Refuting The Laws of Physics, Part 2 of 2

"Okay. What’s your counterexample?"

Already given two, but I will go over it again for you.

The argument we're having centers around this:

YOU contend that it is reasonable to conclude that since we have not found life anywhere we have looked outside Earth, there must be NO LIFE ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE.

I contend that such a conclusion is based on FAULTY REASONING, and cannot be relied upon.

To show that it is faulty reasoning, I need only supply you with an example where examining a SMALL, SKEWED sample of an area under question obviously leads to the wrong conclusion. I have supplied TWO.

Looking in my wallet for an intruder on my property is insufficient to draw a conclusion, the sample size is too small, and conditions inside my wallet are not conducive to holding an intruder.

Looking for McDonald's in Antarctica is a large enough sample size (nearly 9% of the whole) but is SKEWED, looking only at an area utterly hostile to McDonald's.

We live on a planet in our Solar System's "Sweet Spot". Best Temp, Best Light Intensity, etc. So, it is no more surprising to me that everywhere we look IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that we fail to find life than it is that we find no McDonald's in Antarctica.

Just as we KNOW it to be wrong to conclude that there are no McDonald's on Earth, just from examining Antarctica, so too is it wrong to conclude that there is NO LIFE ANYWHERE ELSE in the vast and seemingly endless universe.

By definition, since our position on Earth is our Solar System's "sweet spot", the further away from Earth we look in our Solar System, the more hostile things are.

However, that in no way affects what conditions exist on the billion, billion, trillion other planetary systems orbiting ALL THE OTHER FREAKING STARS IN THE UNIVERSE.

Do they have their own "Sweet Spots"? I don't honestly know, but the possibility is CERTAINLY NOT ZERO, since WE ARE HERE.

Have we seen exo-solar Earth like planets? No, and the reason for this is that even our most advanced observation techniques are currently doomed to yield skewed results, essentially looking only in Antarctica.

I will assume that you need clarification on that point:

The first exo-solar technique involved measuring the gravitational "wobble" a star had caused by a planet orbiting around it. This technique can only show VERY MASSIVE, FAST ORBITING PLANETS. Why? Well, small planets like Earth don't make their parent stars wobble enough to see from far away. Also, to see the wobble, it must be fast enough to observe in a relatively short time, which means the planet's must have a SHORT orbital period, CLOSE to the Star. So, using this technique, what did they find? Hot Jupiters. Wow, what a surprise. (actually, that was a surprise, since having only our solar system to look at, nobody ever gave a thought that "Hot Jupiters" even existed)

The next method currently in use is the "transit method", measuring the drop in light caused by a planet passing in front of its parent star. This has the improvement of being able to detect smaller planets with longer orbital periods, but ONLY IF YOU CAN HOLD THE OBSERVATION OVER YEARS OF TIME. There is also the drawback that in order to be usable, the solar system must be seen "on edge" from our vantage here on Earth. So, zillions of planetary systems with planar tilts more than about 15 degrees with respect to Earth are lost to observation. More and more smaller planets are being detected, with orbital periods approaching a year.

It is utterly ABSURD to conclude that since we have looked at Mars, Venus, The Moon, etc here in our own back yard that there must be NOTHING anywhere else.

Skeptical of Global Warming "Science"? Me too. One of the principle objections to Global Warming Science is that we have ONLY A VANISHINGLY SMALL sample of accurate weather condition measurements when compared to the VERY LONG TIME weather has been occurring here on Earth.

A Global Warming Skeptic argues that it is unreasonable to draw long term conclusions about climate with only such a small dataset. Does this argument sound good to you here? If it does, then is should sound good to you when considering astronomical observations as well.

I will leave you with one last counterexample, and then I will be done.

Assume you are a "quality control" manager in a factory making some sort of complex widget. Your factory makes 1 widget a minute on the assembly line. There are many processes involved making the widget. You wait for ten minutes, and gather 10 widgets to subject to testing. They all pass QC checks, 100%.

So, you conclude that the assembly line will run FOREVER, making PERFECT Widgets, as supported by 100% of your observational sample.

Is this reasonable? If you have ever worked at a factory, you would be laughing now, saying "certainly not". Your 100% passing widgets DO NOT MEASURE other, unknown conditions on the assembly line. Repeated, long term and more varied testing is required to insure the "health" of the assembly line.

If this in no way convinces you, then go in peace my friend.

Already given two, but I will go over it again for you. The argument we're having centers around this: YOU contend that it is reasonable to conclude that since we have not found life anywhere we have looked outside Earth, there must be NO LIFE ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE.

Correction: I contend that it is not laughably unreasonable to conclude that there is no life other than on earth. It’s a subtle distinction, but a very real one.

Your original post, the one that actually started the discussion; reads:

"...After laying out the hostile conditions of Big Bang debris, I showed slides of the lifeless conditions everywhere, with the exception of our home planet. Not surprisingly, there is no self-actualizing taking place on Mars, nor anywhere else as far as can be credibly conjectured..." I live in a modest 1000 sq ft home with a 2 car garage, all sitting on a 60 x 200 foot lot. One day, I wondered if there was an intruder on my property. I looked inside the card holder of my wallet, and did not see anyone, so I reasonably concluded there was no possibility of anyone else being on my property.

