Why Fundyism is Irrational

by jgnat 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Caedes

  Old Soul said

  Drake's Equation is couched in scientific terms, it is strung together prettily on paper, and in the end we have only one value that we can reliably plug into any variable in such an equation. We know of 1 planet with intelligent life. Mathmeticians, help me out here. Can you determine the probability of intelligent life on other planets from such an equation? Plainly, the answer is no.

  I'm afraid the answer to the question might be no but ultimately the question you have posed isn't the right one. Since the variables in the equation can't be known to any degree of accuracy worth considering we will have to assume all the variables are going to be extremely low however the important point is that when you multiply that extremely low probability by the huge number of stars in the universe then you get a figure that is very close to 1 i.e. one hundred percent probability. It makes no difference what figures you plug into the equation as long as they aren't zero. So, no you can't calculate the probability as such since we don't have any reliable way of knowing what the variables are but what you can predict that the answer approaches 1 even with a vanishingly small probability of life on any one particular planet.

  Not that it matters since we are too far away to do anything about it though.
• 

  jgnat

  As part of my job, Trevor, I am required to describe complex systems clearly. We can't fix it if we don't know what it is. I agree that matters of faith cannot be rationalized. Language is particularly bad because it is linear. Pictures are better, like James Thomas' lion, because we can process that information three-dimensionally (The picture AND the emotions it evokes. As people we have HUGE sectors of our brain dedicated to reading facial expression).

  It might help to try and diagram "faith" or the "metaphysical", because that may be the only way to people can communicate their own vision with each other.

  Or maybe we must demonstrate faith by action, and by doing, prove it's veracity.
• 

  Caedes

  Old soul said

  If you meant, "So that we can finally start viewing the probabilities realistically," sadly, no. The variables have all had values assigned, but the values are utter guesses. You can easily understand why there would be no "educated" guess available for how many stars there are, how many planets per solar system, how many of those planets are capable of sustaining carbon-based life (that assumption has always makes me laugh), of those how many actually would have developed life, of those that have developed life, how many would have developed intelligent life...

  A couple of other points to answer here, there are some very good estimates for the number of stars in the universe and many different ways to calculate a figure. The important thing is not the accuracy of the variable but that it gives an idea of the magnitude of that side of the equation. Even the most conservative estimates give a figure of around 10 to the power 20 (22).

  Current astophysicists think that planets are a common feature of most solar systems and Carbon based life is the most likely because carbon is a very versatile building block (I'm not a bio-chemist but I believe it has something to do with how readily carbon forms bonds with other molecules compared with anything else)

  Looks like you might have to brush up on your Martian after all!
• 

  OldSoul

  Caedes, I understand the math, however I submit that by the same logic and use of enough unknowns you could make nearly any probablity approach 1. Since it is highly improbable that all possibilities are probabilities approaching 1, I have to disagree that this is an appropriate measure of likelihood for any purpose remotely resembling an application of the Scientific Method to discovery. That said, it is possible there is life but when you compound the improbability of its existence by the improbability of its being intelligent and then add the improbability that we would be able to communicate in any way with it and compound it once again by the requirement that they would have to be able to communicate with us for us to know whether we reached them, it does seem rather pointless to try, doesn't it? In my opinion, there is far greater likelihood --- and far more empirical evidence to suggest --- that spending the money to better qualify teachers would advance humanity, than there is that advancement would result from trying to find intelligent life on other planets.

  Caedes: Current astophysicists think that planets are a common feature of most solar systems and Carbon based life is the most likely because carbon is a very versatile building block

  I do not mean to take a snippy tone with you, but I am peeved at the subject matter itself. I have personal issues with consensus science. In my opinion it is an affront to the scientific method. Consensus science held that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and all manner of other completely baseless nonsense. We seek life similar to ourselves in construction because it is that which we can best understand, but if we saw life from another planet would we even recognize it? I believe there is more to be gained from Psychology studying this formula and its supporters than can be gained from science trying to prove it true. Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  OldSoul

  
  jgnat,

  Or maybe we must demonstrate faith by action, and by doing, prove it's veracity.

  Can the veracity of faith be proven? I would say rather that each person would be left to determine whether we had faith, including God. Tis an interesting idea, though: A flowchart of faith...wonder what that would look like for my faith.

  Respectfully,
  
  OldSoul
• 

  Caedes

  Old soul the point isn't that any of the probabilities approach one, each of the individual probabilities can be very low (some of them probably aren't low but we will assume that they are) once you add them you will have a figure that tells you what the likelihood is of there being intelligent life in a particular solar system. By any reasonable estimate that figure will be extremely low but not zero. You would then multiply by the large number of stars in the universe which would then give you a figure approaching 1. It doesn't matter what the variables are set at since the number of stars is such a large number.

  You are right to say however that this isn't science as such, it's probability, and the mathematical solution doesn't really prove anything it just means that there probably are aliens out there, but as you say that knowledge doesn't really help us.

  As for consensus science I agree, until we have hard evidence then speculation is just that. However I don't think you'll find too many astro-physicists willing to lay their funding on the line without evidence, planets have been found - the fact that we started finding them as soon as we had instuments sensitive enough to find them would suggest that they are common.

  Obviously you dont have to go back too far to find all kinds of pseudoscientific quackery spouted by scientists (medicine being a prime example) but i don't think that undermines scientific progress or methodology or suggests that consensus has an iron grip on the scientific community. The fact that there is change in scientific thinking shows that that isn't so.

  As I said I'm not a biochemist but I understand that there is strong evidence that carbon is more suited to being the basis for organic life than any other molecule, It is your assumption that that means it would be something we would understand or even recognise as life.
• 

  jgnat

  Interesting concept, Old Soul. Trevor claims that metaphysics can't be mapped. He might be right. I suspect the "faith" side of me uses the inarticulate, non-linear part of me. Maybe unmappable. Or maybe looks something like a mobius loop. Or the fourth dimension.

  

  
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  but as you say that knowledge doesn't really help us.

  Caedes,
  

  i agree. it's not going to help us find any other life, technically.

  but i think that just being aware of probabilities can change peoples lives. if the probability favours the possibility of other life out there in the universe, it could drastically change the way we view ourselves, the universe, and ourselves in the universe.

  a lot of people think SETI is a joke for certain technical reasons. that we are listening to such a narrow window, that it's easy to assume that we may have already missed transmissions. but i think sagan is still right for trying. we owe it to ourselves to at least try.

  who is trying? people whose lives have been affected by the swing of probability.

  love the conversation guys,

  cheers,

  ts
• 

  Caedes

  
  T.s

  Yes I can't see that we have anything to lose by looking, also isn't Seti self funded largely anyway?

  Apologies to jgnat for hijacking a very interesting thread.
• 

  jgnat

  AWWWE, the SETI stuff is KEWL. I am enjoying myself. Continue. Please.