Do extra terrestrials exist? If so...

Davepen said:
But we exist.

As do planets like ours.

That we know.
Click to expand...

No, we do not. We do not know of any other planets like Earth.

What we know is that variations in observations of some stars are most plausibly explained by the existence of planets orbiting them and from the precise details of the variations a few probable details about the probable planets can be calculated with a rough degree of accuracy. A few indicate the probable existence of a solid planet that gets roughly as much energy from its star as ours gets from out star. That in no way shows that those planets (if they exist) are anything like Earth.

EDIT: There is an attempt to grade planets on how like Earth they are. It's almost entirely fiction because it doesn't (and can't) cover even the most obvious basics like an atmosphere and a magnetosphere, but even then Mars ranks 5th. Mars. Which is not at all like Earth.
 
Last edited:
Bulldog14 said:
Correct in the sense that it isn't complete. Did Drake have any idea of the role of tides or plate tectonics , for example, when he created the formula? Probably not to the extent we know now for sure. The basic formula is sound, but its the categories he divides it into that should be sub-categorized and expanded upon as new data becomes available.

To me there had to be a start. There had to be someone at some point who said: "There must be a way to try and calculate the odds" Drakes equation is that start. That some of it's basic categories need to be filled out is without doubt.
Click to expand...

Right...now can you reply to what I actually wrote?

I didn't say that Drake's equation is incomplete. I said that it is descriptive, not predictive, because none of the terms can be assigned a meaningful value unless we've already completely surveyed the universe in sufficient detail to already know the answers (and even then, the final term can't be assigned a value and is meaningless anyway because it can only apply on an individual basis to each civilisation).

It cannot ever, under any circumstances, be used unless we already know the answer in extreme detail. It cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be used to make any meaningful calculation of the odds. It is fundamentally incapable of being used that way, no matter how many extra factors you add to it. I've already shown why. If you disagree with what I actually wrote, feel free to make a counter-argument to it.

I'll make a blunt summary:

The Drake equation is innately meaningless. It is of use only as a way of stimulating discussion. It cannot predict the number of alien civilisations, ever, under any circumstances. It isn't really an equation in any meaningful sense. Angilion's equation (guess * guess * guess = guess) is exactly as useful in predicting the number of alien civilisations as Drake's equation is and equally meaningful. Or, more accurately, meaningless.
 
Angilion said:
Right...now can you reply to what I actually wrote?

I didn't say that Drake's equation is incomplete. I said that it is descriptive, not predictive, because none of the terms can be assigned a meaningful value unless we've already completely surveyed the universe in sufficient detail to already know the answers (and even then, the final term can't be assigned a value and is meaningless anyway because it can only apply on an individual basis to each civilisation).

It cannot ever, under any circumstances, be used unless we already know the answer in extreme detail. It cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be used to make any meaningful calculation of the odds. It is fundamentally incapable of being used that way, no matter how many extra factors you add to it. I've already shown why. If you disagree with what I actually wrote, feel free to make a counter-argument to it.

I'll make a blunt summary:

The Drake equation is innately meaningless. It is of use only as a way of stimulating discussion. It cannot predict the number of alien civilisations, ever, under any circumstances. It isn't really an equation in any meaningful sense. Angilion's equation (guess * guess * guess = guess) is exactly as useful in predicting the number of alien civilisations as Drake's equation is and equally meaningful. Or, more accurately, meaningless.
Click to expand...

Where I disagree is that all the numbers being inputted are random or guesses. If they were I would agree that it is essentially useless. Some of the initial numbers were guesses, but here we are 50 years later with billions invested in space technology. One could hardly say that this is just for the random hell of it. It has been to quantify and further our knowledge of "the final frontier" (sorry Cpt Kirk) As new information becomes available due to research the variables become more accurate and the equation takes more solid shape. It's an ongoing process.

Consider the alternative to think of it another way. Should we just give up and stare at the stars blankly because it is "all just too much to comprehend"? Should we not try to apply math to the situation to try and extrapolate outcomes? The logical mind can only reach one conclusion.
 
Last edited:
I have to admit that I'm in the 'Highly unlikely there is not other life in the universe' camp.

After all, 1 in a million chances happen 9 times out of 10! Well known fact*! :D



*Pratchett.
 
shadesofgrey said:
Which part?

We know life already exists and as explained many times in this thread that increases the probability of there being life else where, the universe is just. So. Big.

