NO Life IS Possible

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

However, it's also equally correct to say that the authors themselves should be careful not to be so sure of their own conclusions, based on their mathematics and their assumptions. Maths can be made to say and prove anything.

Originally Posted by marki

I would say the opposite is true here. It's people who do know what they are doing that make it correct, just check out any of the latest political fights, both sides always seem to be backed by irrefutable stats based on in depth studies by proffessional bodies. How can they both be right when they directly oppose each other? The old saying lies, dam lies and statistics still holds true. Mathematics like any piece of written work is always open to bias and manipulation.

The entire point of this paper, is to provide an analysis to highlight the sensitivity of the outcome to the initial assumptions. The conclusion is, necessarily, that choice of initial assumptions, (in this case the probability parameter of relatively short-span abiogenesis), has the dominant influence on the outcome.

Further, they restate the commonly held fact, (made so by abundant empirical evidence), that life began on this planet fairly soon after the Earth became habitable. This is then, is entirely consistent with a low probability of abiogenesis. Using this as a basis for another iteration of the Bayesian calculation, necessarily drives the conclusion of life being arbitrarily rare in the Universe.

I find the application of the cliches like "lies, dam lies and statistics", and inferences of "mathematics being manipulated for a particular outcome", as small-valued opinions, adding little weight to a meaningful scientific discussion.

Bayesian inference in statistics is specifically used to estimate if a hypothesis is true. It makes use of iterations when fresh evidence (raw data) appears, to repeatedly modify the initial hypothesis. This technique carries a lot of weight in scientific probability estimation circles, as it is clearly designed to expose the dependency of outcomes on initial assumptions, for all to see. (Ie: falsifiability incarnate).

The authors specifically make the point that a discovery of exo-life would alter the outcome of future iterations of the Bayesian Inference (due to the sensitivity to initial assumptions). Like it or not, this is exactly the butterfly effect in action.

I for one, choose to not dismiss outright, a value-laden analysis, purely because of prior opinionated bias, coming form some prior belief system.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by marki

I would say the opposite is true here. It's people who do know what they are doing that make it correct, just check out any of the latest political fights, both sides always seem to be backed by irrefutable stats based on in depth studies by proffessional bodies. How can they both be right when they directly oppose each other? The old saying lies, dam lies and statistics still holds true. Mathematics like any piece of written work is always open to bias and manipulation.

Mark

Garbage in=Garbage out isn't a mathematical formula.
The mathematical tools themselves are not open to bias and manipulation.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

That's true Steven....the mathematical formulae are what they are. It's the data entered into the equations which is the problem and that's where the bias and manipulation arises from.

That's why any statistical analysis of this subject is flawed right from the beginning. How can you know the probability of any particular outcome when you don't have any prior knowledge of any of the variables of the analysis. What little knowledge we do have is only based on one example and quite frankly that would be rejected in any objective statistical analysis...of any subject let alone this one. Bayesian analysis requires that the calculations are based on a prior distribution of the parameters that are being looked at, in order to arrive at the answers sort. That means if you use a different set of priors, you get a different set of answers. It's loaded straight from the get go. You could make any inference as to what the initial prior was going to be. It could just be based on a hunch and you would be able to plug it into the equations and get any answer you wanted. Science prides itself on its objectivity and yet it could be hardly said that Bayesian analysis is truly objective. That's why you see Frequency Inference statistics being used for the most part, because many scientists are uncomfortable with the subjectivity of Bayesian analysis. That, and you need a powerful computer to do complicated Bayesian because the calculations can become onerous.

In any case, this particular study is moot straight from the start simply because we really have no idea of what the initial conditions were to begin with and the calculations could be made to go either way, just based on your initial set of assumptions. As I have mentioned previously. Meaning it's inherently biased right at the beginning, whether intentional or not.

[xelasnave]

Craig that link was excellent.

When I fully understand it I will become a professional gambler.

I am not strong in math as you all know but in reading about it if there is one thing that becomes apparent it is that math is uncorruptable. I was fascinated by the extent of various proofs and the unbelievable work behind the seemingly most simple statement.
If two sides offer different numbers that is about politics and as Steven said the math tools are not open for manipulation etc. in any event I doubt if those working on the subject of Craig,s post were out to prove a view they had arrived at before doing their work.

Thanks Craig

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Craig that link was excellent.

When I fully understand it I will become a professional gambler.

I am not strong in math as you all know but in reading about it if there is one thing that becomes apparent it is that math is uncorruptable. I was fascinated by the extent of various proofs and the unbelievable work behind the seemingly most simple statement.
If two sides offer different numbers that is about politics and as Steven said the math tools are not open for manipulation etc. in any event I doubt if those working on the subject of Craig,s post were out to prove a view they had arrived at before doing their work.

Thanks Craig

alex

That is a fallacy you should very quickly forget. It's not the equations that are the problem, Alex, it's the data that is used to derive an answer which can be the problem. If the data is false/faulty to begin with, then you will get a false/faulty answer. If your assumptions are false/faulty to begin with, then likewise.

The politics comes from belief and the taking of positions....that comes after the fact w.r.t. the maths. The maths is only a tool used to bolster one's position or belief.

