I've just been reading this article about somebody else flogging on the Drake equation for the x billionth time, and alot of things in the article really don't seem like science at all to me: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7351428.stm

1st thing:
oh really?, what piece of magnificent evidence did he glean from his sample size of one to come to that conclusion?

2nd:
25% is a short time now? Any confidence interval describing the length of time it takes for life to form on a habitable planet is going to have error margins way higher than a billion years :/

But it's this that really gets my goat:
How did he calculate this probability? How how how? How in the name of [insert nonspecific deity] can anybody give statistical probabilities of events happening when your sample size is one?. It's absurd, it's beyond absurd; it's junk science. Scientists blithely churning out probabilities based on no more than a guess is what gives science a bad name and disillusions the public.

So he's saying the probability of the Cambrian Explosion happening on a habitable planet is less than 10%. I mean, we don't even know how the cambrian explosion happened! A garden gnome sprouted in my yard; I don't know how it happened but I'm going to say the probability of it happening was 10%, because I say so...


This gets to the crux of it. He is practically making stuff up to get a PhD and parrot his supervisor's rare earth views.

Why do so many astronomers have no integrity with regards to their statistics? I had to write a paper on extraterrestrial life last week and some of the junk I came across was astounding. Why do people use the Drake equation as a basis for some charade of an empirical investigation? It has more free parameters than an alcohol laden night with my housemates. As part of my degree I'm doing a 'life in space' module; to say is a joke would be flattering.

I know we have truly very little evidence on extraterrestrial life but that's no excuse for trying to use statistical methods when you have a sample size of 1. I could see the stupidity of that when I was 16, and yet people are getting PhDs awarded on the basis of this junk science.

__________________
"Bessie Braddock to Churchill "Winston, your drunk!"
Churchill: "Bessie, you're ugly, and tomorrow morning I shall be sober""
the solar system

I have to say I agree.

Why cannot some people say

"WE DON'T KNOW"

"Wed do not YET have the evidence to make claims either way".

I am all for debating possibilities we can often look at known physical and chemical process and attempt to work out if this or that thing may be feasible. I just get annoyed by people who tell us our galaxy is teaming with intelligent life "because it has to be" or "there is no life out there because life is such a difficult thing to form".

All we can say is there is an absence of evidence within our own galactic neighbourhood. When and only when we can build telescopes capable of imaging a fair range of planets around other stars in our "neck of the woods", allowing us to detect at least the signatures of biological activity, will we then be able to plug a few more numbers into the Drake Equation to turn our statistics from a sample of One to a sample of Fifty.

Even that will not produce a definitive answer but at least it will either increase our absence of evidence or tell us that maybe biology seems to evolve in 3 out 50 star systems. As to whether any of those biological planets has produced "tool using" "city builders" - well that will remain anyone's guess.

__________________
Note 1. All requests for planetary demolition must now be submitted in quadruplicate on form UX-565/B4 and be counter-signed by the assistant administrative officer for interstellar traffic calming - department QG-7. Subject to approval by the chief planning officer and the infrastructure development coordination sub-committee.

Sadly, that's how the news media work.
You don't get published saying 'I don't know'.

Just goes to show how stupid journalists can be (hey, I used to be one myself... I know how science-dumb most of 'em are...)

It's glaringly obvious that so far we have been on ONE planet and in 5billion years it has sprouted life, so the odds are 1.0

Kinda like flipping a coin ONCE and getting heads, then announcing that you can NEVER get tails.

Logically correct. So far, the number of solar systems explored ratio to life is 1 to 1. So there's a 100% chance that a system will harbor life.

I kind of agree with that guy's odds, not because of his flawed logic, but my research into a systems, orbits, habitiable zones, time scales etc. etc. And the fact we aren't being bathed in alien TV waves. This human thing called, "Civilization", will probably turn out to be very, very rare in the universe.

Thought, we as humans want to really, really believe we are not alone. Well, we aren't. We have countless worlds of bateria to keep us company until we find the ruins of a long dead alien civilization.

I'm really hoping for more Mars exploration. Because I kind of expect to find higher life form fossils on Mars. Mars has had an Earth-like environment for the first billion years of life. During tha time, Mars would freeze and warm up, freeze and warm up and it is my theory that great climate changes fosters changes that could lead to multi-organisms.

