Last I checked, it's "he." Nice to meet you, especially since you allow me to quote myself and get away with it on a technicality.Originally Posted by Baud
Established Member
Last I checked, it's "he." Nice to meet you, especially since you allow me to quote myself and get away with it on a technicality.
Calm down, have some dip. - George Carlin
Banned
Yes, yes I agree... Nothing to worry us until we find the one that just wants to eat us...
but the warning is there... No the galaxy does not need to be teaming with ET's just one could be a issue.
The last line confirms my concern... 'I'm afraid'. Well maybe not afraid.. but concerned.
Senior Member
I see nothing inherently inferior about astromark's speculation...nor do I see anything inherently superior about any other speculative ideas...they are what they are...speculations, nothing more.
Order of Kilopi
Well, life is but a food chain...Yes, yes I agree... Nothing to worry us until we find the one that just wants to eat us...
Heh, yeah, that turn of phrase was intentional, but what "warning" are you referring to, causing such concern?but the warning is there... No the galaxy does not need to be teaming with ET's just one could be a issue.
The last line confirms my concern... 'I'm afraid'. Well maybe not afraid.. but concerned.
Are you as concerned about "zoo hypotheses?"
Order of Kilopi
Thanks for the commentary, but did I suggest something "inherently inferior" in astromark's words?
No, I asked for the facts he might call on to support his views.
Senior Member
So you agree that astromark's fact less speculation is just as "likely" as any other fact less speculation?
It's speculation...if there were facts to support it, it would no longer be speculation.I asked for the facts he might call on to support his views.
Established Member
Facts can spawn speculation.
Example:
Fact -- There is life on Earth.
Resulting speculation -- There may be life elsewhere.
With that in mind, I see no problem in asking for the facts that led to the speculation. That appears to be what A.DIM was requesting.
Last edited by Luckmeister; 2010-Dec-16 at 08:05 PM.
Order of Kilopi
A fairly nonsensical question, but I wouldn't equate his concern over eavesdroppping aliens with potential microbial life elsewhere in the solar system.
Are you simply being contrary?It's speculation...if there were facts to support it, it would no longer be speculation.
astromark stated "Let us look at the facts we know... and then argue the validity of any information. ...
I would argue that we might be better to stop looking. Learn to be quiet. and keep our heads down."
I was asking on what he would base such an argument, what "facts" he thinks there may be.
And here you are quibbling with me?
Senior Member
If it bothers you so, well, you've ignored my posts before...nothing is stopping you from ignoring my posts now...
Either way is good for me...
Banned
What facts ? No facts at all... Its guess work right on down to the turtles... Yes I am but a echo of Doctor Stephen Hawking.
He expressed a 'Concern'... I am happy to stand in his shadow.
We have a want for knowledge. For the information that leads to a informed opinion. That we speculate on informed opinion is a risk.
We are only a little way from nothing at all... I ask for facts knowing fully that none are available. A truly rhetorical question.
Are we alone ? Is evidence for ET mounting...NO. its not. but the likely hood of it is none the less obvious... and we ask and wonder still... ?
With a little tongue in check concern that looking for what we do not want to find could be unwise.
Established Member
One thing we do know from the sample we have at hand is that life is essentially predatory, either directly or in the form of competition for resources. I believe Hawking's view in the Discovery Channel special was that simply this could, and probably would, be the case of any intelligent life entering the Sol system. Indeed, the wise benevolence attributed to aliens in some sci-fi (eg Green Lantern's Galactic Guardians) seems remarkably naive in light of the observable nature of life and its evolution on Earth.
Calm down, have some dip. - George Carlin
Established Member
Techno-angels
Order of Kilopi
Is it?
I'm skeptical because otherwise you might reciprocate (as I've many times requested); instead of quibbling, ignore my threads / posts, or proffer more meaningful discourse what regards the topic.
Either way is good for me.
Order of Kilopi
Hmm, I suppose then, I was confused by what you say in #38:
"Let us look at the facts we know... and then argue the validity of any information.
