Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life on other Planets?
Taq
Member
Posts: 10077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 25 of 160 (594405)
12-03-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
12-02-2010 11:32 PM


How many people here believe there is life on other planets?
I will be just as pedantic as the rest of the EvCer's and state that "belief" is too strong of a word. I will say that I would be very surprised if there were not life elsewhere in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-02-2010 11:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 27 of 160 (594408)
12-03-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 11:01 AM


If you are going to roll the dice six times and the first two times do not come up with a six, does your probability increase that one of the next 4 times you will get a six (it s a little simplified, but that's the gist of it)?
As to the probability of life elsewhere in the universe, I have another analogy.
Let's say that I have a huge warehouse stacked to the ceiling with tiny little tiles. All of them are face down. I ask you to randomly pick one of these tiles, and you do so. You flip it over and see that it has the number 42 on it (homage to Mr. Adams).
With just that information, what are the odds that you would have picked a tile with the number 42 on it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 11:01 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:10 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 29 of 160 (594411)
12-03-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2010 2:42 AM


I have yet to see the argument --- but it seems to me that any argument that implies an ontological uniqueness for my planet and my species could also with minor adjustments be turned into an argument for the ontological uniqueness of my race, my gender, my nationality or just for me personally. In fact, sight unseen, I am willing to wager a small sum that any such argument will make more sense if applied to me personally.
Or even more importantly, the argument is just as valid for the bacteria in your gut, perhaps even one species of bacteria, and perhaps just one single bacterium. Perhaps that one bacterium looks out at a universe that seems fine tuned to produce humans so that it has such a nice place to live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2010 2:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 31 of 160 (594428)
12-03-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:10 PM


My scenario was not some kind of analogy per se (so it really doesn't pertain to your question)-its a real fact. If traditional statistics were correct it should not be possible for the hundred or so times that I have gambled in a casino, to only lose once (and actually there is a caveat to my one lose story-I bet all of my considerable winning from earlier in the day on one particular bet as a whim because I had won so much that day and was feeling stupid).
Are casinos in the business of losing money? The obvious answer is "no". So whose idea was it to put displays up on roulette wheels telling gamblers what the last 20 or so results were? It was the casino's idea. Why? It feeds right into the Gambler's Fallacy. If knowing the last 20 results from a roulette wheel really did tilt the advantage towards the gambler then the casinos would not put them up (they certainly are not required to by law). Even more importantly, casinos keep track of the results so they should know if these signs are tipping things one way or the other.
As to your personal results, I am sure that I can find someone who always loses to balance out your improbable winnings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:10 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:32 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 33 of 160 (594439)
12-03-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:32 PM


Well, very interesting. You do believe that seemingly unrelated events are actually somehow intertwined. Well, how about that.
I am saying that they are not intertwined which is why I should be able to find someone who uses the same technique that has the exact opposite result that you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:32 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:40 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 35 of 160 (594449)
12-03-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:40 PM


When does an anomaly constitute evidence?
When it isn't an anomaly. If you can show that using your betting strategy improves winnings over millions of bets and millions of players then it is no longer an anomaly.
The only betting methods that actually work are used in blackjack because your odds actually DO get better if you can keep track of the lower cards and higher cards left in the deck and adjust your betting accordingly. With a single deck and max/min betting you can actually get a 2% advantage on the house by counting cards. Not so with craps or roulette.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:40 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 145 of 160 (603057)
02-02-2011 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dogmafood
02-02-2011 7:08 AM


Would you send the military to meet them or the ambassadors?
I'd send cats. Let them try and figure that one out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Dogmafood, posted 02-02-2011 7:08 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 148 of 160 (603068)
02-02-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Blue Jay
02-02-2011 2:31 PM


But it was quite a while ago in our societal history. The mindset of people has changed a lot since then: slavers and racists and imperialists are no longer the drivers of society these days.
Why do we think they're going to be the drivers of alien societies that have presumably made more technological and societal progress than we have?
Many arguments could be made that slavers, racists, and imperialists are still the drivers. The difference is that we have become very good at hiding those facts. Our economies are still based on cheap labor and access to resources even if that means toppling the governments of other states. Rubber is derived from cheap petroleum from countries that we threaten with invasion. The rubber is made into shoes that in other countries by people who work in terrible conditions for wages that no American would accept. Is there less of an outcry because they are not caucasians? Possibly.
The class system is still thriving today as it was in previous centuries. What has changed is marketing. We have made slavery and imperialism more palatable, but we still rely on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Blue Jay, posted 02-02-2011 2:31 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Blue Jay, posted 02-03-2011 10:13 AM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024