The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Thank you for posting. This thread has provided me with some
surprises and excellent information. You often hear of the DE but
the Fermi is a new for me. Not at all unlike the point I was making in
the OP.

a reply to: neformore

If I want to indulge in pure fantasy I watch a Sci-Fi movie or show. I try not to get pure fantasy mixed up with science/knowledge.

And I have no motive to put the evidence for a Creator of life on equal footing with the non-existing evidence for imaginary silicon or ammonia based lifeforms, or other so-called "hypothetical [imaginary] types of biochemistry" (for example by referring to both as "hypothetical" along with "the Drake equation" putting them all on equal footing when that only counts for the latter ideas starting with imaginary silicon or ammonia based lifeforms).

Ever heard about arguing from what we know as opposed to arguing from ignorance? How about arguing from fantasy?

See my quotation of Newton in my previous comment as to how I go about my search for truth.

Btw, your faith is blind and you are being misled that the things you are talking about have anything to do with science (from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge", which essentially means a familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities, i.e. things that are factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error).

The Drake equation is bogus and useless as well. Too many factors for life not even considered in it, and too many factors that are considered are just guesses based on wishful thinking and an attempt to make it all sound more intriguing, convincing and distracting from the real issues of this idea of life in outer space*; such as the number of so-called "habitable planets". Where not all factors for real "habitability" are even considered, and the problem of 'the spontaneous generation of life by chance'-myth completely ignored; just assumed to have happened if the right conditions where there. But there are no right conditions for this myth, because it's already been sufficiently proven to be "impossible" as also explained earlier. The term "hypothetical" gives a wrong impression regarding their usefulness in the sciences. Well, to those who don't take Newton's advice and warnings, quoted in my previous comment, seriously; those who have not seen the threat of neurotic speculation by those making a career out of tickling people's ears, the ears of those in their target markets, with intriguing myths that please the audience. Often referred to as hypotheses and sold under the marketingbanner: "Science".

*: see the James Tour video to get an idea what I'm referring to.

From the OPs arguments it does seem he meant a "supernatural being" as everyone is calling it. But being outside this universe or maybe not confined to experiencing or observing just this universe would be better? Heck, the simulation theory I believe took the majority place recently with 51% or more of surveyed scientists saying most likely this is a simulated universe. Many say an "ancestor simulator" which has real life functions for those who made it. But wouldn't those who made this universe then also qualify as they would have to exist at least a dimension or two above us and that wouldn't make anything supernatural about them.

I myself am religious and actually, the simulation theory even fits in with my interpretation of the Bible quite well. But Al tat aside, I also believe, humbly and just a guess from limited if much evidence, that there is life all over planet Earth even that we are unaware of.

No I ain't talking about life in faces or oceans we have yet to cross paths with. I mean as we can only observe through five senses, our most powerful sense, sight, being able to see light on only about what, I think it is 5 or 6 percent of light and colors that exist...then life, so foreign from what we know or could even imagine, could be all around us...special photography has shown something there. And ohz well I do have my one major paranormal experience which pretty much confirms it for me. It may feed on happiness, fear, temperature, the sound of the long ō vowel for all I know or on something we can't even observe but something that reproduces, feeds, experiences entropy, and meets the other requirements of life I am almost positive is right in front of our faces all the time, we just haven't a clue it's there and no way yet to see it.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Ever heard about arguing from what we know as opposed to arguing from ignorance?

Again, another interesting reply, and I can't doubt your passion here but what I've quoted above is key.

What we know is that we exist in a physical plane, and are 'intelligent'. That means that it is possible for intelligent species to develop.

When something is possible, it means here is a high probability of replication, because it can happen.

So the chances of there being other intelligent life out there is probable and that is exactly what the Drake Equation feeds off.

The divine being spoken of in the bible does not exist in a physical plane, and its manifestation relies only on faith and continued belief. Without manifestation in physical form, is it probable? The answer it would seem is no.

But if - as I'm sure you will - you counter with the idea that it is probable without manifestation, I would ask why you cannot accept the similar thought process that intelligent life elsewhere is probable without (current) manifestation from our fledgling observations of the universe.

And - I would also add - the same argument would apply to alternative bio-chemistry elsewhere in the universe.

If you claim faith in something without proof (and I'm sorry, but the bible is not proof because it was written by humans - if you choose to look at it as proof then we should all be revering the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy and other good books), how can you then turn round and say that you don't have faith in another thing that is also without proof?

a reply to: neformore

Star for the excellent, lucid post.

My only quibble would be with the proposition that intelligent life is a "probable" outcome.

Probable would, by definition, infer a high liklyhood, which I doubt.

