Because one has nought to do with the other?

Where are they?

As a graduate student conducting science (my field is plant pathology) I have to respond to Orrin Judd that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

As a Mormon, I would say that of course there is intelligent life on other planets; they too are children of God. Whether we will ever contact them or not is a question I would not presume to answer.

Little noted in any of these discussions are the simplistic NASA articles of faith concerning life, i.e., given a somewhat earth-like planet, add water (even if frozen, as on Mars), and viola, life is likely to arise. Hence the astronomical search to find earth-like planets and to detect water wherever we send probes.

The null SETI results and Fermi's Paradox (http://www.space.com/searchforlife/shostak_paradox_011024.html) both seem to indicate the absence of intelligent life. The SETI searches were probably doomed to begin with, since the radio spectrum provides insufficient bandwidth for a truly advanced civilization. Fermi's Paradox is a reasonably strong argument against intelligent, technologically advanced life, at least in our galaxy.

The reason microbes matter is that it reveals the true crisis of faith involved here, the biological explanation of the origin of life. The enormous improbability of life, our inability to account for its origins, and its relatively sudden appearance early in earth's history represent huge problems. The discovery of any life elsewhere would be taken as empirical proof that the process is simple and common, though we don't yet understand it.

Finally, it seems premature to talk of an astrobiological institute before life is found somewhere else. In the absence of data, this is likely to degenerate into wild, uninformed speculation.

There's also the assumption that just because we discover life on Mars or Europa that it will be unique. There are also mechanisms by which life can originate on one planet and move to another. So before the crisis of faith can be felt, scientists are going to have to demonstrate conclusively that creation has happend more than once.

As for the Fermi paradox, one factor you never see in those equations those equations that purport to show that intellegent life must be ubiquitous is a lower bounds. People like Carl "Butt-Head Astronomer" Sagan loved to talk up upper bounds which shoed that there must be the "billions and billions" of civilizations out there. At the same time healways neglected to mention that if you change one or two of those numbers (some just slightly), you arrive at a number approaching zero. In otherwords, the same equation can be used to predict that we should not exist, or at best are improbably unique.

I prefer the notion that we are just the first, and it's our destiny to be the "Elder Race" who will guide all the youngsters who will appear during the next few ten billions of years.

Jason:

Absence is however proof of absence.

Religion has always shown its unerring ability to mutate in the face of every new paradigm of science. Theology is an improvizational art form. After their discovery, the existence of alien life forms will undoubtedly be shown to have been prophesied in the Bible.

Robert:

I admire your faith in their eventual discovery.

I give it 50-50 odds that we'll find extra-terrestrial microbes somewhere in our solar system in the next 200 years or so. Highly unlikely that we will ever discover intelligent life forms. I would guess that we are a 1 in a galaxy phenomenon.

Robert:

In that case, I admire you for implicitly acknowledging that we are the point of the Universe.

OJ:

Science is a method, not a result.

And the Fermi paradox isn't one really, but just points out several possible conclusions:

1. Interstellar travel is far harder, or slower, than assumed
2. Usefully inhabitable planets are rare
3. Humans are the most advanced life form in the galaxy
4. Our planet is not usefully inhabitable to the colonizing life form
5. ETs have been/are here, but we don't know it
6. Earth is the only planet with life

At the moment, those options are beyond rational inquiry, so anyone's guess is as good as anyone elses.

BTW, OJ, Robert suggesting we are the intelligent life for in the galaxy is a far cry from saying there aren't any others in the universe, a realm far beyond the Fermi paradox, no matter your guess.

Jeff:

Does that mean that if no one in the village can see whether there are pink elephants on the other side of the mountain, it is anyone's guess as to whether there are?

Jeff:

Where are they?

1. I don't see what difference some more lucky unChosen sob's would make.

2. I've long wanted to write an SF story in which First Contact was between a human ship and et's on a pilgrimage to Nazareth (or Mecca, for that matter).

OJ:

Everywhere. Nowhere. Somewhere a long way from here. Anyone who claims to know the answer is wrong.

But then doesn't it follow, Jeff, that anyone who claims to know that they're wrong, is wrong?

"And God saw that it was good"

Midrash says that this implies the creation and destruction of other worlds.

Life on other planets gives me no theological indigestion. We cannot constrain his g4race:

Exd 33:19 And He said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.

Jeff:

Surely you are being disingenuous. We all know it is logically impossible to prove a negative. You seem to be suggesting that, if science has no evidence of the existence of something, it's a toss of the coin as to whether it is there. C'mon, I know the world is so full of a number of things, etc., but surely not that many.

Of course life on other planets can't be disproven conclusively, any more than ship-eating monsters could be disproven by 15th century mariners. But if there is no evidence, isn't a "working doubt" the sensible--dare I say rational- position?

Peter:

Each of the alternatives I listed, plus a few more I didn't think of, are equally plausible. And not one of them possesses any more evidence than another.

Therefore, there is no rational decision to be make that is any more valid than drawing straws.

What you are really saying is that it is virtually impossible to prove an absolute.

Based on the options on offer, which would you choose, based on what evidence?

David:

The existence of a wrong choice, and the knowledge of which one it is, means there is some knowledge to point to the right one.

What the heck is the matter with "dunno?"

Jeff

I would choose to believe number six and consider the others poetic fantasy until the evidence appeared otherwise.

Peter:

It's actuially quite the opposite for Rationalism; that which they can conceive of rationally they insist must be possible. It's what made Communism, Nazism, etc. such disasters. Rationally you could conceive of them working, so they were going to be tried and failure did not disprove them, only make it so you had to try more forcefully.

Until 1929, nobody even knew there were other galaxies. Certainly all Orrin's wise men never imagined them.

Now, evidently, and despite his pretended irrationalism, he accepts that the galaxies are there. I have to assume he is succumbing to scientific argument, though he'll never admit it.

Well, it's a start.

What's in 'em? Can't say. Haven't looked yet.

To the contrary, I accept all science. I just think scientific knowledge to be a rather limited thing which fails to answer any of the important questions we ask. It's a usefull tool, like the horse.

And religion does?

I suppose. Guess it depends on which one you choose. Which is mostly dependent upon which one your parents chose, ad infinitum.

Yes. Judeo-Christianity tells us why we're here and how to behave while we're here. What else really matters?

So do all the others. Unfortunately, there is rather widespread disagreement on the fundamentals.

They're wrong

oj-

Where do you pick-up the Nobel again?