3 ms·
>Let us suppose, for instance, that we had indeed scanned over the entire universe and found that there was no evidence for life. Would we then be justified in
by aeve890 2y ago
>Let us suppose, for instance, that we had indeed scanned over the entire universe and found that there was no evidence for life. Would we then be justified in saying "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
Scanned how? What's the operational definition of "life" in that hypothetical scenario? Maybe there's life, but you're looking where isn't, or you're missing something you don't classify as "living". Maybe the universal definition of life is vastly broader than we think.
- bluGill 2y agoIt is entirely possible our definition of life is wrong. However it is what we have currently and there is currently no reason to think some other definition might be better. If we ever find something that sortof seems like life, but doesn't fit our current definition of life we can then have the debate about how and if the definition should change. However without knowing what might or might not fit in it is impossible to know how to make it better. There is no requirement that we adjust the definition of life, perhaps we need some hierarchy of some form and this new life like thing isn't life but something else that life is a subset of. It is even possible that we go through the above several times with different, contradictory results. But for now our definitions of life are good enough.
- jerf 2y agoSorry, you can't escape that way. My answer is, whatever definition of life you like. I don't care what it is. You get to choose. For the sake of the hypothetical, we have scanned over the entire universe for that sort of life, and then we use the same definition of "life" for our declaration that there is no evidence of "life", so you can't escape through equivocation between those two definitions either.