DescentBB

link
New study indicates that the earth exists against the odds. Sort of seems to support the theory that its ability to support life isn't a matter of odds, after all.

Yea, it’s very likely that every planet in the entire universe is unique, but the problem I find is the idea that life needs to begin and evolve on a planet just like earth.

It is wayyyyy to early to be making assumptions like the one in that article/study based off the data we actually have.

It has been estimated there are more planets than stars. Upon these discoveries they found hot gas giants orbiting very close to its star. Even exoplanets orbiting around a pulsar. Something that was thought to be impossible. If life does exist on other planets, other than bacteria. Then it will be discovered.

Krom wrote:It is wayyyyy to early to be making assumptions like the one in that article/study based off the data we actually have.

Agreed. Kepler can't even image a planet the size of Earth. There may be way more small, rocky bodies in habitable zones than we can imagine.

vision wrote:

Krom wrote:It is wayyyyy to early to be making assumptions like the one in that article/study based off the data we actually have.

Agreed. Kepler can't even image a planet the size of Earth. There may be way more small, rocky bodies in habitable zones than we can imagine.

I'll submit that you're both rejecting the study's conclusions because it conflicts with your beliefs, not because you have a concrete reason to argue that its wrong.

absolutely NOTHING in that study suggests that another(or even several) liveable planet doesn't exist, nothing in the study really proves much of anything past submission of a new model for study of such things. It will be interesting, assuming the paper even gets accepted for peer-review at the journal to which it was submitted, to see the professional discourse around it. As for anythling the LEAST bit suggestive of divine intervention or some other Earth-unique event, the article provides nothing at all.

snoopy wrote:I'll submit that you're both rejecting the study's conclusions because it conflicts with your beliefs, not because you have a concrete reason to argue that its wrong.

The total lack of anything concrete is why we are disagreeing with the conclusion in the first place.

To make an analogy, this guy is standing in his driveway next to his car which is blue, the only other vehicles that are visible from there are one red and one white vehicle parked in the street. So after careful study and observation consisting of going back in his house where he cannot see any additional vehicles, he concludes his car is likely the only blue car in the universe.

snoopy wrote:

vision wrote:

Krom wrote:It is wayyyyy to early to be making assumptions like the one in that article/study based off the data we actually have.

Agreed. Kepler can't even image a planet the size of Earth. There may be way more small, rocky bodies in habitable zones than we can imagine.

I'll submit that you're both rejecting the study's conclusions because it conflicts with your beliefs, not because you have a concrete reason to argue that its wrong.

Um wrong, there are concrete reasons:

http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-e ... ts-catalog

Even the study itself says "We're not entirely sure".

woodchip wrote:Um wrong, there are concrete reasons:

http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-e ... ts-catalog

Which means that there are quite a few planets that can support life. That life may not be or look humanoid though.

snoopy wrote:I'll submit that you're both rejecting the study's conclusions because it conflicts with your beliefs, not because you have a concrete reason to argue that its wrong.

Wrong, and here is why. If the study were reversed and said one in every 100,000 planets is Earth-like I would say "neat, get back to me when you find one." While finding exoplanets is exciting, we are still waaay too early in the game to draw any conclusions.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Um wrong, there are concrete reasons:

http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-e ... ts-catalog

Which means that there are quite a few planets that can support life. That life may not be or look humanoid though.

I don't think so. I think there's a pretty big step from habitable to capable of supporting life - considering that the list does nothing to address composition.

snoopy wrote:I don't think so. I think there's a pretty big step from habitable to capable of supporting life - considering that the list does nothing to address composition.

Composition? Most of the Universe is made of the same stuff. You only needs some basic elements for primitive molecules. Some parts of the Universe are older and have more exotic elements floating around. Our sun is only a 2nd or 3rd gen star and we have tons of exotic elements.

Yep. In fact, since the entire universe probably contains the same building blocks that we see locally, and it's a HUGE area, the odds are even greater that there are other planets just like Earth and that those other planets harbor complex life, maybe even intelligent life. Even if you believe in God snoopy and he's omnipotent and ever present everywhere, why settle for creating just one Earth?

tunnelcat wrote:Yep. In fact, since the entire universe probably contains the same building blocks that we see locally, and it's a HUGE area, the odds are even greater that there are other planets just like Earth and that those other planets harbor complex life, maybe even intelligent life. Even if you believe in God snoopy and he's omnipotent and ever present everywhere, why settle for creating just one Earth?

that would be the human equivalent of saying "well, this didn't work out as well as I hoped. I give up."

