6 ms·
Yes but "we don't have enough to decide" means you have to lean on the single data point you have, not completely ignore it and just try to look everywhere all
by pc86 2y ago
Yes but "we don't have enough to decide" means you have to lean on the single data point you have, not completely ignore it and just try to look everywhere all at once. You have to focus your finite resources and "just pick something" isn't a reasonable path when there's more things to investigate than we could do in 10 lifetimes.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThe correct scientific approach to a sample size of one tends to be "not enough information to make a decision".
- ziddoap 2y agoLets start our search for helium-based life forms immediately! Or maybe we start with what we know (carbon-based), and keep our minds open to other possibilities. Like we do now.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Or maybe we start with what we know (carbon-based) But we know more than one thing. One of those things is the Fermi paradox - that the universe should statistically be full of evidence of life, and yet we struggle to find it. That may be evidence we're making the wrong assumptions. > keep our minds open to other possibilities... Yes, and I'd argue that means including scenarios like Jupiter's moons in our search. (As a bonus, Jupiter-style planets, being larger and far from the star, are substantially easier to find.)
- jdiff 2y agoLike you said, the first exoplanet was detected in your lifetime. We haven't even had the chance to fail yet, the Fermi paradox is not yet in play when we're considering essentially our first move. To extend an analogy from further up thread, it'd be like looking in the Mariana Trench for un-contacted human tribes after taking a quick glance around the neighborhood and deciding there's nothing else to be found anywhere else.
- ramblenode 2y agoLook up "informative vs uninformative prior".