Extra terrestrial life: do you believe they exist?

[Valmy]

I had to look that one up.  Turns out it wasn't actually a meteorite.http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_a_meteorite_claims_by_n_c_wickramasinghe_of_diatoms_in_a_meteorite.html  Where do I get the information that something is not there?  That's sort of a difficult question to answer.  I haven't any good evidence  that indicates there is extraterrestrial life, therefore I see no reason to believe in it.  It's not a source of information, but a lack of information.

Well you can see how I have been misled. You say there are no sources of information out there disputing claims of extra-terrestrial life yet you keep linking me to some. Odd. Seems like the opposite of a lack of information

[Berkut]

There is of course plenty of evidence that extra-terrestrial life exists - we see lots and lots of life on earth under radically different circumstances.

That is evidence (albeit hardly proof) that life exists in general, and under very variable conditions.

Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable to posit that there is nothing particular special about Earth, and life likely exists in other places in the universe.

When we examine the universe and note that the number of possible locations for life number into the trillions, hence suggesting that even if there is a very, very low probability of life in any particular location, it is still almost certain that it exists, it is not "faith" to conclude that it is very likely that there be life somewhere other than Earth.

Indeed, IMO, it takes a rather incredible amount of, I don't know the right word...arrogance? Self centeredness? to believe that in trillions of other stars, this particular one is ever so special that we should assume that there is no other life out there.

The fact that life exists here is excellent evidence that it exists elsewhere, simply from a statistical standpoint.

Could be wrong of course, but the evidence suggests that further investigation is very warranted. If there were truly NO EVIDENCE at all, we would like not even bother looking.

[grumbler]

I thought there was evidence there had been life on Mars at one point too. Dunno if it's my faulty memory or sensationalist reporting to blame.

The conditions for life, and some byproducts that may have come from life processes, but no firm evidence.

Probabilities are that extraterrestrial life exists, like probabilities are that the sun still exists when you read this, even though there is no direct evidence of either.

[Razgovory]

There is of course plenty of evidence that extra-terrestrial life exists - we see lots and lots of life on earth under radically different circumstances.

That is evidence (albeit hardly proof) that life exists in general, and under very variable conditions.

Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable to posit that there is nothing particular special about Earth, and life likely exists in other places in the universe.

When we examine the universe and note that the number of possible locations for life number into the trillions, hence suggesting that even if there is a very, very low probability of life in any particular location, it is still almost certain that it exists, it is not "faith" to conclude that it is very likely that there be life somewhere other than Earth.

Indeed, IMO, it takes a rather incredible amount of, I don't know the right word...arrogance? Self centeredness? to believe that in trillions of other stars, this particular one is ever so special that we should assume that there is no other life out there.

The fact that life exists here is excellent evidence that it exists elsewhere, simply from a statistical standpoint.

Could be wrong of course, but the evidence suggests that further investigation is very warranted. If there were truly NO EVIDENCE at all, we would like not even bother looking.

The word you are looking for is "skepticism".  Evidence of life on Earth is not evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe.  We don't even know why there is life on Earth.  For all we know the chances of life appearing on an Earth like planet could be one in one decillion (that's the largest number I know.) This is the trouble you have when you only have one data point.  You can not reasonably extrapolate anything from one data point.  The argument that there must be life in the Universe because the universe is very big is unconvincing.  Simply because X is very large doesn't mean Y will be found in it.   We know there are periods of time when was no life in the universe, say shortly after the big bang, and we know that in the future that there will not be life in the universe say after the heat death why should we believe that the universe is teeming with life?

[Berkut]

Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

[viper37]

It is interesting that so many people "believe" in extraterrestrial live despite zero evidence that it exists.

we believe in the possibility it exists somewhere.
most of us (if not all) do not believe they talk to us, or that we talk to them.  We do not claim to have seen extra-terrestrial life, here or in outer space.  We do not claim to have seen proof they exist.  We do not require that others believe as we do or risk shunning them from our community.

that is the big difference between where you're going and what we're theorizing.

[Valmy]

Well we could start seeding planets with bacteria we have determined could survive there just to make it true 

Edit: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/meet-the-martians Oh never mind we might have already done that

NASA had an answer for that one, too. "We know there's life on Mars already because we sent it there," John Grunsfeld, the associate administrator of the agency's Science Mission Directorate, said during a press conference on Monday. It is a Faustian condition of space exploration that we cannot search for life on alien planets without bringing along very small amounts of very small Earth life. This process is known as forward contamination, and minimizing, if not preventing, its occurrence is the responsibility of Cassie Conley, a plant biologist who has served as NASA's planetary-protection officer since 2006. "It's basic common sense," Conley told me. "We have to be careful not to blind ourselves with Earth life, the same way you can't see the stars when the sun is out."