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Interesting thread. The title was "NO life IS possible", which is a perfectly valid statement that some scientists have now evaluated using some fancy math. There is really nothing more to it that that.
If anyone thinks that statement is false then I'd certainly like to see the proof of the opposite ie. that ET life does exist. Otherwise I can't see how anyone can disagree that it is a possibility that ET life does not exist. Just as well as it being a possibility that it does exist.

How we personally choose to weigh those possibilities doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread I'd say. Personally I tend to think there must be ET life out there, but that is pure speculation and irrelevant for the topic of the thread.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

If the data is false/faulty to begin with, then you will get a false/faulty answer.

Poppycock !

Data is data .. data says nothing … data interpreted within hypothesis or theory, is a different matter.

The design of an experiment might be driven by theory, but the data which that experiment generates is purely data. Interpretation of that data depends on theory or hypothesis and is subject to assumptions. All data is subject to falsification by criteria laid out in the experiment (or theory).

Originally Posted by renormalised

The maths is only a tool used to bolster one's position or belief.

This statement is so devoid of any semblance of scientific principles, that I'm too flabbergasted to attempt to refute !

[xelasnave]

I think we are on the same page Carl. I am aware of how one can manipulate figures but my point is many think manipulation points to a flaw in the math. Math is a tool and I suppose it could be abused in an evil world by folk to prove whatever...but what are the chances of that.
alex

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

Interesting thread. The title was "NO life IS possible", which is a perfectly valid statement that some scientists have now evaluated using some fancy math. There is really nothing more to it that that.
If anyone thinks that statement is false then I'd certainly like to see the proof of the opposite ie. that ET life does exist. Otherwise I can't see how anyone can disagree that it is a possibility that ET life does not exist. Just as well as it being a possibility that it does exist.

How we personally choose to weigh those possibilities doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread I'd say. Personally I tend to think there must be ET life out there, but that is pure speculation and irrelevant for the topic of the thread.

I will repeat what I said before until and only then that it is proven one way or the other EXO LIFE both does and doesn't exist at the same time. Again I draw your attention to Schrödinger's cat


Until the proof is found one way or the other this discussion is useless unless you have said proof. We can't prove it here if you want to prove it get out there and do the science yourself.

[xelasnave]

Why dont we ask someone who knows..one of the many folk who have been abducted by et... how could you assign a probability that maybe one in a thousand had been abducted unless it is certain that at least one person had been abducted..however a Bayer approach could assign a probability ..who is lieing, who is deluded and maybe even if someone is telling the truth....the researchers Craig reported upon at least work from what little "is known as fact" and that is the point I would think. Bayer offers a mechanism that is scientific from what I can understand and would seem a most useful tool with various applications...read Craig's link and my point may be clearer.

alex

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Until the proof is found one way or the other this discussion is useless unless you have said proof. We can't prove it here if you want to prove it get out there and do the science yourself.

That exactly is my point. Nobody has tried to prove anything. I'm only saying that the statement "no life is possible" is true. And an opposite statement such as "life is possible" is also true. I don't think anyone said otherwise?
I was really just wondering why this seemed to cause such a debate?
The paper from the original post merely deals with a mathematical exercise to acknowledge that it is a possibility that no ET life exists. How likely that might be is another matter entirely and that is pure guesswork at this stage, which is also one of the points of that paper.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

I was really just wondering why this seemed to cause such a debate?

Because several people in the debate want to prove it one way or the other which cant be done until Schrödinger's box is open and it isn't open which is why I said the debate is a waste of time until we have proof

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Poppycock !

Data is data .. data says nothing … data interpreted within hypothesis or theory, is a different matter.

You were a systems analyst, you should be very well aware of the acronym GIGO. Enter garbage or nonsense into an equation or an assumption and you get the same out. Data can be just as false as a hypothesis or a theory. It depends on its source and when/where/how it was collected.

Originally Posted by CraigS

The design of an experiment might be driven by theory, but the data which that experiment generates is purely data. Interpretation of that data depends on theory or hypothesis and is subject to assumptions. All data is subject to falsification by criteria laid out in the experiment (or theory).

True, but my first point is as applicable to this paragraph as it was to the first, so I won't repeat myself.

Originally Posted by CraigS

This statement is so devoid of any semblance of scientific principles, that I'm too flabbergasted to attempt to refute !

That's only because you know that I'm right. Maths is a tool. A tool can be used for any reason whatsoever....whether that be to bolster one's position or belief, or to prove/disprove a hypothesis. If your position as a scientist is that "x=true" and "y=false", then it's very easy to use maths to bolster that assumption, or its counterpoint. Especially since both x and y maybe theories held by different scientists or might be competing theories within the scientific community. Proving or disproving either is the purview of mathematics and data can be manipulated to say whatever you want because your assumptions will dictate how that data is used.

If you think belief is totally absent from scientific research and discussion then you're sadly mistaken.

[marki]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Garbage in=Garbage out isn't a mathematical formula.
The mathematical tools themselves are not open to bias and manipulation.

Regards

Steven

No Steven just the interpretation.

