Flamsteed Debate

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. I agree there's no evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence and that therefore it is at this stage a matter of belief. But one can make arguments based on statistical assumptions and come up with some sort of probability calculation, albeit with galaxy-wide error margins.

One can then use those assumptions in order to direct scientific efforts in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, such as searching for particular types of planets, in particular parts of the galaxy, in the right area in their stellar system, with the right sort of atmosphere, etc, etc, etc. This isn't exactly the basis on which most religions work, which is the point I would quibble with. I'm sure there are a million things that are now scientific fact today that started off as a scientist's belief. (Equally, of course, there are a million things that are scientific nonsense today that started off as a scientist's belief.)

Not that this is relevant, but it seems like a good opportunity to remind folks that the first pulsar was nicknamed LGM-1 😉

I took a few photos on the night

Marek's going to hate you 😉

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper

Lord Copper? Surely not 😉

I think you can "prove" most things using statistics!

Francisco made some very valid points in his question:

- our solar system is only 4.5 billion years old, but the Universe is billions of years older. If there are other civilisations, they would be billions of years more advanced than us... so advanced that we must surely have seen evidence? The Fermi paradox rules here, I think.
- there is no evidence in the geological record on Earth
- absence of evidence is evidence of absence

I'm not saying that there isn't intelligent extraterrestrial life... just that we have no evidence of its existence. Surely that pushes us into the realm of a belief system, rather than science?

we have no evidence of its existence. Surely that pushes us into the realm of a belief system, rather than science?

The fact that the police have no evidence that a man killed his wife does not mean he didn't do it - just that the police have no evidence - yet.
Statistical probability isn't proof, or arguably even evidence, but it does feed and direct the scientific process until the belief/theory collapses under the weight of contrary evidence, just as the suspicions of Mr Whicher directed police detective investigations.
Belief systems - ie, religions - on the other hand do not delve into statistics, probability, evidence or proof. They remain firmly and contentedly rooted in belief.

Belief systems – ie, religions – on the other hand do not delve into statistics, probability, evidence or proof. They remain firmly and contentedly rooted in belief.

Big statement. And I'm not sure it's true. There have been plenty of critical arguments about the existence of a "god", which do refer to apparent "evidence". From Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas (who made five "proofs" of the existence of God in his Summa Theologicae). The arguments may be flawed (and I think they are), but that's not the point... there are plenty of scientific arguments that have been just as flawed (phlogiston theory as one example).

Sure, science does use statistics... but I'm not sure that your comparison to police evidence holds water. Some people are found guilty based on the balance of probabilities; others if the evidence is beyond "reasonable doubt". I'm not sure what "reasonable doubt" is, but I doubt that it's 99.99994% certain (5-sigma probability), the "benchmark" for confirming a discovery according to CERN.

My problem with the belief that there must be intelligent extraterrestrial life is that there is no way of falsifying the theory... at least not until we've explored every corner of the known universe! Thus it's not possible to "win" such an argument. I feel the same way when dealing with religious belief... hence the correlation.

Criminal cases are determined on "beyond reasonable doubt". Civil cases ("My neighbour damaged my fence") are on the balance of probability. (Now I think about it, only one of those has a statistical basis.)

Admittedly I'm not as up on my Thomas Aquinas as I used to be (exits stage left, whistling nonchalantly and trying to look as though he hasn't just fibbed), but the fundamental tenet of religions is not to prove that they are right in a scientific sense but to encourage people to believe. I discount arguments such as "Love is proof of the existence of God" or "Humans are fundamentally good QED God exists" or "It's in the Bible therefore evolution isn't true and God is".

Fifty years ago there was not the slightest evidence that there were even such things as extraterrestrial planets. But we went looking for them and found them.

Having said that, while I believe that the probability of extraterrestrial intelligence is low, I believe it is greater than zero. Similarily for the probability of us finding evidence or even proof of extraterrestrial intelligence. And I don't believe we'll find anything worthy of a scientific journal in our lifetime. That may even mean that it simply isn't worth looking for it today, based on our current technology.

