Is this an valid argument?

Some people says there cant be life on other planets because we havent seen or heard any thing from them,

i will compare this to if a group of people living on a deserted island,
and they say, There cant be live outside this island because we havent heard or seen any thing from them


Thx

reply to post by HDD09


It certainly is not a valid argument.

Space is HUGE, like, you can't imagine huge.

Even if there was one race of intelligent beings, it could take them millions of years of research and technology to develop adequate and safe space travel.

~Keeper

but the people on the island dosent know how big the world is or how smale it is

Yes, the statement qualifies for more than a few fallacies.



[edit on 6-4-2010 by BellaMente]

Originally posted by HDD09
Some people says there cant be life on other planets because we havent seen or heard any thing from them,

Simply ask them to provide you the acoustics from mars then you have a solid foundation.

The Absence of Evidence

Is NOT

The Evidence of Absence.



This is what you should reply to their witty little argument.

Originally posted by HDD09
but the people on the island dosent know how big the world is or how smale it is

Just because you do not know something, does not mean it does not exist.

Example of something that exists which you most likely knew nothing about.

Did you know the Spring Temple Buddha is the tallest statue on Earth standing at 420 ft tall? (128m)

en.wikipedia.org...
upload.wikimedia.org...

Just because you did not know about it, does not mean it doesn't exist. In fact they spent many years building it. But yet we knew nothing about it..

reply to post by muzzleflash


You beat me to my favorite counter card when debating extra terrestrial life.

That card usually works wonders and disarms the opponent in debate as it takes a moment to think about, then usually sticks.



[edit on 6-4-2010 by Crossfate]

reply to post by muzzleflash


thats the point of my argument.
Just because we dont know there is life out side our planet dosent mean it dosent exist.

same with the people on the island. just because they dont know if there is life outside the island dosent mean it dosent exist

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by HDD09

 

It certainly is not a valid argument.

Space is HUGE, like, you can't imagine huge.

Even if there was one race of intelligent beings, it could take them millions of years of research and technology to develop adequate and safe space travel.

~Keeper

space is like 8 billion years old .... they had plenty of time

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Marsel]

There's a Tribe Deep in the Amazon Rain Forest thats been cut off from the rest of the World for Hundreds if not Thousands of years.

The first time they saw a Plane they Fired Arrows at it!

They Didnt know we existed and Especialy Didnt Know we had Planes, it was something Totaly New to Themand So Felt Threatend by it.

Scientists All over the World are Opening up to the idea that Life is Very Abundent Throughout the Universe.

Originally posted by HDD09
Some people says there cant be life on other planets because we havent seen or heard any thing from them,

i will compare this to if a group of people living on a deserted island,
and they say, There cant be life outside this island because we havent heard or seen any thing from them

No, it's not a valid argument, because you can't compare what happens on Earth with what might happen outside it. Space is pretty much cold and sterile. Any life outside our planet would probably have to come into being on its own.

But we don't even know how life started on Earth. It could have been the fluke of flukes. Literally an astronomically unlikely thing to happen. A curious combination of chemicals that just happens to mix together in just the right way to self-replicate. Nobody knows that the odds are of that happening once, much less twice.

So we could very well be the only game in town. Maybe.

reply to post by Blue Shift


That argument seems so old. Yeah, we are so special. In the infinte scope of space, we are the ONLY ones. Give me a break, don't be so naive. Humans are so arrogant. Not only are we not the only ones, there are more advanced species than us. If you eliminated 95 percent of UFO sightings as Air Force planes, secret projects, or just mis-identification there would still be thousands of solid sightings that are unexplainable. Open your eyes people. Our science is still in in infancy. It just seems impossible to travel great distances. They are out there, and they observe us.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

No, it's not a valid argument, because you can't compare what happens on Earth with what might happen outside it. Space is pretty much cold and sterile. Any life outside our planet would probably have to come into being on its own.

But we don't even know how life started on Earth. It could have been the fluke of flukes. Literally an astronomically unlikely thing to happen. A curious combination of chemicals that just happens to mix together in just the right way to self-replicate. Nobody knows that the odds are of that happening once, much less twice.

So we could very well be the only game in town. Maybe.

Space Is Littered With the Building Blocks For Life!

To think we were a Fluke is Very Naive.

Scientists Believe That There Could be Life on one of Jupiters Moons Europa!
The Galileo Spacecraft spent years in Orbit around Jupiter.
It Discovered that Europa Has a Vast Ocean beneath a thick crust of ice which May be 100km Deep!
Theres Life Deep in our Oceans which for Years was Undiscovered Living Next to Volcanic Vents were in Therory No Life Should Exist But it Does.

These Discoveries have led Many Biologists to Conclude That Life May and Could Exist Anywhere That Liquid Water Can be Found.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by judge360]

reply to post by HDD09


No it's not a valid argument, it's called a negative proof fallacy in fancy language.

reply to post by cripmeister


Is this defined somewhere? I don't remember this from logic..

reply to post by jeffiriff


You might want to try this

Originally posted by HDD09
Some people says there cant be life on other planets because we havent seen or heard any thing from them,

i will compare this to if a group of people living on a deserted island,
and they say, There cant be live outside this island because we havent heard or seen any thing from them

This sounds similar to the Fermi Paradox

The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

The argument in the Fermi Paradox isn't to say there CAN"T be life elsewhere as you phrased it, but rather, if there is life everywhere, then where the heck is it? Why have we seen no evidence for it other than ALH84001 which is the closest thing to evidence we have and even that is questionable?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
The Absence of Evidence

Is NOT

The Evidence of Absence.

This is what you should reply to their witty little argument.

That's not a very good reply because you can apply that to any fantastical idea you can make up, like fairies, leprechauns, or the flying spaghetti monster.

It would be far better to pose arguments about how what we know about evolution doesn't preclude it from happening on other worlds, the probabilities of intelligent life arising, etc.

Most scientists suspect that life elsewhere is likely, yet we still have the Fermi paradox, and there's a reason it's called a paradox.

Originally posted by HDD09
Some people says there cant be life on other planets because we havent seen or heard any thing from them,

i will compare this to if a group of people living on a deserted island,
and they say, There cant be live outside this island because we havent heard or seen any thing from them


Thx

No this is not a valid argument however, saying that the universe is so big there must be life is not really any more valid than saying there is not life.

The Absence of Evidence

Is NOT

The Evidence of Absence.

This is "true" however this does not proove anything and is really just a cliche cop out for having no evidence and a weak argument.

The same argument works both ways. The only true statement for now is, at this time in our history we have no verifiable evidence that life exists beyond our Planet. Which of course proves nor disproves nothing.

We have people who claim such knowledge but can not prove it or refuse to prove it (the later being hoaxers one could logically assume). We have doubters who can not prove what is or is not on other planets. I guess you could call it a stalemate for now.

I'd imagine most people who comprehend the size of this universe and the number of galaxies take it as a given that life must exist elsewhere. I know I do.

If it is indeed impossible to travel at or faster than the speed of light, we may never know and may never be visited. There is that to consider as well.

Then we may find a bacteria on Mars and answer the question right away. Can't carry on a conversation with bacteria though. If you have some over for dinner you might step on them and wipe out and entire civilization without even knowing it.

I know, I know, its late and I'm in hour 12 at work.

[edit on 4/6/2010 by Blaine91555]