[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by firstlight

You are exactly right Carl, but I think you miss the point. There is no evidence that other intelligences do not exist, the opposite holds as well there is no evidence that they do or have. In fact the evidence from an experiment that has run for 3.5+ billion years, intelligence appears to have only arisen once, and only in the past 2 million years.

No, Tony, I wasn't missing the point. I am fully aware of what the point was. I just hadn't added to what I wrote, which I could've easily done but I would've busted this forum's word limit very quickly. Taking you up on the point of the evolution of intelligence....what evidence???. Are you so certain that intelligence appears to have only risen once in 3.5Ga???. What is intelligence in the first place??. Scientists have argued this point till the cows come home for decades and have gotten nowhere. And, by what standards is it going to be measured by???. You mentioned dinosaurs in your first post (as did Prof Lineweaver in his talk). How much do you really know about them??. Some genera of dinosaurs, especially the Dromaeosaurs and Troodontids were exceptionally intelligent animals. Troodontids had even evolved semi-oppossable "thumbs" as the species could grasp and manipulate objects. They also had rather advanced brains, excellent eyesight and smell, and their neocortex was a lot more advanced than even the mammals of the time. However, we'll never know just how much further they might've gone because they had their water cut off by a large lump of fast moving rock. Then you talked about dolphins and their cousins. You're talking about a creature whose neocortex is even more complicated than ours, and larger. Their brain is also very closely matched in size to body weight as compared to ours. In reality, we don't know how intelligent they really are. Just because they can't manipulate objects or produce tools doesn't mean they're not intelligent. They have their own complicated language (which we can't even figure out how to decipher), their social structures are as involved as ours and their lifespans are comparable. All this in a creature that has been this way a long lot longer than we have.

To say that intelligence has only arisen once on this planet in 3.5Ga is nothing more than anthropocentric twaddle, based on both misinterpreted, misunderstood and misrepresented science.

Originally Posted by firstlight

His opinions are only conjecture based on evidence that can be tested. Remember that a theory ALWAYS remains a theory. It is NEVER treated as fact by any scientist. the theory is used to make predictions of the universe and if the observations do not fit the predictions, or evidence that he theory is not correct, it is either scrapped or modified. The only people who say that scientists state facts are the people who have a view of the world that cannot be explained by any rational theory and cannot be backed by predictions. Then the scientists are "stifling free thought"? Because the crackpots cannot prove there theory with predictions.

Tony, there's no need to remind me of how science and scientists operate. I am one

What evidence does he have...actually very little. For a start, scientist have no evidence at all about the presence of extraterrestrial life. None that they would care to actually look at, in fact. And, what little they can speculate on is all based on one example of life that they do know about, the Earth. Anything they care to talk about is pure speculation and based on a statistically insignificant sample. The only thing they can take away from knowing about the Earth is only applicable to here and possibly the Solar System. Extrapolating it to other planetary systems is speculation (basically a hypothesis) until it can be tested on those systems. I wouldn't even call it a theory until it had been thoroughly tested on a good sized sample of systems.

A theory is never treated as a fact by scientists....that is a somewhat misleading statement. Take a look at Relativity, for instance. How many scientists would take as sacrosanct the speed of light barrier. Nearly all of them....well at least that's the impression you get from what many of them express as fact in the general public. However, the situation is a lot more complicated than that. For a start, the barrier only applies to a material object in motion through space. It says nothing about an object moving along with space, nor outside of normal space and time. Then you have the factor of time....here we are pontificating about time and yet we haven't a clue about what it is in the first place!!!!. All we know is that we experience it and that it appears to be linear and one way. Yet even in Relativity, there is no preferred direction to the passage of time and nothing preventing you from traveling in either direction. Except the limitations of our own technology and understanding.

So far as crackpots are concerned and the "stifling of free thought", most of those that quote scientists as stating fact, or believe that they do, are the general public. Which means they must, by definition, all be crackpots. A lot of scientists also make statements of "fact" as well, when they know full well that what they're saying isn't. It's done in order to avoid having to explain to a general public the details of the theories involved and to make it easier on themselves. Most people would lose it the moment a scientist opened their mouth to speak if they went into the details of their subjects. Why do you think most treat scientists as geeks and too smart for their on good. Especially by the media. As for free thought...don't for one minute think that the stifling of ideas and new paradigms isn't occurring within the scientific community. Either in the past or now. There's an old saying..."new ideas in science are only ever accepted once the previous generation dies off", meaning the old guard keep a tight reign on what's acceptable and what's not so far as the scientific paradigm is concerned. It's usually a generational change that sees new ideas become accepted as part of the changed paradigm. Like anyone else, scientists are very precious when it comes to their own pet ideas and explanations. Even those that aren't supported by the evidence, they cling onto them for dear life. Just for one example....Halton Arp and his non cosmological redshift mechanism for quasars and galaxies. Another...Fred Hoyle and the Steady State Theory. Scientists should never be seen, or treated as being infallible or all knowing. Yet, they have been on many occasions. Or, at least they've been promoted in that air on many occasions. Whether wittingly or not, by both themselves and the general public.

Some crackpots can be safely ignored, but in some instance they can come up with valid points of contention or ideas, despite the nature of the rest of their "fields". Most are dreamers....if their dreams aren't hurting anyone, then why not let them dream on. The word crackpot is a horribly abused one and quite often appended to people who do not deserve to called as such. It's usually used to put people down where those people are threatening the accepted paradigms of the day. Quite a few have turned out to be heroes of science and technology...the Montgolfier Brothers, Tesla, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Einstein, to name a few. All dreamers...all willing to think outside the prevailing little box of ideas and to take a risk that what they were doing was right. Despite any ridicule, misunderstanding or indifference on the part of everyone else.

Originally Posted by firstlight

I came away from Charlie's talk with the distinct impression that like any scientist, if the predictions are not met, evidence is produced to the contrary, his views will change. To do otherwise is contrary to science.

I should hope so.