Why we're the only intelligent life in our galaxy

[NANOTEC]

Chalnoth can never prove that life doesn't exist. It's impossible to prove a negative. He could personally search every planet on this side of the galaxy, and you could turn around and handwave again, saying "there might be life over the other side of the galaxy. Or in another galaxy. Or in an alternate universe". Until Chalnoth searches every planet existing in the universe (ie do the impossible) he can't claim life doesn't exist.

You on the other hand, have the onus to prove that other life is out there. Where is your proof? Where is the evidence? Your handwaving and dodgy statistics don't prove anything, as we've already acertained.

I'm really surprised that you have entered this discussion without understanding the basic tenant that no one can prove a negative. It's exactly this same line of argument that people use to try and "logically" explain supernatural beings with the "might be true" argument and no proof.

It's obvious you don't get it at all. GUILITY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT OR INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILITY??? Do you understand this concept????

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

It's obvious you don't get it at all. GUILITY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT OR INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILITY??? Do you understand this concept????

Is this just some irrelevent diversion you are attempting? You keep using the word "proof" which implies "evidence". Where is your evidence? The onus is on you to prove that there is intelligent life out there, not on Chalnoth to prove a negative ie. that there is no life out there anywhere in the universe.

 

[NANOTEC]

Is this just some irrelevent diversion you are attempting? You keep using the word "proof" which implies "evidence". Where is your evidence?

Here I will hold your hand and walk you through the analogy.

Argument A: It doesn't exist until it is proven to exist.

Argument B: It exist until it is proven to not exist.

Undersstand now??? If you cannot grasp this concept then I'm sorry and I will not waste anymore time with you.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I'm sorry but you're hopeless. Here I will hold your hand and walk you through the analogy.

Argument A: It doesn't exist until it is proven to exist.

Argument B: It exist until it is proven to not exist.

Undersstand now???

Argument B is nonsensical. Argument B is just an article of faith, like arguing for God or the Giant Spaghetti Monster. I could say that faries live in your underwear when you are not there to see them. Now try and prove that's not the case.

That's what you don't understand and why you are not equipped to have this discussion. You need to read a primer on basic philosophy and the scientific method.

Edit: made some links to help get you started.

 

[NANOTEC]

Argument B is nonsensical. Argument B is just an article of faith, like arguing for God or the Giant Spaghetti Monster. I could say that faries live in your underwear when you are not there to see them. Now try and prove that's not the case.

That's what you don't understand and why you are not equipped to have this discussion. You need to read a primer on basic philosophy and the scientific method.

Edit: made some links to help get you started.

Whatever you say captain.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Whatever you say.

Now come on, don't be like that. I'm trying to help you here. You've got some holes in your basic education, but you can do a bit of reading up and fix that. Lots of people have trouble understanding these concepts. There's nothing wrong with educating yourself a bit more in a place where you are lacking. I try and do it all the time.

 

[NANOTEC]

Now come on, don't be like that. I'm trying to help you here. You've got some holes in your basic education, but you can do a bit of reading up and fix that. Lots of people have trouble understanding these concepts. There's nothing wrong with educating yourself a bit more in a place where you are lacking. I try and do it all the time.

It's fairly obvious you do not understand the concept from the simple fact you cherry pick which scenarios "lack of evidence" applies and which it doesn't. If you use "lack of evidence" to show that someting doesn't exist, I can use the same "lack of evidence" to show something does. One is not more correct than the other. Like I said innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent. Black until proven white or white until proven black.

 

[KimB]

I'm sorry, Nanotec, but you're not understanding the logic involved at all. If you have sufficient statistical power, you can indeed state with excellent confidence that something doesn't exist due to lack of evidence. The primary problem with this situation is that it's hard to get a good handle on the statistics involved.

If we did have a good handle on the statistics, however, we could say quite a lot about the nonexistance of intelligent life just from observations that show zero intelligent life. For an example of how this can be done, I'll take an example from physics (as usual): proton decay.

Many grand unified theories predict that protons should decay with some nonzero probability. However, we have never seen a proton decay, despite quite a lot of experimentation to look for it. From this lack of detection, we've been able to calculate that the lifetime of the proton must be at least ~10^35 years.