I contend that such a conclusion is based on FAULTY REASONING, and cannot be relied upon.

To show that it is faulty reasoning, I need only supply you with an example where a false analogue is used to support your position. Where comparing a search of your wallet, (an area you KNOW doesn’t contain an intruder) and studiously avoiding a search of your remaining property, (which is quite within the realm of possibility, and I assume within your capability) is presented as the equivalent of searching continuously, all areas of the universe that are accessible for our analysis, for thousands of years, and finding no evidence. Not only no evidence of extant life, but no evidence of previous life, nor any evidence of an environment hospitable to life as we understand it.

To show that it is faulty reasoning, I need only supply you with an example where examining a SMALL, SKEWED sample of an area under question obviously leads to the wrong conclusion. I have supplied TWO. Looking in my wallet for an intruder on my property is insufficient to draw a conclusion, the sample size is too small, and conditions inside my wallet are not conducive to holding an intruder. Looking for McDonald's in Antarctica is a large enough sample size (nearly 9% of the whole) but is SKEWED, looking only at an area utterly hostile to McDonald's.

I really enjoyed this part… McDonald’s are CREATED. I mean no offense to your “facts” when I say that Antarctica IS a good analogue, as similar to the Universe it has not been completely explored yet.
We’ve found no McDonald’s in the portions of Antarctica that have been explored, and we have it on the word of McDonald’s (THE CREATOR) that they did not place any of their businesses in Antarctica. (Well, on the bias, anyway. I don’t believe that McDonald’s has actually denied that there is a McDonald’s in Antarctica, but we assume from the omission, that they have not.)
Life, also is created, and while we do not have a press release from the Creator stating that no other life exists in the Universe; again we may assume from the omission.

Even better: Statistically I can support the argument that an unknown McDonald’s exists somewhere in unexplored Antarctica, simply by calculating the number of square miles of the explored areas on earth which support a given quantity of McDonald’s and apply that ratio to Antarctica’s surface area. I’ll wager that the probability calculated this way will not be zero.

Unfortunately, no statistical data can be derived from a sample size of one, so this method cannot be used to calculate a non-zero probability of life on any other planet.

We live on a planet in our Solar System's "Sweet Spot". Best Temp, Best Light Intensity, etc. So, it is no more surprising to me that everywhere we look IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that we fail to find life than it is that we find no McDonald's in Antarctica.

Yet you somehow fail to credit this miraculous happenstance as one factor among many that severely limits the probability of extraterrestrial life. As a matter of fact, if one presumes the theory of spontaneous genesis, in lieu of creation; the existence of another habitable planet in that “Sweet Spot” somewhere in the universe is statistically meaningless.
Even if 40 Billion of these multi-earths existed, the odds of one of those ALSO reproducing the other “happy accidents” that this theory holds to have led to life on this planet, would have to be several quintillion to one.

Just as we KNOW it to be wrong to conclude that there are no McDonald's on Earth, just from examining Antarctica, so too is it wrong to conclude that there is NO LIFE ANYWHERE ELSE in the vast and seemingly endless universe.

Again, why would you choose to support your argument with such a ridiculously flimsy analogy? No one sought out the location of least likelihood and extrapolated the whole; it simply isn’t necessary. I can see a McDonald’s from my house. Why would I look in Antarctica?

By definition, since our position on Earth is our Solar System's "sweet spot", the further away from Earth we look in our Solar System, the more hostile things are. However, that in no way affects what conditions exist on the billion, billion, trillion other planetary systems orbiting ALL THE OTHER FREAKING STARS IN THE UNIVERSE. Do they have their own "Sweet Spots"? I don't honestly know, but the possibility is CERTAINLY NOT ZERO, since WE ARE HERE.

As I explained above: This does not hold. “No statistical data can be derived from a sample size of one, so this method cannot be used to calculate a non-zero probability of life on any other planet.”

Have we seen exo-solar Earth like planets? No, and the reason for this is that even our most advanced observation techniques are currently doomed to yield skewed results, essentially looking only in Antarctica.

Question: How can you define the areas we’ve looked for other life as “Antarctica”, and recognize earth’s “Sweet Spot” positioning, without acknowledging that this, in itself, supports the position that other life in the observable universe is incalculably unlikely?

I will assume that you need clarification on that point:

Aww. You shouldn’t have…

The first exo-solar technique involved measuring the gravitational "wobble" a star had caused by a planet orbiting around it. This technique can only show VERY MASSIVE, FAST ORBITING PLANETS. Why? Well, small planets like Earth don't make their parent stars wobble enough to see from far away. Also, to see the wobble, it must be fast enough to observe in a relatively short time, which means the planet's must have a SHORT orbital period, CLOSE to the Star. So, using this technique, what did they find? Hot Jupiters. Wow, what a surprise. (actually, that was a surprise, since having only our solar system to look at, nobody ever gave a thought that "Hot Jupiters" even existed) The next method currently in use is the "transit method", measuring the drop in light caused by a planet passing in front of its parent star. This has the improvement of being able to detect smaller planets with longer orbital periods, but ONLY IF YOU CAN HOLD THE OBSERVATION OVER YEARS OF TIME. There is also the drawback that in order to be usable, the solar system must be seen "on edge" from our vantage here on Earth. So, zillions of planetary systems with planar tilts more than about 15 degrees with respect to Earth are lost to observation. More and more smaller planets are being detected, with orbital periods approaching a year.

