Replies

The writer makes the claim that from what has been observed directly, it is virtually impossible that there is life ANYWHERE in the Universe. The area under consideration for his claim is THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. His examples of DIRECT OBSERVATION come from OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. You are changing his assertion from "Is there life anywhere else in the Universe" to "Is there life anywhere I can observe" and that is NOT what he is claiming.

His error in Logic is that if I take a small sample, I can assume that what I see holds EVERYWHERE.

To follow your take that I should search my whole yard, then the question would have to be "Is there anyone else in my CITY?"

Are there any McDonald's Restaurants on Earth? You and I both know that there are. Let's say YOU claim that there ARE McDonald's on Earth, while I argue that there are NONE. So we agree to a search. You want to search an ENTIRE CONTINENT. I agree, but get to pick. So I pick Antarctica, which is a good, healthy 9% of the Earths' land mass. Hey, guess what? You cannot support your claim that there are McDonald's on Earth, even though you searched an ENTIRE CONTINENT, with a 9% sample size of Earth's total land mass.

This example is given to show you an easy to understand principle of "Absence of Evidence IS NOT Evidence of Absence".

So when we look at FREEZING COLD or BOILING HOT planets and find no life, it is just the same as looking at Antarctica and finding no McDonald's, as conditions are not suitable for them there.

I understand all of that simply enough, yet it seems that your assertion was that the author's conclusions are absurd. The fact that the entire universe hasn't been searched, while obvious, isn't really evidence that his conclusions are absurd.

We're both arguing the same principle; except that the authors POV is supported by 100% of the current evidence.