I wonder what rev number we are?

tunnelcat wrote:Yep. In fact, since the entire universe probably contains the same building blocks that we see locally, and it's a HUGE area, the odds are even greater that there are other planets just like Earth and that those other planets harbor complex life, maybe even intelligent life. Even if you believe in God snoopy and he's omnipotent and ever present everywhere, why settle for creating just one Earth?

I'm not really all that invested in there being a single planet with intelligent life... The likelihood (based on the big bang) of planets which can support life arising isn't really relevant if the process was divinely directed, however it progressed.

The more interesting part for me (at least from a social standpoint) is that several of you are arguing for current popular thought in contradiction to the study I originally linked. If you have a reason to argue that the study got it wrong other than simply the fact that it seems to disagree with current popular thought, then do so. (How would you unless you were an expert in the field?) Current popular thought has direct challenge in the form of a scientific study in the OP - so you're wasting your time trying to make arguments for it until you address this challenge to it. To me, it's an interesting social experiment because it presents a potential defeater to naturalistic beliefs. So far I see some of you just doubling down on traditional knowledge, some of you dismissing it as inconsequential, and some of you looking for ways to challenge the study. All of those responses are probably inapropriate in our context, since none of us are equipped with enough expertise (or access to the actual research) to really assess the study. (Incidentally, I'm jumping on these early results which aren't really proven yet.) If you don't like the results, probably the best response is to just to wait and see. Either way, don't worry - naturalism will find a way to adapt its beliefs to deal with this. (after all, you're all secure in the face of arguments for irreducible complexity and universal fine tuning which seem to be far more formitable.) You can always fall back to the multiverse-win.

snoopy wrote:The more interesting part for me (at least from a social standpoint) is that several of you are arguing for current popular thought in contradiction to the study I originally linked.

Are you out of your mind? The fact you posted this article shows massive confirmation bias. This study confirms what you want to believe and you want to stick it in our faces. "Look everyone God did it!" And here is the kicker: you're a climate change denier. There are thousands of climate change studies that prove, as much as can be reasonably proven, that current climate change is man-made. Yet, you are happy to believe a single study based off a new, untested model, that uses no less than 20 variables by my count, and those variable are based on observations of a tiny, tiny faction of the visible universe? The guy made an interesting model, now let's see a verified prediction. That's how science works.

You're not fooling anyone here Snoops. And for the record, the "popular thought" is that God made us special.

Snoopy, I am simply stating that this paper has yet to even be professionally vetted, who are we to decide anything about this model?

Something I find interesting, people will reject a model because of the sample size, but the exact same people will claim that their personal model of reality is correct, even though it contains many of the same kinds of limitations…sample size…personal bias…and so forth.

Anyway I just wanted to say…there are plenty of models around concerning the amount of earth like planets, probably one for every belief.

Spidey wrote:Something I find interesting, people will reject a model because of the sample size, but the exact same people will claim that their personal model of reality is correct, even though it contains many of the same kinds of limitations…sample size…personal bias…and so forth.

Anyway I just wanted to say…there are plenty of models around concerning the amount of earth like planets, probably one for every belief.

While I generally try to avoid just spamming tropes; sometimes a straw man is just a straw man...

It wasn’t an argument, just a random thought, so no…it’s not a straw man.

Krom wrote:

Spidey wrote:Something I find interesting, people will reject a model because of the sample size, but the exact same people will claim that their personal model of reality is correct, even though it contains many of the same kinds of limitations…sample size…personal bias…and so forth.

Anyway I just wanted to say…there are plenty of models around concerning the amount of earth like planets, probably one for every belief.

While I generally try to avoid just spamming tropes; sometimes a straw man is just a straw man...

The key question is: who are you to judge whether this study is legitimate or not? All sorts of scientific papers make all sorts of claims... the very fact that something produces a technical paper means that it's something new which merits publication - the true rub is whether the science behind the paper it valid or not and whether followup research confirms the paper's work. In the end, this will be another paper in a long line of scientific cosmology research whose path only time will tell... but just about every scientific paper out there draws conclusions based on cutting edge research.

The root problem is that knowing that we presently do not have the ability to detect an earth sized exoplanet period means we know here is an absolute deficiency in the quality of the data out there which this study is based upon. So when the study makes a conclusion like that out of the blue, the only impression we can get is that the conclusion came before the study.

