The Astronomer's Fallacy?

Question

We know there is on the order of 10^21 stars in our universe. Many people say "since there are so many stars, it's naive to say that Earth is the only 'special' one". For starters, it is true that we know very little on this matter. How can people assume that there MUST be life elsewhere when we don't know the parameters for having life in the first place. Given that there are so many stars, it's very viable to say that most of those 10^21 stars can't house life at all. We don't know what major influences have to come into play. Given that we know so little of either path, why do people base their beliefs when neither side--pro or anti--has any idea what pieces all have to amalgamate to create life, or for that matter, intelligent life?

Answer 1

It is true that we know very little. But what we do know looks promising.

We know that the chemicals that exist in our part of the universe are the same chemicals that exist throughout the universe. There is not some strange magical force that only puts oxygen et.al. here and nowhere else.

We know that our sun is an average sun and similar ones are in abundance throughout the universe.

We know which stars are similar to us enough that they could have planetary systems AND which of these would have Earthlike planets. The search is now underway to detect these solar systems.

Yes, as you say, we know little but that is because of the time that we happen to be living in. But in fact we do know the parameters under which life could develop. Those parameters are large. Scientists then make an educated guess based upon that information. That conclusion can only be that life exists elsewhere. In fact it should exist in multitudes. This is not, as you state, some sort of fallacy or wishful thinking on the part of astronomers. Astronomers are no different from any other branch of science. They observe and conduct experiments and draw conclusions based upon that data. There is no Grand Leader of astronomy telling anyone what to believe or not believe. What you call the astronomer's fallacy is the majority belief of individuals just like yourself. And you are feeling threatened because you are finding your view to be in the minority. Astronomer's could care less. Opposing beliefs do not threaten the world of astronomy. Astronomers welcome new and different ideas. But there comes a time when old ideas need to be replaced with new ideas based on new information. At that time, clinging to the old idea turns out to be self-destructive as it limits any further advancement in knowledge and education.

It is not, in fact, viable to suggest that 10^21 stars can't house life. To make such a statement requires proof as much as the statement that all of them house life. If you state that life does not and cannot exist outside of the Earth then upon what proof are you making your claim? Where is your evidence?

The truth is that there is really nothing special or magical about how Earth formed. The creation of terrestrial planets with atmosphere and water is not a one in a 70 sextillion chance.

Let go of your fears. The discovery of life out there will not destroy religion. Nor will it diminish your importance in the universe.

Answer 2

You don't really know that most of the stars cannot have life circling them somewhere. Almost all extrasolar planets discovered to date have been gas giants circling close to the star. Doesn't say what else might be there, too small or far removed from the star to detect.

Recent research has been turning up life on our planet where it was once thought none could survive. Possibilities of finding life on other bodies in our own solar system have moved from very unlikely to possible. Looking at the history of life on our own planet, the two big tricks seem to be the development of multi-cell organisms and the development of large brains as an adaptive tool for survival. May well be that most places harboring life never take the first step, much less the second.

Those who believe we are the only life in the universe generally have a fixed belief independent of new information. In contrast, a scientific opinion is always being adjusted in the light of new knowledge.

Answer 3

Well, depends on which side of the question you approach it from. If you approach it from the biblical side, whereas Earth was created as a special place in all the universe, you're more apt to believe that perhaps in the entire universe, Earth is the only place life exists. If that's not the case, why would God put his son and his desciples here of all places?

On the other hand, approaching it scientifically, you realize that stars and planets probably form in the same manner throughout the universe, and that given the differences in stars, their ages, their sizes, their location in galaxies, etc, that **some** probably are fairly close in characteristics to our sun. Of those, given that planets will likely be formed in many different shapes, sizes, and proximity to their sun, that some (a guestimated percentage), also likely fall somewhat close to what occured in our solar system, and, of those planets, given the myriad forms of environments that those planets might house, that **some** may actually approximate what we see on Earth, then the approach must be that the odds can't be totally zero when it comes to not only extraterrestrial life, but extraterrestrial intelligence as well.

So... which side are you on?

Answer 4

We are in the same boat. I believe you would be interested in "Fermi's Paradox" and in other discussions regarding the "Drake Equation". There are both in Wikiypedia and could probably be "Googled" elsewhere.
Neither am I an advocate ot "za"Big Kaflooie" (the Big Bang) which is nothing but a rationalization, an extrapolation built upon the supposition that light waves (the red shift) act like sound pressure waves (Doppler effect).
The people of SETI are practicing their frustrating quest because they are trying to answer the age-old questions; Who are we ? What are we ? Why are we ?
Unfortunately they seem to have turned their collective backs to those answers which have been made available in the historic testamonies of the Designer and Creator of all of the same universe known as the Lord God of the Bible who became Jesus Christ, the future Messiah.
So if there is some life of some kind out there, so what. That has nothing to do with us and our special relation with the real God of all knowledge of what is far more important to us.

Answer 5

sure, it incredibly is a fallacy.bypass some time past to the early civilizations in the Mediterranean societies. Sumerians, Egyptians (fairly), the "magi" from the East (who used astrology to locate Jesus), the classic Greeks have been great scientists, inventors, and philosophers and that all of them paid a minimum of lip provider to their gods. it incredibly is in hassle-free terms been in the final couple hundred years that scientists could desire to even admit to being deists and intensely few, even to on the instant, admit being atheist. The "great Bang replaced into first proposed as a hypothesis by ability of a Catholic priest/astronomer, the top of the Human Genome undertaking is an evangelical Christian, etc.. it incredibly is the literal-bible fundamentalists that oppose something in technological know-how that disagrees with Genesis or different "teachings". i'm agnostic. and that i've got faith that as long as scientists are incredibly purpose of their examine, their faith or loss of it incredibly is beside the point. advantages on your experience!

Answer 6

What you say is true. But with so many chances for live how can one not assume there is life out there. It doesn't have to be intelligent. It could be microbial.

Answer 7

The Biblical answer is not that there is no life elsewhere. Christ , before his ascension, said he had to go see other places.