What's your woo? (self.skeptic)

skeptic

54 ups - 19 downs = 35 votes

I think it was teller who said everybody has their juju, what's yours?

149 comments submitted at 08:01:31 on Jan 12, 2014 by MaxFenig

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • 6 Points
  • 15:54:50, 12 January

realistically though does it matter, I mean statistically its almost certain that somewhere there will be life in some form in the trillions of potential places.

but if we live so far away that we could never meet/interact, does it matter?

  • [-]
  • randomhandletime
  • 3 Points
  • 16:10:36, 12 January

It does to some people. Not so much to me, but I wouldn't fault someone for caring regardless.

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -1 Points
  • 16:19:03, 12 January

but of the answer is yes or no, what does it realistically change to you the individual (or anyone else).

its not like something such as a ghost existing which would call into question our understanding of the laws of physics or reality etc.

there is nothing special or magic about "space mould" existing on some far out rock trillions and trillions of light years away, if you ask me

  • [-]
  • randomhandletime
  • 4 Points
  • 16:26:21, 12 January

This is all speculative, since it doesn't matter to me, but I can see how people might use knowledge of an alien species as a way of understanding their own existence, or humanity's lack of uniqueness.

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • 1 Points
  • 16:30:06, 12 January

what questions does it answer specifically?

  • [-]
  • Bitter_Bert
  • 2 Points
  • 17:24:03, 12 January

Evidence against creationism? (not that more is needed)

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • 1 Points
  • 17:26:08, 12 January

you think so? you really think religion couldn't find some kind of warped angle to explain or justify or even outright deny it?

if you deny evolution despite all the mutually supporting evidence, i think you will find some spin with "alien life"

  • [-]
  • randomhandletime
  • 3 Points
  • 16:39:43, 12 January

Eh at this point I don't want to continue to speculate indefinitely

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -2 Points
  • 16:45:51, 12 January

i.e you cant answer the question because it actually doest provide any new knowledge or paradigm shift, if we found "space mould"

  • [-]
  • randomhandletime
  • 7 Points
  • 16:54:55, 12 January

Yes, your massive intellect has conquered my feeble mind. Revel in this most glorious of triumphs my liege.

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -2 Points
  • 17:00:54, 12 January

so because you cant answer a simple and extremely relevant question, you fake outrage to save face.

Its not a hard question, if on the one hand you claim it provides great insight or understanding, and on the other someone asks "such as?" and you cant provide even 1 example, you think you would be able to answer such a simple question.

  • [-]
  • randomhandletime
  • 2 Points
  • 17:10:41, 12 January

You're operating under the assumption that I can't think of anything, when I said since it was all speculative the discussion became pointless. Looks like i failed to avoid a pointless discussion anyways. Oh, bother.

  • [-]
  • mike_sol
  • 3 Points
  • 16:56:57, 12 January

It would certainly show that life isn't unique to this planet, and is therefore less special than people can presently suggest

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -1 Points
  • 17:02:44, 12 January

i.e so life exists elsewhere is the "revelation" of discovering life elsewhere?

  • [-]
  • mike_sol
  • 4 Points
  • 17:06:03, 12 January

Uh... Yeah?

  • [-]
  • shitty_human
  • 1 Points
  • 16:52:18, 12 January

You won!

  • [-]
  • Kafke
  • 2 Points
  • 18:12:37, 12 January

>I mean statistically its almost certain that somewhere there will be life in some form

Yes, in fact, it happened here. That's a 100% guarantee.

  • [-]
  • EltaninAntenna
  • 2 Points
  • 16:11:42, 12 January

> I mean statistically its almost certain that somewhere there will be life in some form in the trillions of potential places.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about statistics, but I have the feeling that statistically it's not possible to extrapolate from a sample size of one.

Of course, there's the Mediocrity Principle, but I think this is technically more philosophy than statistics.

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -1 Points
  • 16:14:24, 12 January

you clearly don't know anything about statistics, this is not extrapolating from a sample size of one in any way shape or form.

  • [-]
  • EltaninAntenna
  • 1 Points
  • 16:21:12, 12 January

I did say I don't know much about statistics, but since you obviously do, I'll be happy to hear how you get, statistically, from "life developed on Earth" to "life developed anywhere else". I'm always happy to learn new things.

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -3 Points
  • 16:28:57, 12 January

so just to clarify you cant understand how the conditions for life to exist (the so called habitable zone, where water exists in all 3 states) could be determined anywhere else in the universe and a likelihood placed on the chance of life occuring summed over all these places?

had i of said "Humans" elsewhere in the universe your "data point of one" would be valid, but you literally seem to not understand what that means and are applying it incorrectly

Any known habitable zone planet is a data point, not just earth. unless you are some religious whackjob and believe there is "Magic" in life, and it isn't a process of evolved complex energy conversion

  • [-]
  • EltaninAntenna
  • 6 Points
  • 16:35:50, 12 January

Not at all, but you're still drawing an unwarranted correlation between "habitable" and "inhabited". Simply, we do not know how life happens, and so far the "sample size of one" applies both to "humans" and to "life of any kind".