The sheer size, and number of random chances in the universe make it probable that it occurred more than once, but because happened once, doesn't make it probable, in and of itself. Only universal scale deems that it is likely.

I'm sure that's what you meant, as that is really the premise if Drake's equation.

Between brackets is mine.

originally posted by: neformore

What we know is that we exist in a physical plane, and are 'intelligent'. That means that it is possible for intelligent species to develop [by chance, the spontaneous generation of life by chance, which is not proven to be possible by our mere existence].

When something is possible, it means there is a high probability of replication, because it can happen.

You are using circular reasoning. I've completed your argument to make it a little more obvious (between brackets). You are claiming that because we are here that automatically means that intelligent species developed by chance because that's what you want to believe happened (you're possibly not spelling out the "by chance" part because you have been conditioned not to consider or reason on that part of the storyline, but it is definitely part of the storyline that the verb "develop" implies in the context of the commentary you are responding to; as emphasized in my initial comment once the topic of evolution comes up. So not spelling it out doesn't really remove it from the discussion and me completing your argument like that isn't changing what your thinking and reasoning is based on when you bring up just "develop" without specifying that it is the idea of "develop by chance" that you are responding to and referring to). Just because we are here is not evidence for your belief that it happened by chance. You refuse to consider that the cause was Creation. A cause that does fit the evidence of the biomolecular machinery that makes up life (the phenomenon for which a causal factor is sought, compare Newton's "Rule I").

Basically you answer the question 'How did we get here?' with 'by chance' (without spelling it out). Then the question 'How can we tell that that's the way it happened, what's the evidence for that cause?' is answered with: 'because we are here'. That's circular. You're assuming that it was by chance, and then you argue that you can make that assumption because we are here, like it's the only possible cause for the origin of our existence. But in reality, it has actually already been proven that it's not "possible" for this to have happened by chance (spontaneously), but actually "impossible" (as explained in my first comment in more detail). You're trying to take the whole 'odds' discussion (plausibility of the storyline of the spontaneous generation of life by chance) out of the discussion by claiming it happened that way anyway, in spite of the odds/plausibility/chance of the storyline to be true. Taking us back to why "by chance" is no longer spelt out in what you're saying about the subject, to facilitate that. If the evolutionary argument is that it happened by chance, then the odds of this happening by chance do matter. As they are discussed when I mentioned:

Scientists Feinberg and Shapiro go still further. In their book Life Beyond Earth, they put the odds against the material in an organic soup ever taking the first rudimentary steps toward life at one in 10^1,000,000.

Do you find these cumbersome figures hard to grasp? The word “impossible” is easier to remember, and it is just as accurate. The rest of evolutionary theory is equally fraught with trouble.

Still, SETI astronomers blithely assume that life must have originated by chance all over the universe.

As you are doing. Just ignore the actual plausibility of this storyline altogether. Because "impossible" is not what you want to hear, it's not tickling your ears. 2 Timothy 4:3,4:

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

Too many ways of trying to explain the same thing? I don't know, it seems to fly by people no matter how I try to explain it. It seems obvious circular reasoning to me though. Anyone willing to be reasonable about it should be able to notice it regardless of how I try to explain it to them, but alas, that's usually not the case (and if it were, then there is the question of whether or not someone will admit to it, since they do not want to 'put up with' it).

originally posted by: whereislogic
Between brackets is mine.

originally posted by: neformore

What we know is that we exist in a physical plane, and are 'intelligent'. That means that it is possible for intelligent species to develop [by chance, the spontaneous generation of life by chance, which is not proven to be possible by our mere existence].

When something is possible, it means there is a high probability of replication, because it can happen.

Too many ways of trying to explain the same thing? I don't know, it seems to fly by people no matter how I try to explain it.

Your whole post is speculation, based on zero empirical evedence, but I will, specifically, address this one point.

Has it ever occured to you that the reason ppl don't accept your various explanations, is that you are using flawed logic?

originally posted by: neformore
What we know is that we exist in a physical plane, and are 'intelligent'. That means that it is possible for intelligent species to develop.

When something is possible, it means here is a high probability of replication, because it can happen.

All we know is we are here. Us being here has no bearing on whether other intelligent species can develop until we understand how we got to be here. So we do not know it is possible. Even if it is, you are making a jump to high probability.

What you said in the end is dead on though, whether you think there is or is not life elsewhere, it really is just faith until evidence comes along. Personally I hope there is, and I am sad I won't life long enough to find out.

a reply to: neformore

Real science would not have led you down a path to believing creation
is ridiculous and impossible. Not when even a prick like myself can see
plainly that your posit is far and away more preposterous. But I also think
your smart enough to see that. You just choose to deny it. But you are wrong.