Krom wrote:The root problem is that knowing that we presently do not have the ability to detect an earth sized exoplanet period means we know here is an absolute deficiency in the quality of the data out there which this study is based upon. So when the study makes a conclusion like that out of the blue, the only impression we can get is that the conclusion came before the study.

Actually... I suggest you give the paper a short skim - right there in the introduction it states that the study is based (at least partially) on the results of our fairly recent ability to detect exoplanets in the same size and mass range as earth. I think you're projecting intention that may or may not be there. Either way - we're back to who are you to judge the research, especially now that you've demonstrated your ignorance of the current state of cosmological research.

snoopy wrote:...especially now that you've demonstrated your ignorance of the current state of cosmological research.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you are so ignorant of the current state of climate research. You seem pretty gung ho about promoting this study because it suits your narrative, but not climate change. Interesting, huh?

snoopy wrote:Actually... I suggest you give the paper a short skim - right there in the introduction it states that the study is based (at least partially) on the results of our fairly recent ability to detect exoplanets in the same size and mass range as earth. I think you're projecting intention that may or may not be there. Either way - we're back to who are you to judge the research, especially now that you've demonstrated your ignorance of the current state of cosmological research.

trying to seed doubt does not help your case.

I read the study you posted -- carefully. and any correlations between it and your conclusion in your OP is bordering on Argumentum ex culo

What is more likely, that we can't accurately simulate the universe yet, or uh, god. Heh.

Occam's razor says:

Vander wrote: we can't accurately simulate the universe yet

Ferno wrote:Occam's razor says:

Vander wrote: we can't accurately simulate the universe yet

Occam's razor says: if something very unlikely happened, your distribution is incorrect, in that we both agree. You, without any scientific substantiation, conclude that the distribution must be wrong because our science is flawed. I, without any scientific substantiation, conclude that the distribution must be wrong because our science ignores supernatural forces (it's flawed). I guess in the end we agree.

snoopy wrote:

Ferno wrote:Occam's razor says:

Vander wrote: we can't accurately simulate the universe yet

Occam's razor says: if something very unlikely happened, your distribution is incorrect, in that we both agree. You, without any scientific substantiation, conclude that the distribution must be wrong because our science is flawed. I, without any scientific substantiation, conclude that the distribution must be wrong because our science ignores supernatural forces (it's flawed). I guess in the end we agree.

what? No. That's not occam's razor in the slightest. It's actually "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected". Using that premise, assuming that we don't know how to simulate the universe accurately enough, is the hypothesis that wins out.

Science ignores supernatural explanations because it's not science

Our explanation is, "we're not at that point yet". Yours is, "A wizard did it".

I only say the science is flawed because the hypothesis seemingly fails the only real test we can provide: the Earth exists. I choose to recognize that science at the bleeding edge is littered with incorrect hypotheses.

As far as I'm concerned, the simulation doesn't effect my worldview at all. It's theoretical trivia to me. There could be billions of "earth like" planets spinning around out there but there might as well be none. We're here on this one, 30 trillion miles away from the closest system. I say we learn how to live on this one without cocking it up.

Ferno wrote:That's not occam's razor in the slightest. It's actually "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected". Using that premise, assuming that we don't know how to simulate the universe accurately enough, is the hypothesis that wins out.

Interestingly enough, Occam's razor itself is not scientific. It's a philosophical claim, not the result of rigorous experimentation.

Vander wrote:

We're here on this one, 30 trillion miles away from the closest system. I say we learn how to live on this one without cocking it up.

I say we learn to fly faster.

Lothar wrote: It's a philosophical claim, not the result of rigorous experimentation.

yeah, for sure. And it's been working out quite well.

It's the same motivation as behind code refactoring. Your cleaned up program might function and behave the same way as the old one, but if you can reduce the number of lines of code and make them easier to understand, then it's easier to reason about and modify in the future. Scientific theories are a bit trickier than computer programs though because, unlike programs, we tend to believe that scientific theories are true in some realist sense instead of just tools used to make predictions.

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote: It's a philosophical claim, not the result of rigorous experimentation.

yeah, for sure. And it's been working out quite well.

And at one time Occams razor led us to believe the sun rotated around the earth and the earth was flat.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote: It's a philosophical claim, not the result of rigorous experimentation.

yeah, for sure. And it's been working out quite well.

And at one time Occams razor led us to believe the sun rotated around the earth and the earth was flat.

and how does that matter?

Because it was wrong then and and is no "Proof" today.