Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SonOfDarkSkies

Let me just say that I’m skeptical.

To make such a claim, one has to be able to show that there was not contamination from any source. For a meteorite found on the Earth’s surface, that’s pretty hard to do.

Just manipulating the rock in a sterile environment is not sufficient. “Sterile” means that microorganisms are dead, not that they are absent. Whatever process presumably enabled microorganisms of non-Earth origin to penetrate into the interior of the rock would allow Earth organisms to penetrate its interior.

The way I see it, to make such a claim with reasonable assurance, the rock would have to be found and manipulated away from Earth (say, on the surface of the moon or another planet). Then, all of the instruments used to manipulate it would have to be shown to be completely devoid of microorganisms or their remains. Furthermore, putative microorganisms would have to be shown to be, in fact, living or the remains of living things and not artifacts that resemble living things.

To make the claim of bona fide extraterrestrial life requires an extraordinary standard of proof.


13 posted on 03/05/2011 6:41:34 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: exDemMom

“To make the claim of bona fide extraterrestrial life requires an extraordinary standard of proof.”

I don’t understand where this meme came from. Basically, it’s saying “if I don’t agree with a hypothesis, then what comprises evidence to support a hypothesis is different that if I think it’s a good hypothesis.” Is there actually any scientific justification for it or is it just a rhetorical arguin’ point?

The closest you can get to that in statistics is a strong Bayesian prior agin’ the proposition, which itself has to be justified as more than someone’s whim. And actual evidence in favor of the proposition quickly overwhelms even strong priors to the contrary.

The evidence is either consistent with the hypothesis, inconclusive, or it disproves the hypothesis, regardless of the biases of the reviewer.

Personally, I don’t think there is ET life—at least not complex life. But that doesn’t change what evidence supports and doesn’t support the hypothesis.


17 posted on 03/05/2011 6:57:57 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson