled by a Supreme Being "because you just feel His presence."

Neither is really provable -- or disprovable.

Both rely on gut feelings rather than logic, rationality or science.

And both unduly elevate the status of mankind over all the inanimate matter in the universe.

Well, you may have a point, somewhere. But hand-waving isn't enough, and as much as you like to claim otherwise, you are the one arguing without any facts or logic to back you up.

Stating that there is almost certainly life somewhere else in the universe is a conjecture (I freely concede that status) based entirely in logic, rationality and science. Since there is not so much special about Earth, as far as we can see, and there are so many stars and planets in the galaxy (never mind the universe), and since we believe the same physical laws apply everywhere, it seems that there must be lots of places that are just as conducive to the origin of life as the Earth is. This is just a matter of observation and probability. And we know, based on our scientific study, that life on Earth started pretty much as soon as the surface cooled off a bit after the planet formed. The world didn't swing around for a couple billion years before life got started. No. It formed as a ball of molten rock and is slowly cooling down, and pretty much as soon as there were seas and solid ground, whoop there it is, life. That means that, despite our not being sure of what the details of the mechanism were, creating life can't be that difficult, when you have a planet-sized laboratory and appropriate starting conditions. And if that was true for Earth, it must be true for all those other Earth-like planets out in the rest of the universe. Why not? Believing otherwise seems illogical, at best.

The whole point of this argument is to specifically not elevate the status of mankind (or life, in general) over all the inanimate matter in the universe. Life is a particular type of arrangement of inanimate matter. We are made of star dust, put together in a rather complex way, but with no added "soul", nothing special. If there was something special needed, the probabilistic argument of the preceding paragraph wouldn't work. So that statement of yours is just plain false. Sorry.

And provability? Of course the existence of life elsewhere is provable. We just have to go and find it. When we find it, it's proven. Now, proving that there's no life anywhere else, well, I have no idea how you would set about proving that. You have a job on hand to convince me that there's even a feasible methodology. But that's your position - seems irrational to me.

Children of rock stars grow up thinking everybody's parents work nights, wear feathers and spend months away from home.  That's the way they're raised, so that is normal to them.

So it is with you.  You were born on Earth (presumably) and see life everywhere around you, so you presume every planet is teeming with life.  Or, as you get a little older and wiser, every "suitable" planet.  Or as you get a little older and wiser, "every suitable planet in the golden zone around a G-type main sequence star."  Or a little later, "every suitable planet in the golden zone around a G-type main sequence star having liquid water."  Why, there must be MILLIONS of them.

The inverse is not provable.  I said as much in my first post.

Everything you said about Earth not being special is right -- except the extrapolation from that that life must be ubiquitous on every Earth-like planet like your rock 'n roll dad.  In my admittedly conjectural (unprovable) assertion, Earth *is* elevated above all the other Earth-like planets because I happen to believe -- without proof -- that life is very very unlikely.  I mean, we haven't found it anywhere off-planet yet, which is compelling evidence, but it's not "proof."  And we have not been able, despite decades of trying, to animate non-living matter in the best of laboratory conditions -- compelling evidence, but not "proof."

But I tend to take "compelling evidence" as compelling instead of clinging to rapidly diminishing hopes that God is out there someplace, hiding.

In answer to Howard's response, I don't know why this line of inquiry fascinates me.  I remain constantly astounded that so many people believe in the illogic of a Supreme Being without a shred of evidence (although I bear witness to the clever techniques in organized religions to discourage apostasy -- up to and including the death penalty).  I am similarly astounded that NASA continues to play the "looking for signs of life" card in every funding request, knowing that science illiteracy among lawmakers (and the general public) will assure that they're never questioned on their motives.

I have never claimed that life is everywhere. I do claim that to say that there is no life anywhere but on Earth is illogical and not a position that a rational person would support.

You put much faith in your assertion that we've never found life anywhere else, as though humanity has been diligently searching all over the place for milennia. The truth is, we haven't even looked at all the likely places in our own solar system yet. And we certainly haven't looked around any other stars.

richard09 wrote:

The truth is, we haven't even looked at all the likely places in our own solar system yet. And we certainly haven't looked around any other stars.

Hmmm, where else in our solar system would you recommend we look?

The larger moons of Jupiter look interesting.

Of course, scientists haven't been able to create a moon in the laboratory, so...

