Astronomer "100% certain" of life on exoplanet

[poiuytrewq0987]

He's right, of course. If the planet was "earth-like", it would have life. Because having life is the defining feature of earth. The question is, are there any earth-like planets out there?

It would be illogical to believe that the planet we inhabitant on is the only planet in the entire universe with habitable conditions.

[Wulfhere]

It would be illogical to believe that the planet we inhabitant on is the only planet in the entire universe with habitable conditions.

Why? We have precisely no evidence of any life out there, so the logical position is to assume there isn't any, until any evidence emerges.

[Tomasz]

Why? We have precisely no evidence of any life out there, so the logical position is to assume there isn't any, until any evidence emerges.

Yes but we must also remember that lack of proofs doesn't necessarily mean that something isn't true.

Example: police tries to arrest me and I say "you can't arrest me, I didn't commit any crime - nobody found any proof for it". It's obviously flawed thinking because I could commit crime, evidence could have just not been found yet.

As for this very case, I think this "astronomer" exaggerated thing a lot. Especially this fragment showing extremely varying temperatures. I wouldn't exclude the possibility of life forms being there, however it can be hardly called "100% certain" that life evolved there.

[Wulfhere]

Yes but we must also remember that lack of proofs doesn't necessarily mean that something isn't true.

Example: police tries to arrest me and I say "you can't arrest me, I didn't commit any crime - nobody found any proof for it". It's obviously flawed thinking because I could commit crime, evidence haven't just been found yet.

As for this very case, I think this "astronomer" exaggerated thing a lot. Especially this fragment showing extremely varying temperatures. I wouldn't exclude the possibility of life forms being there, however it can be hardly called "100% certain" that life evolved there.

The example I always use is of the football-sized chocolate asteroid orbiting between Neptune and Pluto. We have no proof that it doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean we are obliged to believe it does.

[Tomasz]

The example I always use is of the football-sized chocolate asteroid orbiting between Neptune and Pluto. We have no proof that it doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean we are obliged to believe it does.

Sure but I think that the existence of life on the other planet is much more possible than existence of this chocolate asteroid. If I wouldn't have any reason to believe there might be some life forms outside of Earth, I wouldn't bother even thinking about it. But there's a high probability that somewhere in the universe, there might be a life (not counting our planet).

[Eldritch]

The example I always use is of the football-sized chocolate asteroid orbiting between Neptune and Pluto. We have no proof that it doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean we are obliged to believe it does.

But ee do have proof that the Earth exists, and that other planets and solar systems exist. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on the probabilities of other Earth-like planets existing.

What the hell is a scientist doing making a claim of 100% certainty?

Answer: an ex-scientist, currently a quack.

[Svanhild]

"Dad, my programm asks if life can be found on Giese 581b?"


"Yes my son! My experiment reveals that there's life on Giese 581. I'm almost 100% certain, the liquid tells me!"

[Germanicus]

I read about this in todays Daily Mail, in the article it was said that if we could travel one tenth the speed of light we could reach the planet in 200 years

[Psychonaut]

Why? We have precisely no evidence of any life out there, so the logical position is to assume there isn't any, until any evidence emerges.

No.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. And, in a situation like this, where less than a fraction of a percent of the cosmos has been observed, the latter certainly doesn't follow from the former.

[Loki]

His 100% certainty is not so far-fetched as it would first appear ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11444022

Dr Vogt agreed: "The number of systems with potentially habitable planets is probably on the order of 10 or 20%, and when you multiply that by the hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way, that's a large number," he said.

"There could be tens of billions of these systems in our galaxy."

Now ... this is in a single galaxy, the Milky Way. There are probably more than 170 billion (1.7 × 1011) galaxies in the observable universe.

You'll likely end up with a probability of 99.999% followed by billions of 9 decimals. That's pretty close to 100% I'd say. For all practical purposes it is. So, I agree with him.

EDIT: I realise he is talking about the one specific planet. In that case, yes he is exaggerating and jumping to conclusions of certainty too soon.