12 minutes ago, Pascal_LSGC said:

Don't take my joke too seriously, I was in a facetious* mood after reading your comment, considering that "he" is the most gorgeous scientist woman I've ever seen ! 😄

Pascal

*beware, I'm still in this mood 😉

 

🤬 How dare you consider that talented, strong women in such a way. Once again the patriarchy strikes. And how do you know she identifies as  a women? She may prefer to be identified as a kangaroo.

😷

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

And how do you know she identifies as  a women? She may prefer to be identified as a kangaroo.

😷

Ha! You're busted too!!! If you would have seen the video, you would've known she prefers giraffes!!! 🦒

 

9 hours ago, Pascal_LSGC said:

Ha! You're busted too!!! If you would have seen the video, you would've known she prefers giraffes!!! 🦒

 

 

 

😁 No! It's YOU that is busted for certain. Checkmate!!! She said she liked and admired Giraffes, not that she wanted to be identified as one.

YOU are BUSTED! 

YOU would have known that if you had watched the video. Clearly you just stared lovingly at the thumbnail. ❤️

Edited June 30, 20214 yr by martin-w

I did not watch the video, therefore, I did not comment on said video. 😛

21 minutes ago, stans said:

I did not watch the video, therefore, I did not comment on said video. 😛

It's all about giraffes!

On 6/28/2021 at 3:51 PM, martin-w said:

Oh dear. This Harvard scientist thinks its highly implausible that there are ANY intelligent species out there.

Oh dear indeed: Unfortunately for her, she appears to be confused over the difference between 'implausible' and 'infrequent'. Nor does she appear to understand what we can regard as an intelligent life form, which given how basic these mistakes are, might very well knock her off that particular list. 🤣

Even in her ignorance, she still manages to (admittedly without realising it) give an estimate of how potentially likely the notion is, when she states that of the approximately five billion species known to have been on Earth, we ended up with one intelligent species (not actually true either, we ended up with many, unless she think no animal is intelligent, which is clearly not the case).

So even with this one somewhat erroneous data point, we could have a stab at the odds, and if we can actually say there are odds, then any event is by definition not implausible. It's unlikely you'll win the lottery, but providing you have bought a ticket, it can not be implausible.

You would think someone who went to university - even a cack university like the one she attended where this is apparently the level of understanding one gains - would know this kind of stuff. Considering the Universe may well be infinite, and even if it isn't, it's still bleedin' massive; five billion to one odds are actually not anywhere near to what one could call implausible. Given infinite chances, such odds could even be considered pretty good in the grand scheme of things.

2 hours ago, Chock said:

give an estimate of how potentially likely the notion is, when she states that of the approximately five billion species known to have been on Earth, we ended up with one intelligent species (not actually true either, we ended up with many, unless she think no animal is intelligent, which is clearly not the case).

 

 

She was referring to intelligent in terms of our level of intelligence and being cable of developing technology. Not cats and dogs. 😺

 

Quote

and even if it isn't, it's still bleedin' massive; five billion to one odds are actually not anywhere near to what one could call implausible.

 

True, in that if life is abundant and there are a multitude of other planets in the galaxy with 5 billion species and one intelligent one, it would seem that way. But That's not her point. Her point is that civilisations exist very briefly in terms of the age of the universe. She isn't saying there have *never* been other intelligent (technologically advanced) species. Just that the probability of us being around at the same time is small.

Her argument is based on the belief that all or most technologically advanced species die out or destroy themselves. Thus it would be a huge coincidence if we were around at the same time as another, in that same narrow window. 

I'm not agreeing with her, just clarifying her point. 

Edited June 30, 20214 yr by martin-w

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

She was referring to intelligent in terms of our level of intelligence and being cable of developing technology. Not cats and dogs. 😺

True, in that if life is abundant and there are a multitude of other planets in the galaxy with 5 billion species and one intelligent one, it would seem that way. But That's not her point. Her point is that civilisations exist very briefly in terms of the age of the universe. She isn't saying there have *never* been other intelligent (technologically advanced) species. Just that the probability of us being around at the same time is small.

Her argument is based on the belief that all or most technologically advanced species die out or destroy themselves. Thus it would be a huge coincidence if we were around at the same time as another, in that same narrow window. 

I'm not agreeing with her, just clarifying her point. 

I totally agree with the above regarding what she actually said.

I'd like to add two things:

If I remember well, she was asked about her belief about this subject. There where many philosophical questions, and she played that game graciously, as an informed person in her field, but in no way where these actually scientific questions. Too often do we confuse the opinion of a scientist (even slightly-) outside his realm, and a scientific hypothesis, let alone a scientific knowledge.

Regarding the science aspect of this kind of question, we should be more careful when we talk about probabilities. To calculate a probability, you need a sample of occurrences of the studied phenomenon. In the case of intelligent and technological life on a planet, our sample size is exactly ONE. 😄 You can't calculate any probability with that. It's perfectly fine to imagine/suggest/believe that it's likely or not likely, but it's not science: no observation or experiment can prove or disprove our hypothesis.

Pascal

That is precisely why I personally think that the Drake Equation means absolutely nothing at this moment in time. We simply do not have the required data to insert accurate numbers into that equation.

Edited June 30, 20214 yr by Christopher Low

7 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

That is precisely why I personally think that the Drake Equation means absolutely nothing at this moment in time. We simply do not have the required data to insert accurate numbers into that equation.

And that's precisely what I think too. 😉 It's a nice and pretty game with numbers, and that's fine for me. As long as we don't have data to populate every member of the equation, it's just that. And we only just start to have some numbers for the planetary systems. We don't even know yet what are the necessary conditions for life to develop. And that equation has so many parts that if it actually shows something, it's the extent of our ignorance.

Of course, for that very reason, the search for exoplanets and extraterrestrial signs of life (even elementary or past life) are IMHO very important! Change that ridiculous sample size!

Pascal

1 hour ago, Pascal_LSGC said:

If I remember well, she was asked about her belief about this subject. There where many philosophical questions, and she played that game graciously, as an informed person in her field, but in no way where these actually scientific questions. Too often do we confuse the opinion of a scientist (even slightly-) outside his realm, and a scientific hypothesis, let alone a scientific knowledge

 

So you DID watch it. 😁 But yes, she was just stating her opinion. But we can still agree or disagree with her opinion and state why we agree or disagree.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

That is precisely why I personally think that the Drake Equation means absolutely nothing at this moment in time. We simply do not have the required data to insert accurate numbers into that equation.

 

Yep, I agree. It was based on all manner of estimates. These days it has been fine tuned, but yes, Its hardly scientific. In fact Drake came up with it just for a talk he was giving. Something to entertain. 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

So you DID watch it. 😁 But yes, she was just stating her opinion. But we can still agree or disagree with her opinion and state why we agree or disagree.

Don't get me started again! 🤣

Of course we can discuss it! My comment was about Chock's post. Which borders to disparaging the scientist instead of discussing ideas and opinions. Should have quoted him though. Here it is:

 7 hours ago, Chock said:

Oh dear indeed: Unfortunately for her, she appears to be confused over the difference between 'implausible' and 'infrequent'. Nor does she appear to understand what we can regard as an intelligent life form, which given how basic these mistakes are, might very well knock her off that particular list. 🤣

Even in her ignorance, [...]

And frankly, dozens of the video's comments where way uglier.

Pascal

11 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

She was referring to intelligent in terms of our level of intelligence and being cable of developing technology. Not cats and dogs. 😺

 

What makes you think I was referring to cats and dogs? And even if I was, I go out and work ten and twelve hour shifts, go shopping and clean the house, my cat sits on his word not allowed all day and I bring him food and open doors for him. Remind me again which one of us is the dumb one? 🤣

2 hours ago, Chock said:

my cat sits on his word not allowed all day and I bring him food and open doors for him.

We have 4 cats and never open doors for them.  We have cat doors to the back yard, to the side yard, and to the car port so they can come in and out at will.  And since mama cat taught the kittens to 'go' outside we have no need for those nasty littler boxes that have to be cleaned out.

Noel