I'll just mention the Cambrian explosion is not as big a deal as some people make it out to be. It appears many phyla were present before the Cambrian. It may be more an explosion of decent fossils than phyla. If human activity ends up destroying a lot of fossil sites before we go extinct, then in a billion years time sentiant cockroaches will be amazed at the diversity of lifeforms suddenly appearing in the 21st century. (And maybe the sentient cockroaches will conclude that it takes five billion years for intelligent life to emerge.)

Could'a been seeded or migrated to, from elsewhere, for all Science knows for sure, tho.

__________________
*

Hi Zachary.

Do you also consider Exobiology as 20th century alchemy?

While I agree with much of what you say I have a question which regards this:

I wasn't aware Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis was a rare earth perspective; please explain?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Right, and you don't get PhDs saying "all your ideas are flawed, supe"

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

For an approach different from that of the Drake equation, try: The Odds of Intelligent Life in the Universe

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Oh I am tired with hearing "we dont hearr tv waves blahblahblah."

listen people, we will NEVER hear any waves simply because most of the transmissions stay at planet and even these signals what get out are ruined in noise at pluto and even there you would neeed 2 km antenna to trace any remains of the sign signal

there is a lot of civilisation, but simply the nearest star is 3600 further than pluto, no radiowaves, and from where you have that they would use raqdiowaves or technology at all?anyways i don't belive that "supercivilisation" can exist there are not enough RESOURCES

The earth went for about 2 or 3 billion years with nothing more complicated than unicellular organisms living on it. I don't see that one billion years of habitability will inevitably lead to complex organisms.

This is not to say that I disagree that Mars needs to be explored; I'm just pessimistic about finding any evidence of complex fossils.

Nick

__________________
Nick Theodorakis

Right, recently on NPR there was a segment wherein an astronomer states that Lucy isn't heard much beyond the solar system.

This, to me, negates the so called "paradox" Fermi proposed.
While the universe should be teeming with ETs they may well not be loud enough to be heard beyond their own systems.
Apparently we aren't.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Hawking, the comedian: VIDEO: Cambridge University Professor Stephen Hawking on "Why We Should Go Into Space" (4/21/2008) - C-SPAN

__________________
*

Impeccable comedic timing!

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Plus, he seemed almost exuberant on stage, smiling the whole while and obviously having a good time.

__________________
*

That's like saying, "I'm tired of their not being any proof, it's just that the proof isn't detectable, so the theory is proven correct".


Eventually, a civilization will colonize the entire galaxy. So, where are they? Why haven't they colonized us?

Some tentative conclusions can be drawn from the information we have available.

It seems entirely plausible that life takes a long time to develop into complex multicellular forms; this took several billion years on Earth, and unless it took unusually long on our planet we might expect it to take a comparatively long time on another world.
Perhaps the average development time on other worlds is ten times as fast- perhaps it is ten times slower. If the average development time of complex multicellular life is ten times as fast, then complex biospheres may be common.

The length of time a planet occupies the habitable zone is also important- over time the habitable zone moves outward from the star, as the star heats up. In a billion years or so, our own planet will no longer be in the habitable zone as it is currently understood. Cooler K-class stars get warmer more slowly than our own star, but their habitable zone is much smaller. On the other hand hotter F-class stars have larger habitable zones, but get hotter more quickly, so the zone moves past a planet quite rapidly. I'd suspect that the best class of star for habitability concerns would be a slightly cooler, somewhat longer lived G-class star.

We can't tell much from the absence of radio detection, as numerous discussions on this forum seem to indicate; but some other indications seem to suggest that we are not imbedded in a galactic civilisation. I'd expect to see evidence of past alien exploration (no convincing evidence exists) or current alien presence; I'd also expect to see megastructures in at least some planetary systems, and perhaps emissions or waste heat from interstellar spacecraft or energy generation or collection. For example we can probably exclude the possibility of a civilisation using zero-point energy to generate power, as such a civilisation would probably emit more energy than the stars in the galaxy.

If life is abundant, it does not seem to have developed into a detectable civilisation anywhere near our star- a civilisation using large amounts of energy nearby would have been detected by now. But there might be untold numbers of civilisations with lower levels of energy use throughout our galaxy. One might wonder what prevents a hypothetical civilisation from developing into a detectable one. Are they deliberately hiding from each other?

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set