As for the other part, it's a jolly little reference to the disc world novels.
Click to expand...

hehe i had to read that a few times,to early for riddles:D
 
Bulldog14 said:
Where I disagree is that all the numbers being inputted are random or guesses. If they were I would agree that it is essentially useless. Some of the initial numbers were guesses, but here we are 50 years later with billions invested in space technology. One could hardly say that this is just for the random hell of it. It has been to quantify and further our knowledge of "the final frontier" (sorry Cpt Kirk) As new information becomes available due to research the variables become more accurate and the equation takes more solid shape. It's an ongoing process.

Consider the alternative to think of it another way. Should we just give up and stare at the stars blankly because it is "all just too much to comprehend"? Should we not try to apply math to the situation to try and extrapolate outcomes? The logical mind can only reach one conclusion.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a simple binary choice where you either plug in "random"* numbers or you stare blankly into space. There's no need for it to be that - what I think Angilion is saying is that for Drake's Equation to be useful as anything other than a discussion tool we'd have to have essentially already discovered the civilisation (via exploration detailed enough to give meaningful figures to input into the equation) and at that point the calculation of how many contactable civilisations is rendered somewhat moot as we'd already have discovered one.

What I don't see Angilion saying or even suggesting is that we should not consider what is in space nor even necessarily that we should stop trying to explore it. Just that Drake's equation doesn't have anything much in the way of predictive accuracy and perhaps more to the point nor was it ever intended to - it was brought in to stimulate discussion rather than anything else.

*For reference I'm using random here to mean that they're simply best guess rather than anything else.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I don't think it's a simple binary choice where you either plug in "random"* numbers or you stare blankly into space. There's no need for it to be that - what I think Angilion is saying is that for Drake's Equation to be useful as anything other than a discussion tool we'd have to have essentially already discovered the civilisation (via exploration detailed enough to give meaningful figures to input into the equation) and at that point the calculation of how many contactable civilisations is rendered somewhat moot as we'd already have discovered one.

What I don't see Angilion saying or even suggesting is that we should not consider what is in space nor even necessarily that we should stop trying to explore it. Just that Drake's equation doesn't have anything much in the way of predictive accuracy and perhaps more to the point nor was it ever intended to - it was brought in to stimulate discussion rather than anything else.

*For reference I'm using random here to mean that they're simply best guess rather than anything else.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but that is kind of the whole paradox about it all. Until we get that signal we can only rely (rely being a bit of a strong word perhaps) on math to try and make predictions, but as you say once that signal is found then a lot of it becomes moot.

The thing is that perhaps Drakes's version of the equation isn't the right one, but for sure equations in general are one of our few tools for trying to put some order to the search.
 
Bulldog14 said:
Where I disagree is that all the numbers being inputted are random or guesses. If they were I would agree that it is essentially useless. Some of the initial numbers were guesses, but here we are 50 years later with billions invested in space technology. One could hardly say that this is just for the random hell of it. It has been to quantify and further our knowledge of "the final frontier" (sorry Cpt Kirk) As new information becomes available due to research the variables become more accurate and the equation takes more solid shape. It's an ongoing process.

Consider the alternative to think of it another way. Should we just give up and stare at the stars blankly because it is "all just too much to comprehend"? Should we not try to apply math to the situation to try and extrapolate outcomes? The logical mind can only reach one conclusion.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that the only alternatives are pretending that a description of something after the results are already known is a prediction of the results and "just give up and stare at the stars blankly because it is all just too much to comprehend"?

Or are you just making up a false dichotomy and claiming that the other option is what people who disagree with you have said in order to make them look bad, i.e. simple ad hominem because you have no rational argument?

Either way, you are talking rubbish.

The Drake equation is not maths.

The Drake equation can never, under any circumstances at all, predict the number of advanced civilisations in the universe, or any part of the universe. It can't predict anything. IT IS A DESCRIPTION FOR AFTER THE NUMBERS ARE KNOWN, NOT A PREDICTION OF WHAT THE NUMBERS WILL BE.

If I post that again in bold in a font so big that every bloody letter fills an entire screen, will you pay any attention to it? Maybe I'm just not shouting loudly enough.

Yes, I am angry. If you can't make a counter-argument to what has been written, at least have the common courtesy to ignore it rather than making stuff up and pretending it's what has been written.

EDIT:

To clarify - all the numbers being fed into the "equation" are guesses. In order to put anything other than guesses into each term in the "equation", you need to know a lot more than the final answer. Say, for example, our far ancestors complete the aeons-long project of exploring the entire universe. They know exactly how many advanced civilisations exist, with complete accuracy and beyond any doubt. Even then, they still wouldn't be able to assign anything more than estimates to the terms in the "equation".

Just one simple example, using only 2 of the terms:

10% of planets that have the potential to support life did have life at some point in time. 1% of those went on to develop intelligent life.