[Eddie Teach]

one in one decillion (that's the largest number I know.)

Much smaller than a googolplex. 

[Razgovory]

Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

I'm sorry, I thought I was talking Berkut, not Grumbler.  My mistake. 

EDIT: You know, I might need to change my expectations.  I always assumed you were more reasonable, but I think that might be wrong.  I think you see that you stance is based on faith (and the supposed arrogance of thinking something otherwise), and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  I think you just played the Grumbler card because you have no response, instead of debating about the issue at hand you decide to make it grammar.

[Razgovory]

It is interesting that so many people "believe" in extraterrestrial live despite zero evidence that it exists.

we believe in the possibility it exists somewhere.
most of us (if not all) do not believe they talk to us, or that we talk to them.  We do not claim to have seen extra-terrestrial life, here or in outer space.  We do not claim to have seen proof they exist.  We do not require that others believe as we do or risk shunning them from our community.

that is the big difference between where you're going and what we're theorizing.

That is not how the question was presented.

[Berkut]

Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

I'm sorry, I thought I was talking Berkut, not Grumbler.  My mistake. 

EDIT: You know, I might need to change my expectations.  I always assumed you were more reasonable, but I think that might be wrong.  I think you see that you stance is based on faith (and the supposed arrogance of thinking something otherwise), and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  I think you just played the Grumbler card because you have no response, instead of debating about the issue at hand you decide to make it grammar.

There is no card here Raz. This is just a perfect example of why engaging with you like this is completely pointless. You are not capable of debate in good faith. Your response is just another example of that.

[grumbler]

Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

I'm sorry, I thought I was talking Berkut, not Grumbler.  My mistake. 

EDIT: You know, I might need to change my expectations.  I always assumed you were more reasonable, but I think that might be wrong.  I think you see that you stance is based on faith (and the supposed arrogance of thinking something otherwise), and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  I think you just played the Grumbler card because you have no response, instead of debating about the issue at hand you decide to make it grammar.

There is no card here Raz. This is just a perfect example of why engaging with you like this is completely pointless. You are not capable of debate in good faith. Your response is just another example of that.

Bingo!  Welcome to my world.  Take the pledge and be free of even the temptation to respond to that nonsense (there's plenty of nonsense from others to keep you busy, never fear).

[Razgovory]

Who said anything about teeming?

This is why discussing anything with you is pointless.

I'm sorry, I thought I was talking Berkut, not Grumbler.  My mistake. 

EDIT: You know, I might need to change my expectations.  I always assumed you were more reasonable, but I think that might be wrong.  I think you see that you stance is based on faith (and the supposed arrogance of thinking something otherwise), and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  I think you just played the Grumbler card because you have no response, instead of debating about the issue at hand you decide to make it grammar.

There is no card here Raz. This is just a perfect example of why engaging with you like this is completely pointless. You are not capable of debate in good faith. Your response is just another example of that.

Bingo!  Welcome to my world.  Take the pledge and be free of even the temptation to respond to that nonsense (there's plenty of nonsense from others to keep you busy, never fear).

We are well aware you not capable of debating in good faith, you don't need to welcome anyone to that. We already know.

[Siege]

Other: we're in a simulation.

Ah, my kind of kool-aid.
How does the hypothesis go?

1- Given enough time all life evolves into a technological civilization.
2- Given enough time all technological civilizations create reality simulations for research and/or pleasure.
3- Given enough time there will be so many simulations that statistically we have a far greater chance of being in a simulation.
4- We are living in a simulation.

[Siege]

Isn't the Drake equation better? *






* In true languish tradition I've not clicked on the link and read it, so going by the way Viper described it, it isn't that old but gold musing.

This is a modification of the Drake equation, replacing someone of the variables that are now roughly known, and removing "how long does intelligent life survive" variable.

It is asking a slightly simpler question...

Which to me seems like almost the key variable, as it's linked to the probability of us ever being able to communicate with them, rather than say just conduct future extra-archaeology. 

But, intelligent life that survive the technological singularity would be immortal, or at least with an undefined lifespan.

Or, the fast thought dudes are right and a post singularity civilization have so much processing power that a million years equal just a year in the physical world.

Who knows. Way above my pay grade.