odysseus2000 wrote:mc2fool wrote:stevensfo wrote:So NASA's new James Webb telescope provides proof of life, maybe 10 light years away. Primitive life is found on Europa or under the surface of Mars. Or archaeologists find controversial evidence of past visits, or radio signals show that intelligent life is definitely out there.
Then what? Really, what? It just confirms what statistics has proven. We are not alone. Which I think we have all known for a long time.
Don't be so sure about the "statistics". I've been to a couple of public lectures on the matter in recent years, one at UCL by a Prof. there, an exo-planetologist (?) I believe, and he spent an hour going through a much-more-in-depth version of the Drake equation, working from the only known sample-size-of-one case we have, our own.
He started at big bang and star formation and tried to assign probabilities to each event on the path to us here and now, including factors like the effect of a large moon on evolution (and, of course, what led to it: collision of two similar sized planets that happened to result in creating such a moon), not to mention that little event that happened 65million years ago that resulted in giving mammals a chance, and a whole myriad of others that I can't begin to remember; as I say, an hour's worth.
His bottom line on cumulating all the odds was not only that we are "alone" but that we shouldn't be here! Indeed, that statistically, technologically intelligent life shouldn't have appeared in the universe yet. A similar lecture by an evolutionary zoologist at Imperial focusing from his expertise came to the same conclusion.
Now, of course, statistics aren't temporal predictions, as we can get three once-on-a-century storms in a decade, and the problem with the Drake equation and similar efforts are that they are highly dependent on the assumptions made and the probabilities plugged into them. And, just in case anyone thinks I'm proposing an argument, I'm not taking a stand myself, my only point being that it's not as "all known" as you imply: heck, even Prof. Brian Cox has said he thinks we may well be alone!
This sort of stuff is all "pot boiler." Stuff to bring in money for the presenter and possible encourage young people to study science but most of the folk who do this come over as insincere, trying to interest people who are not interested and making it so that any one who is interested is bored and turns off.
The Sky at Night with Patrick Moore was presented for enthusiasts, the current versions are trying to get more viewers and turn off the folk who are interested and don't want a dumbed down presentation.
Too harsh! IMO. I don't think The Sky at Night has been dumbed down.
[ From what you say you cannot possibly have seen, or now remember, The Sky at Night episode* of long ago which literally sent me into an apoplectic frenzy and a late night phone call to the BBC DEMANDING they let me speak to "the X%&v£K&!* programme director Right Now!"; "Please don't swear Sir". That episode - made by some muppet who then worked at the BBC (and was responsible for several other programme desecrations, including I believe The Boat Race) - was both unforgettable and indescribable (OK, I could have a go!). ]
odysseus2000 wrote:Any statements made by the "pot boiler" folk are there to entertain the audience and any kind of statistical analysis without statistics is not science.
Doesn't sound like the above mentioned lecture.
* Oh, and did I mention this episode was entirely a discussion between the then Astronomer Royal and Patrick Moore? Ye Gods!
