3 ms·

> There is no such thing as a "probability" of any of those terms... > That said, there probably are intelligent civilizations somewhere in the universe ...pi

> There is no such thing as a "probability" of any of those terms... > That said, there probably are intelligent civilizations somewhere in the universe ...pick one :-)

AlbertCory 4y ago
I gather you're getting all triumphant there: "Hah! A contradiction! So there." Not really, sorry. "Probability" as in "something you can assign an exact number between 0 and 1 to." "Probably" as in "I dunno, maybe."
- pfdietz 4y ago
  No, he was rightly pointing out that your "there probably is" statement was bullshit, not supportable from the evidence.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > bullshit, not supportable from the evidence Two different things. You can't prove there aren't, and I can't prove there are.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      "Bullshit", as I use the term, is misrepresentation of the state of your knowledge by confident assertions you can't back up with evidence. The statement is precisely that, bullshit.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        oh, lighten up. No one is getting all oracular here. I have my opinion, you have yours. "Probably" is not a "confident assertion" at all.
        pfdietz 4y ago
        "Probably" is a quantitative assertion. If you want to be properly vague, use "possibly".
  - booleandilemma 4y ago
    I think AlbertCory was saying that to assign specific probabilities, as the Drake equation does, is BS. To say "there's probably life out there", in a vague, speculative sense of probably, is a different sort of thing.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      Thanks, right. It's like saying "the probability of a market crash is 0.01." There is no number you can put on it.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Even then, he is putting bounds on probabilities. Specifically, that the chance that life arises around a random star is >> 1/(number of stars in visible universe). The argument is really just trying to elevate vague and incorrect intuition beyond anywhere it has any right to be. It comes from not understanding just how serious a bias can be introduced by observer selection.
- gcanyon 4y ago
  First, I was gently poking fun, not seriously criticizing. But since this is apparently that sort of conversation: no. > There is no such thing as a "probability" of any of those terms... There is a probability for each term in the Drake equation, but I assume you mean that we don't have a way of judging what it is. I agree. > That said, there probably are intelligent civilizations somewhere in the universe "there probably are" does not equal "I dunno, maybe" -- I'd argue it's a direct summarization of the nonsense that is the Drake equation, but just semantically it at least means greater than 0.5 probability, which we clearly can't establish.

> There is no such thing as a "probability" of any of those terms... > That said, there probably are intelligent civilizations somewhere in the universe ...pick one :-)

AlbertCory 4y ago

I gather you're getting all triumphant there: "Hah! A contradiction! So there." Not really, sorry. "Probability" as in "something you can assign an exact number between 0 and 1 to." "Probably" as in "I dunno, maybe."

pfdietz 4y ago
No, he was rightly pointing out that your "there probably is" statement was bullshit, not supportable from the evidence.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > bullshit, not supportable from the evidence Two different things. You can't prove there aren't, and I can't prove there are.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    "Bullshit", as I use the term, is misrepresentation of the state of your knowledge by confident assertions you can't back up with evidence. The statement is precisely that, bullshit.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      oh, lighten up. No one is getting all oracular here. I have my opinion, you have yours. "Probably" is not a "confident assertion" at all.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        "Probably" is a quantitative assertion. If you want to be properly vague, use "possibly".
- booleandilemma 4y ago
  I think AlbertCory was saying that to assign specific probabilities, as the Drake equation does, is BS. To say "there's probably life out there", in a vague, speculative sense of probably, is a different sort of thing.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Thanks, right. It's like saying "the probability of a market crash is 0.01." There is no number you can put on it.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Even then, he is putting bounds on probabilities. Specifically, that the chance that life arises around a random star is >> 1/(number of stars in visible universe). The argument is really just trying to elevate vague and incorrect intuition beyond anywhere it has any right to be. It comes from not understanding just how serious a bias can be introduced by observer selection.
gcanyon 4y ago
First, I was gently poking fun, not seriously criticizing. But since this is apparently that sort of conversation: no. > There is no such thing as a "probability" of any of those terms... There is a probability for each term in the Drake equation, but I assume you mean that we don't have a way of judging what it is. I agree. > That said, there probably are intelligent civilizations somewhere in the universe "there probably are" does not equal "I dunno, maybe" -- I'd argue it's a direct summarization of the nonsense that is the Drake equation, but just semantically it at least means greater than 0.5 probability, which we clearly can't establish.