Many exo-solar planets have been found., and are being found.
Our equipment does not yet let us see the Earth like planets we seek.
That a greater number of planets are smaller than the gas giants is a well reasoned case.
BUT... still we have not found. and do not like not knowing... are we alone ?
The OP suggests that the case for ET discovery is getting higher... or closer.
I would argue that we might be better to stop looking. Learn to be quiet. and keep our heads down.
I would like to establish what is it we are looking for ?"
You point to exoplanets as factual and our tech being insufficient as yet to detect smaller earth-like worlds, which supports the idea that ET life should exist and helps explain why we've yet to find it.
You then "would argue" we shouldn't be looking even while acknowledging you don't know what we're looking for.
I thought you might have some facts or even good reason to be concerned over hypothetical advanced ETi out to get our resources (or use us as one).
Well, IMO, that particular shadow he cast was very near fearmongering.Yes I am but a echo of Doctor Stephen Hawking.
He expressed a 'Concern'... I am happy to stand in his shadow.
If there's advanced ETi that knows of Earth and can traverse interstellar distances we can only hope for benevolence.
Besides, we're barely even passively listening for ET and as pointed out, are effectively invisible as far as radio transmission or leakage.
As for me, I'd rather seek out and know truth than fear "what we do not want to find."We have a want for knowledge. For the information that leads to a informed opinion. That we speculate on informed opinion is a risk.
We are only a little way from nothing at all... I ask for facts knowing fully that none are available. A truly rhetorical question.
Are we alone ? Is evidence for ET mounting...NO. its not. but the likely hood of it is none the less obvious... and we ask and wonder still... ?
With a little tongue in check concern that looking for what we do not want to find could be unwise.
Are we alone in the universe is a most profound question and carries with it immense ramifications. Sure, Hawking's concerns (yours echoed) can't be dismissed as history shows what happens when primitive cultures come into contact with more advanced cultures but even discovering more primitive life elsewhere will drastically alter our species self perception. We must know our place in the universe, even it means [tongue-in-cheek] we're meat![/tongue-in-cheek].
Senior Member
Sorry, A.DIM, but I will not allow you to make this argument "personal"...if you have evidence your fact less speculations have any more merit than astromark's fact less speculations then present that evidence...
Banned
... @ A.DIM Thank you for the support shown... Yes you are correct. I do not know any better than anyone else...
All I am attempting to do is to voice my negative thoughts on finding a ET of some superior or do I mean advanced type...
I am torn and can ( and have ) argue for both points of view. Them being 'Yes we should and must pursue the quest for ET..'
or that no. We should be concerned at what we might find. Or that might find us...
I see a window of understanding that allows a view from both sides.
Voicing a legitimate concern is fair and well reasoned argument. So is the understandable quest for knowledge... I have one foot in both.
As the speculative assumption leeds me to a understanding of probability. Its still just speculation.
Next @ John Jaksich ,. You ask of 'red rain' and Panspermia... to this you have gone on to quote papers of this subject.
Interesting as it is... AS yet not a single shred of evidence of any ET life has yet been shown.
Moderator
John Jaksich's posts have been moved to their own thread.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Order of Kilopi
RAF: the differences between astromark's scenario of dangerous eavesdropping aliens, and mine of extremophile microbes elsewhere in the solar system are distinguished by evidence. We know more about potentially habitable conditions eslewhere in our solar system, and the kinds of life which might survive those conditions, than we do about malevolent aliens using radio to find their prey. If you're suggesting otherwise, the onus is on you; nothing personal.
Consider too, this spaceref article on the search for life in our solar system, Strategies and Priorities which highlights the foremost "speculations."
Would you really suggest hypothetical dangerous eavesdropping aliens (maybe they have probes in orbits or on planets moons etc in our solar system!) can be equated with extremophile life found elsewhere in our solar system?
Senior Member
Since you brought it up, then present that evidence...not more speculation.