It is conceivable that, in a similar fashion, we will some day be able to place limits upon how common intelligent life can be (it would be quoted in terms of something like less than 1 intelligent society per Mpc^3, or somesuch), without ever detecting one other intelligent species.

 

[NANOTEC]

t is conceivable that, in a similar fashion, we will some day be able to place limits upon how common intelligent life can be (it would be quoted in terms of something like less than 1 intelligent society per Mpc^3, or somesuch), without ever detecting one other intelligent species.

Nobody is questioning that "Someday we'll be able to do this and this.". That's irrelevent to your original argument. What you're doing is placing a limit on it right NOW with a few iffy observations. Sorry try again in 100 years.

 

[Ty]

IThe onus is on you to prove that there is intelligent life out there, not on Chalnoth to prove a negative ie. that there is no life out there anywhere in the universe.

Yes, I said the very same thing earlier. Proving a negative is not kosher.

Here I will hold your hand and walk you through the analogy.

Argument A: It doesn't exist until it is proven to exist.

Ok, this is correct so far!

Argument B: It exist until it is proven to not exist.

Uh, this is precisely what Democoder was referring to when he said that you seem to lack a grasp of basic scientific method (philosophy).

The two arguments are NOT equal in any substantitive matter.

If you use "lack of evidence" to show that someting doesn't exist, I can use the same "lack of evidence" to show something does.

My bold above.

The above is another logical fallacy you're commiting here (and it's not even the same one you committed earlier).

The statement in bold translates to, "using a negative to prove a positive" which is a logical no-no.

 

[NANOTEC]

Yes, I said the very same thing earlier. Proving a negative is not kosher.

Ok, this is correct so far!

Uh, this is precisely what Democoder was referring to when he said that you seem to lack a grasp of basic scientific method (philosophy).

The two arguments are NOT equal in any substantitive matter.

My bold above.

The above is another logical fallacy you're commiting here (and it's not even the same one you committed earlier).

The statement in bold translates to, "using a negative to prove a positive" which is a logical no-no.

After all of that and you STILL don't get it. Neither side is trying to PROVE anything here understand? It can't be done at this point in time.

Uh, this is precisely what Democoder was referring to when he said that you seem to lack a grasp of basic scientific method (philosophy).

LOL and people were saying philosophy equals religion. Do you even know what the difference is? You know the scientific method has limitations too......right? Riiiiiight?

 

[nutball]

Meh, I think this thread is done -- it's turning into religion versus science.

If you use "lack of evidence" to show that someting doesn't exist, I can use the same "lack of evidence" to show something does.

Do you understand the difference between evidence of absence and absence of evidence?

 

[NANOTEC]

Do you understand the difference between evidence of absence and absence of evidence?

Do you understand the concept of time?

 

[DemoCoder]

I gave up on thread this already. Atleast I feel with people like DiGuru, you can get through to them if you debate enough. NANOTEC seems both hard headed and ignorant.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

LOL and people were saying philosophy equals religion. Do you even know what the difference is? You know the scientific method has limitations too......right? Riiiiiight?

See, there you go dismissing philosophy when it's obvious from your reply that you don't even know what it is. This is why I'm suggesting that you need to do some reading, because then you would understand why philosophy is useful when discussing things like logic, proof, evidence and the belief in things we don't know about for sure.

Yes, the scientific method has limitiation. It's those limitations, and the fact that it includes them in how it works that makes the scientific method logical, rather than an act of faith or people just handwaving around issues that can't actually be proven. The basis of the scientific method it that in the end, it requires a level of proof, not just guesses without proof.

Really, you're just showing your lack of basic knowledge everytime you strongly assert things like "proving a negative" when the brightest thinkers in the world have known for a very long time that it's meaningless, dead-end thinking. You might as well claim some stars are made of green cheese and ask me to disprove it.

I think I'm done here Nanotec. I've tried to explain it to you, but you're not really equipped to have this discussion. You have a basic lack of knowledge that means you can't converse at the level this discussion requires, and seem to be determined not to learn it.