Or maybe it was 20% of planets with the potential to support life that did have life at some point in time, but on half of the planets life died out so long ago that there is no trace of it. 0.5% of the planets that at some point had life went to develop intelligent life.

The results are exactly the same (0.1 * 0.01 = 0.2 * 0.005). There's no way to tell which is true, or if either is true. Maybe it was some other unknowable combination that produces the same answer. So it would still be guesswork even after the final result is found out by surveying the universe and counting the number of advanced civilistions. At the moment, it's total guesswork, just random numbers slapped together to get any result that anyone likes.

So the numbers will never be anything more than some estimates of largely unknown (and in many case unknowable) numbers that multiply together to get the end result (which you can only get by surveying the universe and counting). Right now, the numbers are total guesses without any substance.

I'll illustrate with a general example that means nothing. So it's just like the Drake equation. I'll throw in a term that can't be clearly defined, to make it even more like the Drake equation:

a * b * c * d * e * f * g = x

You know from experiment that x = 20.

You know that a = 50.

You know that b = 0.8

You know that c has some value between 1.4 and 2.2 (it's impossible to be precise because c is a description of a term that can't be objectively defined).

Now calculate d, e, f and g (since it's impossible to find them by experiment unless you also have a time machine and enough time to study the history of every planet since the beginning of the universe).

It's impossible...and that's true even when you have already found the answer by experiment. That equation can't be used to calculate x. It can't even be used to find accurate values for most of its variables even after you already know x. Just like Drake's equation.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
Do you believe that the only alternatives are pretending that a description of something after the results are already known is a prediction of the results and "just give up and stare at the stars blankly because it is all just too much to comprehend"?

Or are you just making up a false dichotomy and claiming that the other option is what people who disagree with you have said in order to make them look bad, i.e. simple ad hominem because you have no rational argument?

Either way, you are talking rubbish.

The Drake equation is not maths.

The Drake equation can never, under any circumstances at all, predict the number of advanced civilisations in the universe, or any part of the universe. It can't predict anything. IT IS A DESCRIPTION FOR AFTER THE NUMBERS ARE KNOWN, NOT A PREDICTION OF WHAT THE NUMBERS WILL BE.

If I post that again in bold in a font so big that every bloody letter fills an entire screen, will you pay any attention to it? Maybe I'm just not shouting loudly enough.

Yes, I am angry. If you can't make a counter-argument to what has been written, at least have the common courtesy to ignore it rather than making stuff up and pretending it's what has been written.

EDIT:

To clarify - all the numbers being fed into the "equation" are guesses. In order to put anything other than guesses into each term in the "equation", you need to know a lot more than the final answer. Say, for example, our far ancestors complete the aeons-long project of exploring the entire universe. They know exactly how many advanced civilisations exist, with complete accuracy and beyond any doubt. Even then, they still wouldn't be able to assign anything more than estimates to the terms in the "equation".

Just one simple example, using only 2 of the terms:

10% of planets that have the potential to support life did have life at some point in time. 1% of those went on to develop intelligent life.

Or maybe it was 20% of planets with the potential to support life that did have life at some point in time, but on half of the planets life died out so long ago that there is no trace of it. 0.5% of the planets that at some point had life went to develop intelligent life.

The results are exactly the same (0.1 * 0.01 = 0.2 * 0.005). There's no way to tell which is true, or if either is true. Maybe it was some other unknowable combination that produces the same answer. So it would still be guesswork even after the final result is found out by surveying the universe and counting the number of advanced civilistions. At the moment, it's total guesswork, just random numbers slapped together to get any result that anyone likes.

So the numbers will never be anything more than some estimates of largely unknown (and in many case unknowable) numbers that multiply together to get the end result (which you can only get by surveying the universe and counting). Right now, the numbers are total guesses without any substance.

I'll illustrate with a general example that means nothing. So it's just like the Drake equation. I'll throw in a term that can't be clearly defined, to make it even more like the Drake equation:

a * b * c * d * e * f * g = x

You know from experiment that x = 20.

You know that a = 50.

You know that b = 0.8

You know that c has some value between 1.4 and 2.2 (it's impossible to be precise because c is a description of a term that can't be objectively defined).

Now calculate d, e, f and g (since it's impossible to find them by experiment unless you also have a time machine and enough time to study the history of every planet since the beginning of the universe).

It's impossible...and that's true even when you have already found the answer by experiment. That equation can't be used to calculate x. It can't even be used to find accurate values for most of its variables even after you already know x. Just like Drake's equation.
Click to expand...

