4 ms·

Since there’s no such thing as 100% proof in science, when and who gets to “call it” that the signs of life have been discovered outside of Earth? Presumably NA

Since there’s no such thing as 100% proof in science, when and who gets to “call it” that the signs of life have been discovered outside of Earth? Presumably NASA, but how do they decide?

hgoel 6mo ago
Officially it'll be "called" when a politician feels like it's solid enough proof for them to leech off of it. Scientifically, it'll be called when there's too much evidence to genuinely dispute it. Probably when a collection of specimens is found, either dead or alive, that can be shown to be unrelated or distantly related to Earth life.
jodrellblank 6mo ago
Hank Green has a good pop-science video on this topic (what things are being found on Mars, and what they might mean): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWuFBZw9Olk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWuFBZw9Olk in summary, we were all imagining a Star Trek "take me to your leader" moment of First Contact, and instead he imagines it will be a slow transition of increasing evidence that convinces more and more people over years and years.
AndrewKemendo 6mo ago
Depends who your audience is For most people whatever life it is will to need to look like at least like whatever they think is life So if they don’t consider bacteria or simple cells life then you’ll have no ability to convince them
estimator7292 6mo ago
Science is built on consensus. If you put forward a hypothesis: these molecules were produced by life, then other scientists will search for arguments to disprove your hypothesis. If after some time none of those arguments hold up to scrutiny, we must assume the hypothesis is correct. If NASA finds something indisputable like an RNA fragment, basically every scientific mind on the planet will try to find explanations that don't involve life. If all abiotic arguments are disproven, then by elimination we've proven that the molecule was produced biologically. If even one argument can conclusively prove an abiotic process that can produce exactly what we observe, then we must assume the no-life case. This is where we are now. Once the scientific community reaches consensus, the call is made implicitly when the hypothesis is accepted as fact into the scientific canon. The announcement will likely go through various global leaders and/or NASA, as it's an announcement that impacts our entire species, not just one country. Note that proof by elimination is only one method of proving a hypothesis. Most of the others don't apply here.

Since there’s no such thing as 100% proof in science, when and who gets to “call it” that the signs of life have been discovered outside of Earth? Presumably NASA, but how do they decide?

hgoel 6mo ago

Officially it'll be "called" when a politician feels like it's solid enough proof for them to leech off of it. Scientifically, it'll be called when there's too much evidence to genuinely dispute it. Probably when a collection of specimens is found, either dead or alive, that can be shown to be unrelated or distantly related to Earth life.

jodrellblank 6mo ago

Hank Green has a good pop-science video on this topic (what things are being found on Mars, and what they might mean): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWuFBZw9Olk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWuFBZw9Olk in summary, we were all imagining a Star Trek "take me to your leader" moment of First Contact, and instead he imagines it will be a slow transition of increasing evidence that convinces more and more people over years and years.

AndrewKemendo 6mo ago

Depends who your audience is For most people whatever life it is will to need to look like at least like whatever they think is life So if they don’t consider bacteria or simple cells life then you’ll have no ability to convince them

estimator7292 6mo ago

Science is built on consensus. If you put forward a hypothesis: these molecules were produced by life, then other scientists will search for arguments to disprove your hypothesis. If after some time none of those arguments hold up to scrutiny, we must assume the hypothesis is correct. If NASA finds something indisputable like an RNA fragment, basically every scientific mind on the planet will try to find explanations that don't involve life. If all abiotic arguments are disproven, then by elimination we've proven that the molecule was produced biologically. If even one argument can conclusively prove an abiotic process that can produce exactly what we observe, then we must assume the no-life case. This is where we are now. Once the scientific community reaches consensus, the call is made implicitly when the hypothesis is accepted as fact into the scientific canon. The announcement will likely go through various global leaders and/or NASA, as it's an announcement that impacts our entire species, not just one country. Note that proof by elimination is only one method of proving a hypothesis. Most of the others don't apply here.