Zillions? Really? LOL!

It is utterly ABSURD to conclude that since we have looked at Mars, Venus, The Moon, etc here in our own back yard that there must be NOTHING anywhere else.

Again: This is sophistry, not analogy. Falsely limiting the terms of our search so far to “Mars, Venus, The Moon, etc.” is childishly simplistic.

I’m saying ALL of the aggregate data, observed over literally thousands of years, including radio frequency monitoring, direct observation, space exploration, and exo-solar technique, have provided NOT ONE SINGLE positive data point. None, Zip, Nada.

Skeptical of Global Warming "Science"? Me too. One of the principle objections to Global Warming Science is that we have ONLY A VANISHINGLY SMALL sample of accurate weather condition measurements when compared to the VERY LONG TIME weather has been occurring here on Earth. A Global Warming Skeptic argues that it is unreasonable to draw long term conclusions about climate with only such a small dataset. Does this argument sound good to you here? If it does, then is should sound good to you when considering astronomical observations as well.

Same as above: No supporting data sets are available. The issue isn’t that the data samples are small, it’s that they are not supported by the mathematics. Even if we extrapolate the existing AGW data to infinity, you can’t disregard the warming effects of that nearby star, and you can’t support the argument that .01% of atmospheric content contributes most of the observed effects. If we had reliable temperature records going back millions of years, and those records showed a “Perfect Coincidence” in rising temperature with industrialization, they would still only show a coincidence without correlation if they were the only data being viewed. You would still have to locate and identify the causal link between the increase in temperatures and industrialization, eliminate the theory that warming increases industrialization, (assuming they could be linked in the first place), and demonstrate mathematically how the cause and effect relationship functions. This completely omits any discussion on whether or not this cause and effect relationship could be controlled by any purposeful action, as it is irrelevant. This, again, supports the author’s statement in the quote above. Using the “Big Bang theory as a basis for our assumptions, not one piece of existing (known) data supports “credible conjecture” that “self-actualization” is taking place anywhere but here. Neither the author, nor I have argued that no possible form of life can ever exist except on Earth. My argument is that declaring the author a laughable lunatic based on that statement is absurd, and “not credible”.

I will leave you with one last counterexample, and then I will be done. Assume you are a "quality control" manager in a factory making some sort of complex widget. Your factory makes 1 widget a minute on the assembly line. There are many processes involved making the widget. You wait for ten minutes, and gather 10 widgets to subject to testing. They all pass QC checks, 100%.

Now you’re playing in my sand box. You’re pretty close actually; but I’m an engineer, not a manager.

So, you conclude that the assembly line will run FOREVER, making PERFECT Widgets, as supported by 100% of your observational sample.

No, I actually feed the directly read data into a calculation that gives me a CP & CPK as well as PP & PPK, indicative of my PROCESS CAPABILITY and PROCESS PERFORMANCE. This necessarily requires more than one data point, of course… If you target shoot, try this analogy. If your shots are falling in the same spot forming a good group this is a high Cp, (the percentage of your widgets that are the same size and shape) and when the sighting is adjusted so this tight group of shots is landing on the bullseye, you now have a high Cpk. (the percentage of your widgets that are the CORRECT size and shape)” Cpk measures how close you are to your target and how consistent you are around your average performance. A shooter may be performing with minimum variation, but he can be away from his target towards one of the specification limit, which indicates lower Cpk, whereas Cp will be high. On the other hand, a person may be on average exactly at the target, but the variation in performance is high (but still lower than the tolerance band (i.e., specification interval). In such case also Cpk will be lower, but Cp will be high. Cpk will be higher only when you are meeting the target consistently with minimum variation. Of course the measurements must be repeated periodically, and whenever changes are made to the manufacturing process, to ensure that the process remains “capable” and “within control limits”. As your CP and CPK numbers improve, you can safely reduce both the frequency of sampling, and the required sample sizes.

Is this reasonable? If you have ever worked at a factory, you would be laughing now, saying “certainly not”. Your 100% passing widgets DO NOT MEASURE other, unknown conditions on the assembly line. Repeated, long term and more varied testing is required to insure the “health” of the assembly line.

Of course it’s reasonable. It’s a critical measurement in the Six-Sigma quality process. What is unreasonable is to assume that you would need to measure every widget individually to reach any conclusion. Your cost of non-conformance would drive you out of business in a few days. The extra non-value-added measuring operations would push your production costs through the roof, and having no process capability data to support process refinements (continuous improvement), your waste through scrap production would eat out any remaining margin and your business would fail. We do not have to inspect every square inch of the universe to REASONABLY conclude that we are very likely alone out here.

If this in no way convinces you, then go in peace my friend.

Goes without saying. I’m not mad at you and I don’t dislike you. I just disagree with what you said.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.