"Might survive"?? Both are speculative ideas unsupported by evidence so the idea that it's MY burden to prove you wrong is nothing by shifting the burden of proof.We know more about potentially habitable conditions eslewhere in our solar system, and the kinds of life which might survive those conditions, than we do about malevolent aliens using radio to find their prey. If you're suggesting otherwise, the onus is on you...
why would you expect me to accept speculative articles as evidence?Consider too, this spaceref article on the search for life in our solar system, Strategies and Priorities which highlights the foremost "speculations."
Sure...since neither have evidence to back them up, then why would you think one idea "superior" to the other...Would you really suggest hypothetical dangerous eavesdropping aliens (maybe they have probes in orbits or on planets moons etc in our solar system!) can be equated with extremophile life found elsewhere in our solar system?
Just present evidence that ANY life exists elsewhere...as long as you can't do that, then you don't get to "decide" what is, and what is not an unreasonable speculation.
Order of Kilopi
I suspect your post here, and my response ought to remain in the thread from whence they came?
All I'm suggesting astromark is that the assumption there may be extremophiles elsewhere in our system is more immediate a concern and probable than ET overlords. If as yet undiscovered ET's are advanced enough to detect us, and get here, they're just as likely to have already. Do you find evidence for that, anything suggestive, circumstantial even?
Established Member
True, no proof.
For Earth, to my knowledge we do not have a complete working knowledge of chemical->biochemical->biological processes, and so incomplete theories. But we do have the facts: life happens. And we have a range of known environmental tolerances.
It is reasonable to speculate these facts are not particular to Earth or the solar system in any way. In whatever its form I believe it is reasonable to predict non-terrestrial life would have been the result of an evolutionary process. That non-terrestrial organisms could develop organs like the brain to process incoming sensory data and so forth seems reasonable. And so on down the line.
What is highly speculative is the exact nature of other life and if we will ever encounter any evidence of it.
Calm down, have some dip. - George Carlin
Order of Kilopi
If you don't understand there's more evidence for potential life in our solar system (expanded habitable zone( eg. Europa, Mars, Titan, comets?), extremophile life on Earth (eg. D Rad, B Subtillus, etc.), ballistic panspermia, etc. than there is for malevolent eavesdropping aliens, I can't help you.
Sorry, no; you're the one suggesting speculation on the dangers of advanced aliens is equivalent to speculation on potential life elsewhere in our solar system."Might survive"?? Both are speculative ideas unsupported by evidence so the idea that it's MY burden to prove you wrong is nothing by shifting the burden of proof.
I told you why (and I'd like to think you should know) there's more reason to speculate life might be elsewhere in our system than there is to speculate alien overlords are lying in wait; one is supported by mounting evidence, the other, not a shred.
Eh?why would you expect me to accept speculative articles as evidence?
You didn't even look at the page did you?
I put "speculations" in quotes thinking you'd get it; apparently not.
"superior?"Sure...since neither have evidence to back them up, then why would you think one idea "superior" to the other...
or simply more rational?
When will you learn?Just present evidence that ANY life exists elsewhere...as long as you can't do that, then you don't get to "decide" what is, and what is not an unreasonable speculation.
If I've evidence for ET life I won't be wasting it in argument with you.
Indeed, I've decided that dangerous eavesdropping aliens holds less validity as speculation than does speculation on extremophile life elsewhere in our solar system. There's good reason to consider one scenario and much less, if any, reasoning, to consider the other.
You apparently think one is as valid as the other; fine.
Aside: This whole exchange is but a quibble stemming from my asking astromark for his facts ...
your insistence on "speculation is speculation is speculation" has been quite the distraction, even while you proffer nothing to support your view (eavesdropping aliens are as serious speculation as that of extremophiles elsewhere in our solar system) and ignore that which supports mine.
Can we simply agree to disagree on damned near everything and leave it at that?
Much obliged.
Senior Member
Do you think I disagree with you simply for "sport"? No...I disagree with you because you embrace the irrational...
Just wanted to post that before leaving this thread.
Order of Kilopi
Well, I thought I might just ignore this (or report it) but against my better judgement (irrationality perhaps?) I thought I'd ask ...