The moons of both Jupiter and Saturn are worth a look. And it would be nice to have a good look at Mars and Venus. Both may have been a lot more hospitable in the distant past. Of course, what's happened to Venus has probably destroyed any evidence.

The larger asteroids might be worth a look, too.

Forget Venus. It's too damned hot. Any hardware we sent there would melt immediately.

I'm not sure about the asteroids. For life to pop up, I think you need more long-term stable conditions than are found on asteroids.

richard09 wrote:

The moons of both Jupiter and Saturn are worth a look. And it would be nice to have a good look at Mars and Venus. Both may have been a lot more hospitable in the distant past. Of course, what's happened to Venus has probably destroyed any evidence.

The larger asteroids might be worth a look, too.

Well we probably won't live long enough to see the definitive proof on Titan and Ganymede, but I think we've already pretty conclusively ruled out Mars, Venus and any asteroids as ever having had even primitive bacteriological life.

These are not speculations or conjectures -- they're scientific fact.

NoCoPilot wrote:

...but I think we've already pretty conclusively ruled out Mars, Venus and any asteroids as ever having had even primitive bacteriological life.

These are not speculations or conjectures -- they're scientific fact.

Funny I've never heard these "facts."

It's absolutely not true about Mars. At this point, it's fair to say that there probably isn't currently life on Mars, although even a small planet is a big place to search, and we've barely scratched the surface. But that certainly doesn't rule out there having been life at some point in the past.

True about Mars. As for Venus, the thought is that is was very much like Earth in its distant past, which would lead one to believe there was a possibility of life there. We can't rationally come to a firm conclusion that there was - or wasn't - life there, because the current conditions make it impossible to examine the place. What is it? 900 degrees? In the shade.

The reason that I accept the likelihood of life on other planets, or moons, is that there are no scientific reasons why there couldn't be (which makes the conflation with religion invalid). And considering the staggering number of places, it makes the probability of extra-terrestrial life statistically high.

There is also the capacity for a staggering number of teapots orbiting the sun -- therefore there must be at least a couple hundred million. There is no scientific reason there couldn't be.

That's just simple logic.

richard09 wrote:

And provability? Of course the existence of life elsewhere is provable. We just have to go and find it.

I would like you to re-examine this statement too, as a related but separate fallacy.

Neither facetious statement by you amounts to an argument, scientific or otherwise.

richard09 wrote:

Neither facetious statement by you amounts to an argument, scientific or otherwise.

Well, as you (and I) both have pointed out, obtaining scientific proof is theoretically possible but in practice vanishingly unlikely. Therefore what we have here is essentially a logic puzzle, which is anything but "facetious."

Since you and Howard are now apparently willing to admit that life does not/cannot exist in less-than-ideal environments (900 degree Venus, minus 200 degree Mars, or airless asteroids), that limits our theoretical search for life to Earth-like planets containing water orbiting in the golden zone around G-style main sequence stars. Besides eliminating ninety-nine-point-nine-nine-something of all possible environments, this also CRUCIALLY means that our search starts outside our own solar system.

Now, if we define "life" to be any self-organizing molecular structure, that means -- unless that life has graduated to emitting EMF -- we will have to see it with our own eyes or sample it with our own instruments to verify its existence.

This pretty much guarantees it'll never happen, given the distances involved.

Ergo, the argument is purely sophistic, purely rhetorical. Purely faith-based. Just like the argument for God.

NoCoPilot wrote:

richard09 wrote:

Neither facetious statement by you amounts to an argument, scientific or otherwise.

Well, as you (and I) both have pointed out, obtaining scientific proof is theoretically possible but in practice vanishingly unlikely.  Therefore what we have here is essentially a logic puzzle, which is anything but "facetious."

Since you and Howard are now apparently willing to admit that life does not/cannot exist in less-than-ideal environments (900 degree Venus, minus 200 degree Mars, or airless asteroids), that limits our theoretical search for life to Earth-like planets containing water orbiting in the golden zone around G-style main sequence stars.  Besides eliminating ninety-nine-point-nine-nine-something of all possible environments, this also CRUCIALLY means that our search starts outside our own solar system.

Now, if we define "life" to be any self-organizing molecular structure, that means -- unless that life has graduated to emitting EMF -- we will have to see it with our own eyes or sample it with our own instruments to verify its existence.  