Mark

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

That exactly is my point. Nobody has tried to prove anything. I'm only saying that the statement "no life is possible" is true. And an opposite statement such as "life is possible" is also true. I don't think anyone said otherwise?
I was really just wondering why this seemed to cause such a debate?
The paper from the original post merely deals with a mathematical exercise to acknowledge that it is a possibility that no ET life exists. How likely that might be is another matter entirely and that is pure guesswork at this stage, which is also one of the points of that paper.

It's all guesswork, Rolf. But being dogmatic about either answer because it fits in with what you believe to be the case...i.e. pushing a particular line of belief, is a waste of time when you try to justify that through theory/mathematics. Simply because you either don't have the full monty as far as the variables/data goes, or you have a particular line to push and will intentionally look for those things that will back you up. That is purely subjective thinking. People shouldn't kid themselves, otherwise.

I'm just as subjective as the next person here, w.r..t this subject. But I don't try to justify any claims by backing them with maths, simply because I know for a fact that the numbers could be manipulated to say anything. Trying to come to a conclusion when you don't have all the facts, or hardly any at all will always result in a subjective outcome, regardless of what is said or believed about the subject.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's only because you know that I'm right.

Incorrect !

Originally Posted by renormalised

Maths is a tool. A tool can be used for any reason whatsoever....whether that be to bolster one's position or belief, or to prove/disprove a hypothesis. If your position as a scientist is that "x=true" and "y=false", then it's very easy to use maths to bolster that assumption, or its counterpoint. Especially since both x and y maybe theories held by different scientists or might be competing theories within the scientific community. Proving or disproving either is the purview of mathematics and data can be manipulated to say whatever you want because your assumptions will dictate how that data is used.

If you think belief is totally absent from scientific research and discussion then you're sadly mistaken.

The two essential characteristics of Science is objectivity and independent verifiability.

Without both of these, its not Science .. its nonsense !

Pure and simple.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I'm just as subjective as the next person here, w.r..t this subject.

Incorrect !

Originally Posted by renormalised

But I don't try to justify any claims by backing them with maths, simply because I know for a fact that the numbers could be manipulated to say anything.

Or you also know that it will expose flaws in nonsense logic !

Originally Posted by renormalised

Trying to come to a conclusion when you don't have all the facts, or hardly any at all will always result in a subjective outcome, regardless of what is said or believed about the subject.

That depends on exactly what, and how, it is worded.

I can make a conclusion that:
"further research is required, as this particular research has returned a null result, in the context of the initial objectives".

.. and this could easily be an objective conclusion.

[xelasnave]

Craig why do you post such contraversial material
but keep up the good work

AND for a very reliable view of whats out there we have........

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...rial-life.html

So any discussion on et life can be considered religious and therefore beyond discussion.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Incorrect !

No Craig.....

Originally Posted by CraigS

The two essential characteristics of Science is objectivity and independent verifiability.

Without both of these, its not Physics .. its nonsense !

Pure and simple.

In which case, that particular paper is nonsense, because it is neither objective or independently verifiable. Pure and simple, as you say.

Simply because....

1. Bayesian analysis is not objective by design. It's wholly based on a priori premises which dictate the outcomes of the equations used. As a matter of fact, you can use the same equations and data as another person and come up with a completely different answer to theirs. What does that say about the objectivity of the maths.

2. How are you going to verify the outcome, either way, to this analysis??. At present, it's impossible. We have no way whatsoever of saying yes or no to the question of life elsewhere and its probability of existence, except in purely subjective terms. The math used was nothing more than an exercise in subjectivity. In the final analysis, it really only meant what it was set out to prove....a possibility that there is no life elsewhere. But because that possibility, at present, is impossible to uphold/prove or reject/disprove, then it was really just a time filler. Nothing more than a gedankenexperiment to fill in the time between actual work which would've been productive (or at least we hope so).

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Incorrect !

Come of the grass, Craig, now you're starting to sound facetious. And more like those guys over at T'bolts.

Originally Posted by CraigS

Or you also know that it will expose flaws in nonsense logic !

No, I don't back them up with the maths because the maths themselves are not applicable to the question at hand because of its subjectivity.

Originally Posted by CraigS

That depends on exactly what, and how, it is worded.

No, the wording has nothing exactly to do with it at all. If the question is subjective to begin with and you don't have all of the facts to prove or disprove it otherwise, you will always end up with an incomplete and subjective answer (as a matter of consequence). If the question is objective, and you don't have all the facts, and/or your maths is initially based on a priori assumptions, then your answer will be subjective also.

Originally Posted by CraigS

I can make a conclusion that:
"further research is required, as this particular research has returned a null result, in the context of the initial objectives".

.. and this could easily be an objective conclusion.

However, there is no null result in this case. A null result would require that no definitive answer, either way, was forthcoming. Which in this case would mean the heading of this thread should've read "We don't know the probability of life existing elsewhere in the universe" because the answer you got from the maths was inconclusive....a 50/50 chance either way.

If the initial objectives of the study made no prior mention of, or were biased either way to the conclusions of the study, then that could count as an objective conclusion. But only where their methodology of the study was also objective in its application and the subsequent analysis reflected this.