Hi All,
Without empirical evidence to prove the case in either direction, we can really only make a best guess here. The passage of time
might provide some evidence or even a definitive answer ... equally, it might not.
I wasn't aware of Ward's work or the other proponents for the stance he takes. For what it's worth, based on the wiki article, I think his position is well reasoned out. I find it
very persuasive if not compelling.
I'll have to try and hunt-down that book -- looks very interesting. Many have legitimately argued that a calculation that supports your (perhaps pre-determined??) position is pretty easy to contrive one way or the other. The number of factors we are prepared to include (or discard) in the probability calculation and their apparent rarity (or otherwise) of their being co-incident at the one place at the one time will dramatically affect the final answer (guesstimate) you get, as will how in turn you estimate the rarity of each of those individual factors you include.
There have in the past been some lively discussions on this forum on closely related topics here:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...+common&page=3
and here:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=34210
where there are a number of interesting, witty and highly readable contributions from a range of the people on this forum.
Personally, I find it fascinating that there is such an incredibly broad spectrum of opinion. Could that super-wide range merely be a reflection of the paucity of empirical evidence one way or the other???
I voted rare or singular.
Best,
Les D