This pretty much guarantees it'll never happen, given the distances involved.

Ergo, the argument is purely sophistic, purely rhetorical.  Purely faith-based.  Just like the argument for God.

I am willing to concede that life probably won't develop in the most hostile environments. However, that does not imply the restrictions you wish to impose. The "Goldilocks zone" is an outdated idea, much too simplistic (which is why it appeals to you, I suspect). Not every Earth-sized planet in that zone will be suitable for life, and there are numerous possible environments outside that zone. People are very curious to look in the sea on Europa, for example, which is right here in our solar system and also outside the zone. The moons of gas giants get heated in different ways, not by sunlight.

Nor is your restriction on stars correct. The current favorite type of star as a prospect for harboring alien life is the M-dwarf. These are by far the commonest type of star in the galaxy, comprising 75% of all the stars in the Milky Way. As you say, other types of stars will do, as well.

As to whether we'll ever get to another star, who knows. Not in our lifetime. Given the fine pioneering attitude demonstrated by some people, I'm surprised they ever leave their house. But remote sensing capabilities have increased by leaps and bounds in the past twenty years, and robot explorers are a possibility, also. So the possibility of detecting life around another star exists, even if we can't travel there ourselves. That's a fact, whether you like it or not.

richard09 wrote:

... remote sensing capabilities have increased by leaps and bounds in the past twenty years, and robot explorers are a possibility, also. So the possibility of detecting life around another star exists, even if we can't travel there ourselves. That's a fact, whether you like it or not.

Maybe there's something I'm not aware of. Can you provide a link, or even a description?

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/confirming-life-other-planets-will-be-tough-earth-180951335/?no-ist

If you get to the end of the article you linked to...

Dirk Schulze-Makuch wrote:

Confirming a biosphere on exoplanets based just on remote observations will be incredibly difficult, maybe impossible, in the near future. We will only know for sure if we send a probe, or if the planet has technology advanced enough to send out signals.

Of course, for you, such confirmation will be absolutely impossible, because you will never send a probe or listen for signals. But I don't think that's what this guy had in mind when he wrote the article.

richard09 wrote:

Of course, for you, such confirmation will be absolutely impossible, because you will never send a probe or listen for signals. But I don't think that's what this guy had in mind when he wrote the article.

Even *if* I agreed to send a probe or listen for signals, the distances involved mean it would be many years -- decades -- centuries -- even millennia! before any answer was forthcoming.  Kepler 186f (featured in the article) is 500 light years away, meaning a MINIMUM of 1,000 years at light speed for any trip there and back by a signal -- much less a probe.

How many scientific endeavors can you think of -- big expensive budget-busting endeavors -- that are willing to wait fifty generations for payoff?

NoCoPilot wrote:

Since you and Howard are now apparently willing to admit that life does not/cannot exist in less-than-ideal environments

I have said nothing to support this statement. An "ideal" environment cannot be defined for life forms of which we have no knowledge. The ides that an Earth-like planet is required for any life to exist is false.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Ergo, the argument is purely sophistic, purely rhetorical.  Purely faith-based.  Just like the argument for God.

Perhaps your strange affection for teapots in orbit fits this description, but not the rational, science-based arguments you disdain.

NoCoPilot wrote:

How many scientific endeavors can you think of -- big expensive budget-busting endeavors -- that are willing to wait fifty generations for payoff?

The existence of life elsewhere does not depend on man's ability or willingness to find it.

richard09 wrote:

People are very curious to look in the sea on Europa, for example, which is right here in our solar system and also outside the zone. The moons of gas giants get heated in different ways, not by sunlight.

This raises an interesting question, now that you mention it.

Life depends on an excess of external energy for the counter-entropic accumulation of energy in self-organizing molecules. That whole "Goldilocks"/golden zone argument is based on incoming sunlight being strong enough to heat H2O to liquid state without baking the whole planet to a crisp.

I wonder if geothermal energy -- the source of heat in Europa and other tidally-locked moons of the gas giants -- is enough to supply a counter-entropic process?

I mean you could point to the geothermal worms in the Marianas Trench as evidence of non-sunlight-dependent life.

But the chance that these life forms arose spontaneously at these depths is slim. I think most scientists would assume the worms evolved elsewhere and gradually adapted to the extreme depths, pressure and geothermal heat.

That wouldn't be the case on Europa.

Interesting line of inquiry.