For the record, I also think that it's likely life exists elsewhere, but I ascribe it to a gut feeling, not to statistics. Now, if we found, say, fossils on Mars, and if they were different enough from Earth life to rule out travel via impact ejecta, then I'd agree with you that life probably can be found absolutely everywhere. But until then, sorry, still a sample size of one.

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -1 Points
  • 16:41:50, 12 January

so you think its a massive leap to assume near identical conditions elsewhere often enough would give rise to life at some point?

if you want to go down that road should i bother pointing out every single conclusion/thought/summary/observation you have about anything is "extrapolating from a sample size of one" because you only experience the universe from 1 which is yourself and you could be a brain in a jar, or in a simulation etc.

if you really want to go down the road of the absurd you are making a mockery of your own argument.

You are literally a sample size of 1 and any thought or experience or conclusion you have is extrapolating from this single sample size of one.

  • [-]
  • shitty_human
  • 7 Points
  • 16:53:15, 12 January

You're kind of a dick.

  • [-]
  • EltaninAntenna
  • 1 Points
  • 17:30:49, 12 January

> so you think its a massive leap to assume near identical conditions elsewhere often enough would give rise to life at some point?

No, as I said before, I also think it's likely life can be found elsewhere. What I do not do is claiming that there is statistical support for this belief.

> f you want to go down that road should i bother pointing out every single conclusion/thought/summary/observation you have about anything is "extrapolating from a sample size of one"

I don't know what's making you bring up such an absurd straw man. We have lots of examples of yellow G-class stars, lots of examples of exoplanets, sufficient examples of rocky, terrestrial planets to extrapolate there are a lot more, lots of examples of planets with atmospheres, you name it. What we do not have is one single example of life elsewhere. Until we do, we can speculate, but we cannot extrapolate.

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -2 Points
  • 17:36:08, 12 January

lol its not a straw man in the slightest.

finding evidence of habitable conditioned planet, and actually discovering life is a significant difference, you understand life doesn't show up on a telescope right?

thinking extrapolating life on earth to anywhere else in the entire universe as an "extrapolating from a data point of one" is no different in extrapolating your own experience/sensation as experienced by you to anyone else and reality.

or in its most simplest terms its no more ridiculous to suppose everyone in existence apart from you is a "P zombie" than it is to suppose that there is life exists in some form somewhere in the universe.

the fact you cant see that is your failing, not mine

  • [-]
  • realfinkployd
  • -1 Points
  • 17:33:06, 12 January

Is the dickishness necessary? Low self esteem or something?

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -3 Points
  • 17:40:27, 12 January

yeah I'm sure to you people actually highlighting the actual concepts and principles is "dickish to you."

rather ironic for "skeptic" isn't it, a bunch of people who cant handle the truth and get offended because their poor reasoning and logic doesn't make sense.

its my own fault for expecting more from this place, its seriously just a bunch of teenagers wanting to play "science" but with no qualifications or experience, who cant grasp even basic concepts.

  • [-]
  • derphurr
  • 3 Points
  • 18:35:10, 12 January

but.. but.. i have a gut feeling.

You can't talk statistics or science to me, that makes you a dick for invalidating my gut feeling.

My gut tells me I'm right and you are a dick.

  • [-]
  • realfinkployd
  • 2 Points
  • 18:30:47, 12 January

No, the facts are great. Did you know they could also be presented without the inferiority complex attitude?

  • [-]
  • scottcmu
  • 3 Points
  • 16:43:46, 12 January

>trillions

septillions; FTFY

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -2 Points
  • 16:47:38, 12 January

no one knows for sure, so lets not pretend.

  • [-]
  • scottcmu
  • 4 Points
  • 16:54:20, 12 January

My point was that "trillions" was off by several orders of magnitude at least.

  • [-]
  • Sir_Fancy_Pants
  • -2 Points
  • 16:57:23, 12 January

and my point was that unless someone has done a full audit and inspection of each and every planet your claim of septillions is as valid as trillions. no one knows for sure, we are merely assuming based on what we have observed and extract from the observable universe.

Nobody is making a claim that there are septillion actually valid and habitable potential life spots in the universe.

lets not pretend we know more than we actually do

  • [-]
  • mstrgrieves
  • 1 Points
  • 18:32:06, 12 January

Is it? I've always hated the Drake Equation; so many of the variables are incredibly debatable. There are experts in the field who can provide plausible explanations as for why it can indicate one intelligent civilization or millions.