3 ms·

Probably, although a not-widely-accepted but interesting theory is that there might be microorganisms that we can't detect because we're not looking for the rig

by schoen 7y ago

Probably, although a not-widely-accepted but interesting theory is that there might be microorganisms that we can't detect because we're not looking for the right things (because the things we look for are based on macroscopic life and things that interact biologically with it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_life xkcd just ran a strip with a joke about this theory last week https://xkcd.com/2171/ https://xkcd.com/2171/ I think it's unlikely because it seems hard to imagine no interaction between the kinds of life ever after billions of years of coevolution. On the other hand, there are tons of microorganisms that do share our biochemistry that we haven't noticed or identified yet, so maybe it's not impossible to imagine some that don't that we also haven't noticed or identified (since it would be more difficult for us to recognize them).

orwin 7y ago
It is interesting, but following Popper's epistemology rules, this hypothesis is not scientific. So saying it is a not-widely-accepted theory is right, but with reasons: this is not a theory. Not that just because a hypothesis is not scientific, it doesn't mean that people can not research or fine-tune it until it become a scientific theory, but in this state, spending public research credit on it is not a very good choice (especially in the current state of funding for biology). (it can be read wrong, my command of english is not great: i'm just adding thing to your comment, this is not a critisism of you or what you said)
- mannykannot 7y ago
  Popper's view is neither the last word on what science is, nor the final arbiter as to whether something is scientific: what he did was to add some powerful insights to a description of how science works. Having said that, it is neither unscientific nor against Popper to postulate something for which there is currently no evidence (the search for exoplanets was started before there was evidence of them) - you would have to postulate something that cannot, in principle, be empirically determined (such as p-zombies) to violate the falsifiability principle (if that's what your specific issue is here.) Such hypotheses are not outside of science; they are an essential part of it, and some unspecified part of scientific spending is effectively spent on generating them. On the other hand, as Hossenfelder has pointed out [1], falsifiability is a low bar. In the case of shadow life, it is reasonable to ask both how it could remain isolated and why have we not noticed it yet. [1] https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/just-because-its-falsifiable-doesnt.html https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/just-because-its-f...

by schoen 7y ago

orwin 7y ago

It is interesting, but following Popper's epistemology rules, this hypothesis is not scientific. So saying it is a not-widely-accepted theory is right, but with reasons: this is not a theory. Not that just because a hypothesis is not scientific, it doesn't mean that people can not research or fine-tune it until it become a scientific theory, but in this state, spending public research credit on it is not a very good choice (especially in the current state of funding for biology). (it can be read wrong, my command of english is not great: i'm just adding thing to your comment, this is not a critisism of you or what you said)

mannykannot 7y ago
Popper's view is neither the last word on what science is, nor the final arbiter as to whether something is scientific: what he did was to add some powerful insights to a description of how science works. Having said that, it is neither unscientific nor against Popper to postulate something for which there is currently no evidence (the search for exoplanets was started before there was evidence of them) - you would have to postulate something that cannot, in principle, be empirically determined (such as p-zombies) to violate the falsifiability principle (if that's what your specific issue is here.) Such hypotheses are not outside of science; they are an essential part of it, and some unspecified part of scientific spending is effectively spent on generating them. On the other hand, as Hossenfelder has pointed out [1], falsifiability is a low bar. In the case of shadow life, it is reasonable to ask both how it could remain isolated and why have we not noticed it yet. [1] https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/just-because-its-falsifiable-doesnt.html https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/just-because-its-f...