Does Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life Exist?

Does intelligent extraterrestrial life exist somewhere else in the universe? My answer is yes.

I'm in the no category. There doesn't seem to be any direct evidence. The common explanation is that if the world is size X, and life has probability of emerging Y, there should be, statistically speaking, at least numerous other intelligent beings.

Problem. We don't have access to the probability Y. It could be anything. Therefore, I side with the default position. Not believing in things without evidence.

I've been told there is supposedly evidence by some people, but I just haven't been convinced that it counts as legitimate evidence. My limited experience with people in astronomy seems to imply that the common position is that extraterrestrial life does not exist outside earth. Therefore, I juts defer to the experts.

If someone found me a poll that said 90% of highly educated astronomers believe in extraterrestrial life, I'd probably change my position.

Who could possibly know? We could just be a fluke in evolution or there could be thousands, nay, millions of intelligent species out there. Who really knows? Not me.

It's hard to make any statistical inference from a sample size of 1, which is the total number of times that we are aware of life coming into existence.

Since it's pretty obvious that "life" cannot be produced from inert matter--I kinda doubt it.

=

http://www.digitalfox.com/digitalfox...iles/foil5.jpg

To see why the Drake equation doesn't help answer the question at the top of this topic, note that you could make a similar equation, without any numbers in it, for any event you could imagine.

What's the probability that I'll get eaten by a crocodile in Uganda? That would be the probability that I will go to Uganda, multiplied by the probability that if I go there then I will encounter a crocodile, multiplied by the probability that if I go there and encounter it then it will eat me. Absolutely true, and also uninformative, because the terms have no numbers.

Drake made an equation consisting of seven terms with unknown values multiplied together. It's certainly true, and it leaves us no closer to having the answer.

I'm unsure.

I find it improbable that, in all the inconcieiveable vastness of the universe, life only managed to spring up on Earth. However, the circumstances under which life emerged on this planet could have been a universal one-off...but that's not to say that life as we're familiar with it is the only kind of life capable of coming into being.

Either way, there won't be any hard data to prove or disprove extraterrestrial life until we start really exploring space.

100 billion galaxies with an average of 100 billion stars a peice, odds of use being the only ones are slim.

Humans have researched only 1/100 of a percent of space. It would be absurd to say humans on Earth are the only intelligent life.

No. We just don't know. We have nothing to make odds about. We have nothing to go in. We just don't know.

Mr. Struggle, I find it strangely ironic that someone who believes in an all-seeing, all-knowing man in the clouds would accuse me of wearing a tin-foil hat.

True, but we can ask questions like "how plentiful is carbon throughout the universe", and "with so many stars, how likely is it that at least one more of them is supporting a solar system," and "what if God made another planet with life and sent his other son, Harris, there to straighten shit out".

Mr. Mikelepore, the question was "do you believe in extraterrestrial life", not "is there extraterrestrial life", since we could not possibly answer that....unless your name is Roofus and you live on a farm in Idaho.

With that in mind, I thought posting a link to the Drake equation would be a reasonable approach to the matter. After all, if we believe there is extraterrestrial life, that belief must be founded on a consideration of probabilities. I think Mr. Drake did quite well....even without any known values.

Indeed!

(And it was the frizzy hair I was directly accusing you of. Not enough regular use of conditioner I assume.)

Yes, I believe extraterrestrial life exists. Within our solar system it may have existed on Mars (Hellas Planitia is one location), and may exist on Europa or Enceladus.

We do have ball park numbers that can be plugged into the Drake equation.

What numbers? It's my understanding that most astronomers are skeptical of the existence of intelligent life? Why shouldn't we defer to their expertise. Why take a random equation and claim it justifies a belief in aliens? The Rare Earth Hypothesis takes an equation which it claims is counter to the Drake Equation and a superior argument.

I can find tons of research skeptical of global warming and evolution. A lot of it is decorated with fancy technical terms and complex arguments. Does that make their opinions legitimate? No. It's just throwing around nonsense. Throw enough nonsensical data at someone and if they refute you, you can always claim they need to read more of the data.

An art that's lost is knowing which experts to trust. It's someone intuitive, somewhat biased. Is there really any evidence that the scientific community holds that the existence of intelligent life is probable? Again, my limited exposure was from a single introductory astronomy course. The professor basically claimed the idea is perpetuated partially to justify funding NASA and most astronomers find the idea of intelligent life highly improbable.

Now I'm not going to claim I can trust a random professor without skepticism. However, given that the idea has historically been associated with science fiction, lunatics, et cetera, I have to air on the side of caution. Until real evidence comes forth, why believe in aliens? Simply because it would be neat, entertaining? There are plenty of things on Earth that can occupy my time.

Honestly, I think science and reality aren't objective. If the evidence suggests two conclusions, and one is more plausible, people don't care. They'll accept the less plausible conclusion because they idea of it "being true" has a high value to them. You see this all the time with religious believers. Clear evidence refutes them, but the value of their belief is higher than what they attach to the value of the evidence.

Belief in aliens gets into belief in metaphysics. With all the physicists suggesting multiple realities, who knows what exists. We could be existing in a dimension overlapping another reality. I could be killing someone by typing. Quantum suicide.

If private individuals want to investigate the existence of aliens, I say go for it. Just don't waste public money, which the United States government has done, apparently (SETI project). The evidence just isn't there to support it. And how much is mere curiosity worth to us when people are living in poverty? Who says any species we find is more intelligent than us. It's just as likely their idiots, evil, good, et cetera. I value inherent curiosity as much as anyone.

So the really curious people can investigate it, but I think seriously funding it would be equivalent of taxpayers funding a private astrologist to give the President his horoscope and warn him of omens.

We don't know, that is why there is no reason to disprove the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial life.

We need not defer to the opinions of astronomers in order to consider a probability argument. We do look to astronomy and related fields of science to provide us with the best estimates or guesstimates for the equations' parameters. The Wiki article on the Drake equation provides some examples.
This hypothesis rejects the mediocrity principle. Apart from that, I believe it is useful (or will be useful) in improving the Drake equation or its equivalent.
I don't consider the Drake equation or the Rare Earth hypothesis as examples of propaganda.
A claim of improbability has essentially the same requirement. You can't rely on 'gut feeling', you need some basis for evaluation. So astronomers develop equations.
Why believe you will win the lottery? It all comes down to believing in possibility instead of impossibility.
I don't think religious belief is based on probability calculations.
Or aliens could be observing us with technology we are unable to detect :blink:
This is another issue, I will just say that SETI is but a small passive part of exploration. The Kepler mission may be more useful in estimating number of Earth-like planets.

It's possible. By no means a certainty, though. The universe isn't infinite.

Considering the size of the universe, i think it's kind of arrogant of humans to assume we're the best nature has to offer so i voted yes.