You have been lied to and if you admit it your world maybe even your mind
will crumble. That's the only reason I can see for your bias and hateful
unscientific attitude towards the whole topic. And arrogance in the field of
science parades nothing but a lack of intelligence. While it most likely parrots
your mentors professors people you respect all who lied to you or joined you
in believing a lie.

a reply to: Mach2

is that you are using flawed logic?

No that was Drake and you're reaching.

a reply to: whereislogic

It seems you are confusing the Drake equation with an evolution vs creation debate. The likelihood of other life exhibiting our intelligence or greater intelligence is a separate subject from "how did life happen". Maybe this is the fallacy, the idea that proof of creation is proof of intelligent life on other worlds, and vice versa.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

It seems you are confusing the Drake equation with an evolution vs creation debate. The likelihood of other life exhibiting our intelligence or greater intelligence is a separate subject from "how did life happen". Maybe this is the fallacy, the idea that proof of creation is proof of intelligent life on other worlds, and vice versa.

It's actually not. How did life happen is literally part of the drake equation.

What number of planets develop life?
What number develop life and go on to develop intelligent life?

If you do not know how life happens in the first place how can you answer that?

originally posted by: whereislogic
You refuse to consider that the cause was Creation.

Sooo many words when the above would have done

Actually, I don't refuse to consider that. We, as a race are currently in the throes of becoming creators ourselves in terms of artificial intelligence and synthetic biology.

And - who knows - there may be a god, and it may be to us what we will eventually be to our creations, after all, we will have given them life.

However we are here, now, and tangible. We definitely exist and that means the chances of intelligent life existing in the universe is >0, and that means statistically that it is repeatable, even if it is rare.

The god you refer to, however, is not tangible. He/she/it relies on stories in a book written by people.

Comparing tangible evidence you can actually see to faith in an invisible intangible entity is like comparing apples to coal.

a reply to: Mach2

Thank you, and yes, that is what I meant

As I said earlier on, there could be one intelligent civilisation per galaxy (or one per 10, or 100, or 1000 etc) and the universe would still be teeming with life, because of the scale.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

It seems you are confusing the Drake equation with an evolution vs creation debate. The likelihood of other life exhibiting our intelligence or greater intelligence is a separate subject from "how did life happen". Maybe this is the fallacy, the idea that proof of creation is proof of intelligent life on other worlds, and vice versa.

It's actually not. How did life happen is literally part of the drake equation.

What number of planets develop life?
What number develop life and go on to develop intelligent life?

If you do not know how life happens in the first place how can you answer that?

At first read, i was scratching my head as to why an intelligent poster, such as yourself, would make that statement.

Then I thought about the context, and will agree, to the extent that the equation makes the assumption that life is a "spontaneous" occurance.

I always assumed that was a given in the postulate, but from a creationiat perspective, it is not.

a reply to: Mach2

You always have to be able to see things from the other side.

Maybe someday science will be able to say listen this is how life occurs, we can reproduce it in the lab. We can now attach probabilities to it. That day has not happened yet though.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

It seems you are confusing the Drake equation with an evolution vs creation debate. The likelihood of other life exhibiting our intelligence or greater intelligence is a separate subject from "how did life happen". Maybe this is the fallacy, the idea that proof of creation is proof of intelligent life on other worlds, and vice versa.

It's actually not. How did life happen is literally part of the drake equation.

What number of planets develop life?
What number develop life and go on to develop intelligent life?

If you do not know how life happens in the first place how can you answer that?

frankly, you cant. that is why articles say "planet that shows signs of supporting life" instead of "new earth discovered", and why we are depending on an equation instead of blood/fossil samples to figure out how alone we actually are.

a reply to: neformore

Aren't you just using a fairy story

Fairy story? Not at all. Fairy tales begin with the words
" Once upon a time" The Bible begins with the words

IN THE BEGINNING

And then proceeds in truth from cover to cover giving us no reason
to doubt the first three words are also true. An intelligent person
would at least know the difference. This is scripture, ancient literature
passed down by scribes. Scribes who you show no appreciation for the
work they had to accomplish for you to even hold a Bible in your hand.
Golden

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's an equation without a solution.

Solve for X

A x 3B + 4C - 9D x 2E = X

Where A = 3

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

we can reproduce it in the lab.

Even if this were possible it wouldn't end there. It would
then have to be shown how it is even possible outside a lab.
In a hostile environment. Then also did this spontaneity occur
only once on planet earth? One time is all it took to get all this?

If such a thing can happen over and over again thru out the
cosmos why did it stop here? Does the process just stop when
mission accomplished? Shouldn't we find examples of this
spontaneity somewhere repeating itself even now? How did
spontaneity become so selective?

If it's done in a lab I would see that as evidence for creation.
Nothing spontaneous going on there.