4 ms·
No, that's wrong. You're ignoring that if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to see the result. Observer selection bias. The less common OoL is, the more
by pfdietz 2y ago
No, that's wrong. You're ignoring that if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to see the result. Observer selection bias. The less common OoL is, the more biased our observation is.
- gradus_ad 2y agoObserver selection bias is independent of the earth vs non earth body question, it's an issue regardless.
- pfdietz 2y agoYes, it also demolishes the naïve Copernican argument that because life is on Earth, it must be common. The more subtle argument was that because life originated early on Earth, OoL must be a high probability event. But that argument implicitly assumes the probability of OoL is relatively constant with time, so it wouldn't be biased to occur early. OoL on small planetesimals is naturally biased to occur early, due to decay of those short lived radioisotopes. After the planetesimals freeze OoL there doesn't seem possible.
- pvaldes 2y agoOk. What is an Ool?
- superposeur 2y agoI would think this point would be obvious, but apparently not given the many frustrating discussions I’ve had with smart people on the topic. (Maybe there is a subtlety I’m not appreciating?) It’s a relief to see the good solid sense in all your comments on this thread.