Really, that's what you wanted to leave with, RAF?
An ad hominem, really?
You're calling me irrational, and with nothing to support your view.
I pointed to evidences which support the idea there may be life elsewhere in our solar system.
Did you proffer anything equivalent which would support your view that malevolent eavesdropping aliens are as serious a speculation?
No? So you chose to interject an exchange between astromark and me and have said little more than "speculation is speculation is speculation" since ... and now, "you're irrational?"
I think I understand your view on ET life: "I wish, but there's NO evidence for ET life, nothing but ET life will support conjecture on ET life, it's all speculation, nothing more, anyone thinking extremophile life could exist in our system is less speculative than malevolent eavesdropping aliens embraces the irrational."
Now, I don't know if it's "sport" to you, RAF, our impasse, our perpetual disagreements, but it is you who chooses to reply to my posts, often those addressed to others, which results in these types of exchanges. Why bother to begin with?
Established Member
Unsure whether or not this line of discussion will (be allowed to) persist, but on the off-chance,...exactly what evidences lead you to believe that (and please feel free to appropriately correct my qualifications, if you feel that I am grossly mischaracterizing any particulars):
--the evidences in support of "local panspermia" which indicate that this is more likely/probable than malefic alien intelligences--
What evidences are you talking about, and how do you feel these are superior to the evidences in support of a malefic alien potential?
Last edited by Trakar; 2010-Dec-20 at 05:04 AM. Reason: grammar
Order of Kilopi
It won't be permitted, actually. Please do not hijack this thread by provoking yet another defense of A.DIM's panspermia claims. A.DIM has had his chance (several such chances, actually), and were he eligible for another one, it would belong in ATM, not here.
Established Member
A note to those who might eschew speculation in this subforum:
This is "Life In Space." It's hard to find any subject of scientific inquiry we know less about. Just by the title alone, it is obvious that if speculation is not permitted, this subforum of BAUT may as well close down. The only problem I have with speculation here is when people present it and argue it as fact. Life in space being such a frontier subject is part of its allure to me. I enjoy using my imagination to try to guess what we may find out there, but with the understanding that we have few facts we can rely on for more than somewhat educated guesses. This is not a good place for people who find it hard to say "I don't know."
What would be called mainstream here? I'm afraid that, by default, the mainstream view would have be that life in space must be like life on Earth because that's the only example we have to go by and I think most of us know that would be an unwarranted assumption to make. Of course, when discussing Earth biology, there's plenty of solid mainstream theory, which must be invoked as we extrapolate into life beyond Earth discussion, but with the understanding that it may not apply when ET discoveries are finally made.
As to the OP title statement -- there is no mounting evidence for ET. There are however recent findings that Earth life is more tenacious than previously thought, which allows us to "speculate" that chances of survival of life elsewhere, once it has begun, may be higher than we previously assumed.
Mike
Last edited by Luckmeister; 2010-Dec-20 at 07:43 PM. Reason: spelling
Established Member
How do you qualify "previously?"
As when the Greeks presumed that every star was inhabited with life like our own?
As when early 20th century science believed in lush tropical jungles on Venus, and advanced sentient canal-building cultures on Mars?
Order of Kilopi
Here? "Mainstream" is pretty much limited to "we haven't found ET yet, but here's some cool ways we're looking."
The intent of LiS, as I understand its charter, is to discuss the ways we're searching for ET, mostly by trying to locate environments (both actual and hypothetical) that might be habitable, perhaps only by some extremiphile, with perhaps a little (clearly marked) fanBAUTer speculation to tide us over between missions.
Well said.As to the OP title statement -- there is no mounting evidence for ET. There are however recent findings that Earth life is more tenacious than previously thought, which allows us to "speculate" that chances of survival of life elsewhere, once it has begun, may be higher than we previously assumed.
Order of Kilopi
I would think that "mainstream" would also include numerous ways in which ET could NOT exist, or which we wouldn't expect. For example, helium based life might be ruled out even though helium is very abundant--it lacks the sort of chemistry we expect is necessary.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote