3 ms·

Why is it an interesting model to guide scientists? Should we also take the intertwining nature of the DNA helix as guidance that true love exists at the molecu

by dokein 10y ago

Why is it an interesting model to guide scientists? Should we also take the intertwining nature of the DNA helix as guidance that true love exists at the molecular level, and that future experiments should be guided by love? If that seems ridiculous (as it does to me), how specifically should scientists factor in the Gaia model into their experiments or their range of hypotheses?

ThomPete 10y ago
I am not sure Many scientific breakthroughs have happened because knowledge from two different fields were combined, often by accident to give entirely new understanding.
ewzimm 10y ago
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the Gaia hypothesis here. This might be a reaction to some people using it to support the idea of something like a planetary consciousness, but this is like calling quantum physics pseudoscience because you disagree with Deepak Chopra or the idea of quantum consciousness. The Gaia hypothesis is the idea that life not only adapts to its environment but also changes its environment in ways that, over time, support more life. This is not done intentionally of course, in the same way that adaptations of life are not intentional but rather a product of the nature of life and adaptation. Life adapts to its environment, including the living aspects of the environment and the waste products of other life. Over time, this transforms the planet into a complex system of symbiotic relationships, or an ecosystem, and the overall composition of the planet reflects this gradual transformation. We can test this by finding life on other worlds and seeing if it has changed its environment in meaningful ways. We can also look at the ways that life has changed the nonliving aspects of our own planet like mineral deposits in rock formations. As the article states, as time goes on, we find more ways to identify the markers of life on our planet without looking at life directly. We can use it meaningfully right now by modeling the types of changes we expect life to make on planets. This helps us determine whether a planet might have life by identifying the changes we expect life to make that intersect with the limited information we have available. There's nothing unscientific or mystical about the idea. It simply states that planets should be understood as systems where both the living and nonliving aspects are changed by life. There are many ways it could be wrong. Maybe there's evidence that life has changed our planet but we're a special case, and it isn't a universal principle. We'll know more about it once we have more examples of life, but for now, it's a useful framework for finding those examples.

by dokein 10y ago

ThomPete 10y ago

I am not sure Many scientific breakthroughs have happened because knowledge from two different fields were combined, often by accident to give entirely new understanding.

ewzimm 10y ago

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the Gaia hypothesis here. This might be a reaction to some people using it to support the idea of something like a planetary consciousness, but this is like calling quantum physics pseudoscience because you disagree with Deepak Chopra or the idea of quantum consciousness. The Gaia hypothesis is the idea that life not only adapts to its environment but also changes its environment in ways that, over time, support more life. This is not done intentionally of course, in the same way that adaptations of life are not intentional but rather a product of the nature of life and adaptation. Life adapts to its environment, including the living aspects of the environment and the waste products of other life. Over time, this transforms the planet into a complex system of symbiotic relationships, or an ecosystem, and the overall composition of the planet reflects this gradual transformation. We can test this by finding life on other worlds and seeing if it has changed its environment in meaningful ways. We can also look at the ways that life has changed the nonliving aspects of our own planet like mineral deposits in rock formations. As the article states, as time goes on, we find more ways to identify the markers of life on our planet without looking at life directly. We can use it meaningfully right now by modeling the types of changes we expect life to make on planets. This helps us determine whether a planet might have life by identifying the changes we expect life to make that intersect with the limited information we have available. There's nothing unscientific or mystical about the idea. It simply states that planets should be understood as systems where both the living and nonliving aspects are changed by life. There are many ways it could be wrong. Maybe there's evidence that life has changed our planet but we're a special case, and it isn't a universal principle. We'll know more about it once we have more examples of life, but for now, it's a useful framework for finding those examples.