John Ingrassia: > ... As a non-scientist watching eagerly from the sidelines, I wonder why we even start > with the proposition that 'life' would have to be physical in nature at all, rather than some > form of energy, or other as yet undiscovered component of our universe. I realize that > the physical, organic, carbon based beings may be easiest for us to discover, but surely > we don't think that that's everything, do we?
Surely we don't *know* whether or not that's everything. Science proceeds largely by disproving falsifiable hypotheses, and by allowing some weight of evidence to accumulate for any other hypotheses still standing. If you want to dispense with this methodology, you can always join Eckankar, and fly to other worlds in your dreams, enjoying a universe chock full of interesting extraterrestrials. And you'll have lots of company in your belief that the universe not only has extraterrestrial life, but civilizations as well. You just won't have any proof. If you hew to scientific methodology, however, you have to admit that a search for life must, at least, start from what's known, and be based on what's physically verifiable. This can be rather boring, and it can lead to a lot of argumentation and hard, frustrating work, at the end of which one might only have a pile of disproved hypotheses and not much else. As a scientist of my acquaintance put it last week, one of the big disappointments of his early career was the realization that life is not a Tom Clancy novel. Crash programs are mainly a great way to waste a lot of money. Realism slows things down, and makes you very cautious. And you require that evidence be "physical in nature" because all other paths lead to angelology and demonology. You test, and eliminate, hypotheses in the most economical manner possible. In this view, the recent inability to discover life on Earth (in regions where is most resembles Mars, using observatories) is, in fact, a useful discovery in itself. Perfecting instruments for a search using a more conventional picture of life doesn't mean that the search will be called off if life isn't found that way -- it just means that the search will have to shift to other hypotheses. They are just working from the most likely hypotheses at the moment. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make them closed-minded. Just practical. Christopher England wrote: > If there's anything certain, it is that any > life we find off the Earth will be different, likely extremely > different. Different? Yes. Even if the life turns out to be terrestrial in origin, it will have adapted. But that's true even of life that has stayed on this planet. "Likely extremely different"? That's not clear at all. It may well be that, for one reason or another, it all comes down to conventional organic chemistry. We just don't know yet. -michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher England [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: BioAstro > Subject: Re: No life detected in Atacama Desert in Chile > > > > It's knowing where to look, and for what to look. I don't think we (we > Earthfolk) are there yet. If there's anything certain, it is that any > life we find off the Earth will be different, likely extremely > different. > > Chris > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > > > _______________________ > Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person. Thank you. > > > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