Democritus, around 400BC, believed that all matter consisted of tiny particles called atoms - though I'm not sure he had a shred of scientific evidence and it would be a couple of millennia before proper evidence could be presented. He had to settle for belief rather than proof - but the point is, it was a belief to which the scientific process could be applied.

Hi Mike,

Your photos are fantastic! I have a few more but I have only had time to process those two (below). I'll send some more along later 🙂

I thought it was a fantastic debate, very playful. And I agree with Mike that it was well summed up by Eddie's question!

IMG_2046.jpg by Sumitra Sri Bhashyam, on Flickr

IMG_2051.jpg by Sumitra Sri Bhashyam, on Flickr

Yes Mike an excellent evening of entertainment with a scientific  content.  Like you I agree with Eddie. I am speaking as a Sci fi fan who grew up hoping for E.T. to land.  I think the argument that intelligent life exist somewhere is based more on assumption than direct evidence. I am more than happy to change my position when evidence is found, if it is!

Whether life exists generally elsewhere will depend on if the conditions exist, more likely to be single cell life forms.  That is the key question how does life get started then how difficult is it to evolve to complex, intelligent life forms such as humans.

What would have happened if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out?

What would have happened if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out?

Ha! 🙂

Andy Sawyer stated "The fact that the police have no evidence that a man killed his wife does not mean he didn’t do it – just that the police have no evidence – yet." Andy it does not mean that he did either. How often have people been accused without evidence to only to be found to be innocent later?  The investigation of a murder is based on a process, detectives work on the basis of looking at those closest first then ruling them out before looking at a wider net. If the evidence is there then a conviction occurs.

You say that scientific theory has often started out as a belief which is later proved via evidence. I would argue that these are not beliefs, which are usually based on blind faith, but hypotheses based on observation, research and previous evidence.  The ideas still have to be put to the test of the scientific method and proven.

I would argue that we keep looking, continue to gather evidence either way, approach the issue from a scientific method.  there is no evidence for intelligent life in the universe as of yet, if evidence emerges then I will accept it.

I entirely agree with all that, Brian. My point simply is this: Whether the man killed his wife or not, it is - at the outset - a belief but one that can be subjected to the rigours of scientific process. Believing that he did it is NOT a religious-like matter: it can be tested. Evidence may not materialise one way or the other - Lord Lucan, anyone? But it doesn't just sit in policemen's heads as a belief and then wind up as a conviction in a court of law.

BTW, anyone who has been prosecuted and found guilty 'without evidence' has not been put through an evidence-based criminal justice system. Where evidence has been presented, yes, I agree that people have been wrongfully convicted when subsequent evidence materialises.

Mistakes are made, whether in criminal prosecutions or in science. Mistakes are not made in religion because truth is a question of belief, not testing.

Consider the search for gravity waves. Some people believe they exist. Some people use scientific processes to find them. Some people claimed they found them. And those same people now admit that their evidence was dusty and wrong.

Whether or not their belief in the existence of gravity waves is well-founded or not remains to be seen - but belief in the existence of gravity waves is not a religious-like belief - it can be (and demands to be) put through a scientific process.

All I am saying is - if it's something that can be put through a scientific process - whether or not we have the technology this year or this millennium - then it's not like a religion, which is truly a belief-based system, not evidence-based!

Just to add, I had no hesitation in putting my hand up at the beginning and end of the debate on the question of whether there is extraterrestrial intelligence. I did hesitate on the question of whether we should carry on looking for it, because I believe that the probability of us finding it is extremely low and arguably not worth the cost. But I decided that it was for others to decide whether particular search projects are worth the time and money, not me, so I again raised my hand on the basis that I thought it was wrong for me to say we shouldn't try.

Science: "I believe in extraterrestrial intelligence. However, I may be wrong and it may not exist."
Religion: "I believe in extraterrestrial intelligence. It exists."