NASA to Hold News Conference on Astrobiology Discovery

[Kaylia]

a=100%
b=100%
c= unknown%
It sure seem like a*b*c is equals to 100%... right?


Maybe it's just me, but that conclusion seem to be completely stupid (yet, it's pretty close to your reasoning).

[Jefe]

N * fp * ne * fl = ;o

N = Stars in the universe
fp = 1/4 planets in the universe
ne = 2 planets w/ suitable conditions for life
fl = 1/2 the life experiment has repeated

;o = It seems unlikely that we are alone.

[Kaylia]

N * fp * ne * fl = ;o

N = Stars in the universe
fp = 1/4 planets in the universe
ne = 2 planets w/ suitable conditions for life
fl = 1/2 the life experiment has repeated

;o = It seems unlikely that we are alone.

You don't see any issue with this sort of statistics?



And ;o = life is possible in this universe.

[Jefe]

The only one that jumps at me is the absence of a time variable in the equation. It just takes into account a static universe, sort of like he just took a snapshot of the entire universe and developed the formula in that frame of reference.

[Kaylia]

Time isn't the issue with your hypothesis, the biased sample is. It can be very dangerous to generalize something when the only positive result is something implied by the situation. Your first positive "random event" is in fact not random, it will be true no matter what since we can only exists on a planet that allow life. In such scenario, you have no choice but to remove it from your experimental data.


If I made the following statement: "1/5 members of my family are me, therefore, 20% of mankind is like me", I couldn't be more wrong. It's basically the same thing you're doing here. We can find similar earth-like planet, but can we find one that has every ingredient needed for life? As long we don't know these ingredients, we won't be able to take a guess.

This is not to say there is no argument in favor of life in metaphysics. The fact that life is so stable on Earth (lasted 4.5 billions years) seem to implies it might be very easy to reproduce the experiments. However, it could very well be the result of some chaos (similar starting point that lead to completely different end result).

[BerenTebogo]

EVERYBODY HOLD ON! I'M GOING TO USE THE DRAKE EQUATION LIKE IT IS NEW AND RELEVANT SCIENCE!

[Eliseos]

Armchair astronomy up in this bitch.

[Kuya]

I don't know what they're talking about, but it seems Meteora got his dick bitten off and now he's a bitch.

[Mizango]

Eh, you're the one who should go reread the posts.

He's an idiot Kaylia, don't bother. I've danced with this clown too, many times over the years he's still a tool it seems.

[Mizango]

Armchair astronomy up in this bitch.

All day errday. Fucking love it!

[Kaylia]

double post

[Kaylia]

Armchair astronomy up in this bitch.

I wouldn't sit in anything else.

EVERYBODY HOLD ON! I'M GOING TO USE THE DRAKE EQUATION LIKE IT IS NEW AND RELEVANT SCIENCE!

On the bright side, we are just one parameter away from being able to use it. A few years ago, it was half the equation.

[Mizango]

And knowing is half the equation... GI BROOOO

[Kaylia]

In before "God's equation".

[edit]
Actually...out before.

[Mizango]

lol

[Jefe]

Time isn't the issue with your hypothesis, the biased sample is. It can be very dangerous to generalize something when the only positive result is something implied by the situation. Your first positive "random event" is in fact not random, it will be true no matter what since we can only exists on a planet that allow life. In such scenario, you have no choice but to remove it from your experimental data.


If I made the following statement: "1/5 members of my family are me, therefore, 20% of mankind is like me", I couldn't be more wrong. It's basically the same thing you're doing here. We can find similar earth-like planet, but can we find one that has every ingredient needed for life? As long we don't know these ingredients, we won't be able to take a guess.

This is not to say there is no argument in favor of life in metaphysics. The fact that life is so stable on Earth (lasted 4.5 billions years) seem to implies it might be very easy to reproduce the experiments. However, it could very well be the result of some chaos (similar starting point that lead to completely different end result).

You're taking the equation a little too far. Mind you he claims those are the chances life arose; whereas I mentioned instead those could be replaced instead by the number of times whatever caused the origin of life to take place. Of course, that doesn't mean life like I said before. Heck, I'm not even claiming there are x number of civilizations with advanced technology. Given what we have at hand right now and knowing there's no way to get a small sample of data to try to figure this out. Last, time is the biggest flaw in his equation, he completely disregarded evolution.

[Max™]

The more interesting variable I think is "the number of times shit got stomped the fuck back to pondscum", which almost happened a few times in the 2+ billion years of life on Earth.

[Kaylia]

You're taking the equation a little too far. Mind you he claims those are the chances life arose; whereas I mentioned instead those could be replaced instead by the number of times whatever caused the origin of life to take place. Of course, that doesn't mean life like I said before. Heck, I'm not even claiming there are x number of civilizations with advanced technology. Given what we have at hand right now and knowing there's no way to get a small sample of data to try to figure this out. Last, time is the biggest flaw in his equation, he completely disregarded evolution.

Why are you talking about evolution? It has nothing to do with the issue I pointed out. Before talking about advanced lifeform,you have to talk about the probability of life emerging out of the organics soup. We know the worst case scenario (10^-300), and a biologist could probably improve this number, but as long we have no evidence that life is in fact a common thing, we can't say shit about the odds of seeing life, advanced civilisation or not.


Secondly, you said something completely wrong two posts ago
"fl = 1/2 the life experiment has repeated"
The sample you are using -can't- be used in statistics because it is not a -random sample-. It has nothing to do with it's size.


We aren't talking about a weak bias here, we are talking about something completely fallacious. Using the analogy I wrote earlier, the odds of finding another human with identical DNA is going to be 1/sample size no matter what (unless there is twin involved!). If you were studying the world population, you would end up with 1/7 billions. However, the real probability of seeing 2 identical humans from the same parent is 2^23000, and it only decrease from that point.


Because 100% of your sample will have 1 positive claim, you will have to remove that data. There is no argument here.

mentioned instead those could be replaced instead by the number of times whatever caused the origin of life to take place.

Buying more lottery tickets increase the odds of winning, right? If I buy 10^15 tickets, I can't lose, right again?

I will sell you a bundle of tickets for 5$ (10^15 tickets for a mere 5$!). You can't pass that shit. The price is 100 millions $. The odds of winning is unknown, but I can assure you it seem good since I have the winning ticket in my hand right now.



[edit]
Anyone can join if they want! Only 5$ for 1000000000000000 tickets.

[Kaylia]

The more interesting variable I think is "the number of times shit got stomped the fuck back to pondscum", which almost happened a few times in the 2+ billion years of life on Earth.

Asteroids impact are boring shit. If we are going out in a bang, I want something surprising and unexpected

[Silenka]

Asteroids impact are boring shit. If we are going out in a bang, I want something surprising and unexpected

Cthulu