Pretty hardcore attitude there. Your stating a lot of absolutes that you can hardly be sure of. You can place it in caps all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. I merely stating that equations are a valid method to make predictions and to try and make some sense of it. If you don't want to acknowledge that then I won't try and convince you further. Drake has offered one, that yes, is mostly to provoke debate, but it also offers a reference point. Something to build on.

Several years ago after reading a Brief History of Time from Hawking I felt I could take on something more hardcore and read "On the Shoulders of Giants" from Hawking. I got about halfway thru before realizing that it was rather equation heavy and not for the layman, but the overlying theme was to make the point that it is all a building process. Previous advancements allow for the next to be achieved. Sure Drake's equation's is primitive and innaccurate, but who is to say that in another 50 years the next Einstein doesn't sit down and say: "Hmmmm lets build on this. Lets expand the parameters. Lets take this equation apart and rebuild it armed with what we know now and try and make something out of it."

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I havn't read your argument, and don't see where you coming from. I'm just not evenly remotely interested in responding if you just want to stick to absolutes.
 
Bulldog14 said:
Pretty hardcore attitude there. Your stating a lot of absolutes that you can hardly be sure of. You can place it in caps all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. I merely stating that equations are a valid method to make predictions and to try and make some sense of it. If you don't want to acknowledge that then I won't try and convince you further. Drake has offered one, that yes, is mostly to provoke debate, but it also offers a reference point. Something to build on.

Several years ago after reading a Brief History of Time from Hawking I felt I could take on something more hardcore and read "On the Shoulders of Giants" from Hawking. I got about halfway thru before realizing that it was rather equation heavy and not for the layman, but the overlying theme was to make the point that it is all a building process. Previous advancements allow for the next to be achieved. Sure Drake's equation's is primitive and innaccurate, but who is to say that in another 50 years the next Einstein doesn't sit down and say: "Hmmmm lets build on this. Lets expand the parameters. Lets take this equation apart and rebuild it armed with what we know now and try and make something out of it."

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I havn't read your argument, and don't see where you coming from. I'm just not evenly remotely interested in responding if you just want to stick to absolutes.
Click to expand...



Angillion isn't dealing with absolutes, he is demonstating why the equation is not what you would regard as Science, much like Drake explained himself, it makes assumptions and builds possibilities....we can draw no conclusions from it, it is only a device to enable and encourage debate.

Like you said it gives us a reference, but not a reference from which to make conclusions, but a reference with which to discuss the possibilty.

The danger is that we draw conclusions by attributing too much importance to the equation and we forget in our enthusiasm that the equation is based largely on assumptions, not on solid data.

That is not to mean we should dismiss the probabilities that Drakes Equations gives us, quite the contrary....just that we consider those probabilties objectively and without attributing definitive positions to them.
 
Bulldog14 said:
[..] I merely stating that equations are a valid method to make predictions and to try and make some sense of it. [..]
Click to expand...

Now you're making untrue statements about what you've written (in addition to untrue statements about what other people have written).

You're either a troll or dishonest. It doesn't matter which, since either makes it a waste of time replying to you.

Feel free to make something up, pretend I wrote it and use it to deride me so you can have the last word. That might make you happy, but it won't turn a description into a prediction. Your faith in Drake's "equation" being something it can't be and was never intended to be will still be wrong.
 
Have to disagree a tiny bit with Angilion, but only in semantics really. Any equation/model like that has predictive power - that's the whole point of them. Of course the results of any equation are only as good as what you feed into it, and that's the real problem with trying to use the Drake equation to give a quantitative answer today. We only have a sample size of one example of intelligent life which makes many of the inputs to the Drake equation no better than complete guesses. One can therefore plug in arguably 'feasable' numbers and get an answer ranging from 'it's just us' to there being millions of civilisations buzzing about. So clearly it is indeed useless as a means of calculating a number at the current time, but only because most of the parameters are unknown rather than any there being any fundamental problem with the model itself or the general approach.

If at some time in the future we manage to, say, survey our entire galaxy, we would be able to put numbers to all the parameters with quite some level of confidence in them. The equation would then be able to predict the number of civilisations in other galaxies just fine to a reasonable level of confidence. Of course Angilion is correct to say you wont get a precise number until you've surveyed the entire universe anyway, but it's not correct, imho, to say statistical models like this are useless and have no predictive power at all. If you have a good enough sample to put reliable numbers on the parameters, then they are useful. As has been said, the Drake equation, mathematically, is only any use as a framework to spark discussion at this time.
 
Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it.

Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held.

Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books.

Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin.

Believe nothing just because someone else believes it.

Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.
 
A little overly hard core there Castiel, tho' I'm leaning in agreement where does trust fit into that?

Trust no-one? While whistling the X files tune?

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I'm happy to trust certain things to a point without doing all the research myself!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom