Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most scientist believe that there is life on other solar system but there is no empirical evidence that there is because we cannot travel to other solar systems.
Yep, and any honest scientist will readily tell you that this is a faith based belief, a hypothesis actually. And not even a scientific hypothesis, as it is not falsifiable. The only evidence supporting this is statistical inference.
Just because a person is a scientist does not mean every belief they have is a rational, evidence based conclusion. Don't confuse science and scientists...
Most scientist believe that there is life on other solar system but there is no empirical evidence that there is because we cannot travel to other solar systems.
Most scientists believe that there is a good probablity that there is life on other solar systems. That is not based on faith but on probablitiy. Before we knew that there were other planets that probabilty was much lower. The probablity is not only based on the number of planets and the number of planets that seem to exist in the Goldilocks zone but that we are based on the most abundant elements in the universe. Again if we were made of a much less compound element than carbon the probablity would be less as it would be if carbon was rare in the universe. It is not blind faith no matter how you play it. I know of no scientists who claims there is life in other solar systems.
If you think given two choices there is a 50/50 chance of either being the right answer here is one for you: I am a Canadian so am a white or of colour? For a million dollar question on the game show would you simply flip a coin? What if I told you that the city I live in has an extremely low percentage of people of colour would you still flip a coin?
Most scientists believe that the bayesian probablity that there is life on other solar systems is high
Bayesian probability is belief
Broadly speaking, there are two views on Bayesian probability that interpret the probability concept in different ways. According to the objectivist view, the rules of Bayesian statistics can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistency and interpreted as an extension of logic.[1][6] According to the subjectivist view, probability quantifies a "personal belief".[2]
So at least you admit that it isn't based on empirical evidence. What it is based on is inductive reasoning.
Of course, never claimed otherwise. That was your strawman buddy, not mine. However let me clear something up, using specific evidence to come to general conclusions is inductive reasoning. These things are not mutually exclusive, and in fact they are part and parcel of the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
Inductive reasoning can't tell you for certain whether something is true or not but it does tell you whether it is a reasonable possibility or not.
The most reasonable possibility tends to be, but isnt always, the correct one.
Ehh, not so much. Inductive reasoning is a useful tool, but is tremendously susceptible to confirmation bias. This is true whether you use statistics, observations, or quantifiable metrics as a base from which to construct some larger explanation.
If you read up on your Popper (Karl, not John ), you see this is why falsifiability is one of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It essentially "closes the loop" and provides a feedback mechanism for demonstrating the efficacy of the hypothesis. Without it, you essentially have nothing more than speculation.
In terms of the "other life in the universe" hypothesis, the problem is that it is not testable. We have no measurement we can take that would tell us if life did not exist. So it isn't a scientific hypothesis, it is simply a hypothesis, an idea that some people have. Just like the idea that there is a God somewhere out there. Until it is formulated in a falsifiable way, it is just an idea...
You seem to have a problem understanding that bayesian probability is belief
It is a different belief than the one you want it to be...
Back to the coin example, suppose I flip a coin and immediately cover it with my hand. I then will make a claim about what face of the coin is showing.
So we can make two claims here:
One, the probability of the coin showing heads.
Two, the coin is showing heads.
The first can be categorized as a belief about the liklihood of the coin showing heads, in our case it has a probability of .5. The second is a belief that the coin is showing heads. This cannot be expressed as a possibility, but is binary in nature. You either believe that the coin is showing heads or you do not. Please not that simply not believing the coin is heads does not mean that you believe the coin is showing tails. You could withhold belief either way, and simply not make a judgment until I remove my hand and the evidence can be examined.
If we relate this to the God issue that you seem so dead set on expressing statistically, there are again 2 claims:
One, a claim about the probability of the existence of God.
Two, a claim about the existence of God.
Using myself as an example, I find most concepts of God to be unlikely, with the most nebulous and unprovable definitions being at best a 50% chance, just a wild guess. Those are beliefs, I cannot prove or empirically calculate a meaningful statistical analysis of the probablility of God.
However, when presented with the claim that a meaningful God of some sort does exist, I do not believe that claim. I don't have enough evidence to come to that conclusion. In fact all the evidence I do have points in the opposite direction, but since I understand logic, I know that it is not a falsifiable claim. So I do not make a faith based claim that no God exists, but neither do I believe that one does. Instead, I choose to withhold belief unless and until I have sufficient evidence to support the existence of God.
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), you see this is why falsifiability is one of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It essentially "closes the loop" and provides a feedback mechanism for demonstrating the efficacy of the hypothesis. Without it, you essentially have nothing more than speculation.
