Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Post by OlegTheBatty » Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:15 pm

landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Hypothesis: there is a pen on this desk

I gather all the evidence from examining 1 square femtometer. I find no evidence for a pen. I conclude the hypothesis is false. Reasonable?
Common mistake. You don't see a pen, so "a pen doesn't exist." Actually it may or may not, therefore the likelihood is an X, not a zero. You are concluding the hypothesis is false, but all you can actually do is "fail to disprove the null hypothesis" -this is the basis of the experimental part of the scientific method.

Sagan was correct in that we can't assume that something doesn't exist based on our lack of evidence for it's existence. Thus, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." To put it another way; someone tells you that your house is on fire, but you don't see or smell smoke, so you assume it didn't happen.
?????

Has your reading comprehension gone down the shithole?

What I'm saying is that the very concept 'absence of evidence' is irrelevant if the sample size is too small.
Sample size is irrelevant to concluding a hypothesis is false. There's simply no means to do so.
The confusing part of your post is "examining 1 square femtometer." What relevance is that? Your wife asks you if you have the receipt for the massage you took last week, so you look on one small spot on one table, and conclude that it doesn't exist? Nice try.

I'm not alone by any means, in the belief that life could exist elsewhere. I doubt any reputable scientist would "conclude the hypothesis is false" as you have. Please provide more guidance for how I can improve my reading comprehension further.
FFS LANDREW, I"M AGREEING THAT PROOF OF ABSENCE IS NOT ESTABLISHED!!!

I'm saying that . . . nm.
How do you explain: "I conclude the hypothesis is false. "
I didn't conclude the hypothesis is false, I was giving an example where invoking the 'absence of evidence' principle is irrelevant due to small sample size.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8077
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Post by landrew » Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:26 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
landrew wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Hypothesis: there is a pen on this desk

I gather all the evidence from examining 1 square femtometer. I find no evidence for a pen. I conclude the hypothesis is false. Reasonable?
Common mistake. You don't see a pen, so "a pen doesn't exist." Actually it may or may not, therefore the likelihood is an X, not a zero. You are concluding the hypothesis is false, but all you can actually do is "fail to disprove the null hypothesis" -this is the basis of the experimental part of the scientific method.

Sagan was correct in that we can't assume that something doesn't exist based on our lack of evidence for it's existence. Thus, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." To put it another way; someone tells you that your house is on fire, but you don't see or smell smoke, so you assume it didn't happen.
?????

Has your reading comprehension gone down the shithole?

What I'm saying is that the very concept 'absence of evidence' is irrelevant if the sample size is too small.
Sample size is irrelevant to concluding a hypothesis is false. There's simply no means to do so.
The confusing part of your post is "examining 1 square femtometer." What relevance is that? Your wife asks you if you have the receipt for the massage you took last week, so you look on one small spot on one table, and conclude that it doesn't exist? Nice try.

I'm not alone by any means, in the belief that life could exist elsewhere. I doubt any reputable scientist would "conclude the hypothesis is false" as you have. Please provide more guidance for how I can improve my reading comprehension further.
FFS LANDREW, I"M AGREEING THAT PROOF OF ABSENCE IS NOT ESTABLISHED!!!

I'm saying that . . . nm.
How do you explain: "I conclude the hypothesis is false. "
I didn't conclude the hypothesis is false, I was giving an example where invoking the 'absence of evidence' principle is irrelevant due to small sample size.
OK then. *shake hands*
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31884
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Post by Gord » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:19 pm

Stop conflating the terms "evidence" and "proof", dammit.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 12435
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Post by Major Malfunction » Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:05 pm

Landrew struggles with context.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8077
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Proof of No Extraterrestrial Life

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:09 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:Landrew struggles with context.
I struggle with you.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Post Reply