Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Debates on Extraterrestrial Life

Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 9:21:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bump.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 9:15:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.

But the debater arguing that extraterrestrial life has an impossible BoP. Like I said in the OP, you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, because there is no evidence. There's just a series of logical arguments.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 9:49:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 9:15:25 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.

But the debater arguing that extraterrestrial life has an impossible BoP. Like I said in the OP, you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, because there is no evidence. There's just a series of logical arguments.

When did logical arguments stop being evidence?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 10:13:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 9:49:05 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:15:25 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.

But the debater arguing that extraterrestrial life has an impossible BoP. Like I said in the OP, you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, because there is no evidence. There's just a series of logical arguments.

When did logical arguments stop being evidence?

There's a difference between deductive reasoning and empiricism. Deductive reasoning rests on two premises that are assumed valid to draw a conclusion. Empiricism uses experimentation and observation to draw conclusions. For example, here's a good logical argument for extraterrestrial life:

P1. There are many other potentially habitable planets in the galaxy
P2. There are many other galaxies in the universe
C. Therefore, on at least one other planet in the universe, there should be extraterrestrial life

But give me some observation of extraterrestrial life.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 10:45:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 9:15:25 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.

But the debater arguing that extraterrestrial life has an impossible BoP. Like I said in the OP, you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, because there is no evidence. There's just a series of logical arguments.

Even though it is still debated, you could use this:
https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu...

Also, logical arguments can fill a burden of proof, they always have been able to.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 4:02:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 10:13:17 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:49:05 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:15:25 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.

But the debater arguing that extraterrestrial life has an impossible BoP. Like I said in the OP, you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, because there is no evidence. There's just a series of logical arguments.

When did logical arguments stop being evidence?

There's a difference between deductive reasoning and empiricism. Deductive reasoning rests on two premises that are assumed valid to draw a conclusion. Empiricism uses experimentation and observation to draw conclusions. For example, here's a good logical argument for extraterrestrial life:

P1. There are many other potentially habitable planets in the galaxy
P2. There are many other galaxies in the universe
C. Therefore, on at least one other planet in the universe, there should be extraterrestrial life

But give me some observation of extraterrestrial life.

Well, first off, the terms empiricism and deductive reasoning were never mentioned. You mentioned evidence and logical arguments. Empiricism is a world view in regards to what is considered evidence, while deductive reasoning is a logical process. Evidences and logical arguments aren't necessarily grounded in either empiricism or deductive reasoning, there are various other methods to attaining or forming, respectively, both.

I asked you about evidence and logical arguments not being the same thing, and you named me a logical process and a world view, and neglected to explain why such a thing was relevant. As such, I'm confused about your reply.

And as to observations of extraterrestrial life, I neither said I could, nor even implied I could, provide such a thing, so I don't know why you're telling me to give you it.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 4:56:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 4:02:54 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 10:13:17 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:49:05 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:15:25 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.

But the debater arguing that extraterrestrial life has an impossible BoP. Like I said in the OP, you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, because there is no evidence. There's just a series of logical arguments.

When did logical arguments stop being evidence?

There's a difference between deductive reasoning and empiricism. Deductive reasoning rests on two premises that are assumed valid to draw a conclusion. Empiricism uses experimentation and observation to draw conclusions. For example, here's a good logical argument for extraterrestrial life:

P1. There are many other potentially habitable planets in the galaxy
P2. There are many other galaxies in the universe
C. Therefore, on at least one other planet in the universe, there should be extraterrestrial life

But give me some observation of extraterrestrial life.

Well, first off, the terms empiricism and deductive reasoning were never mentioned. You mentioned evidence and logical arguments. Empiricism is a world view in regards to what is considered evidence, while deductive reasoning is a logical process. Evidences and logical arguments aren't necessarily grounded in either empiricism or deductive reasoning, there are various other methods to attaining or forming, respectively, both.

I asked you about evidence and logical arguments not being the same thing, and you named me a logical process and a world view, and neglected to explain why such a thing was relevant. As such, I'm confused about your reply.

And as to observations of extraterrestrial life, I neither said I could, nor even implied I could, provide such a thing, so I don't know why you're telling me to give you it.

I think you misunderstood the entire point of what I was saying. The best that a person arguing for the existence of extraterrestrial life can do is provide some logical arguments using deductive reasoning predicated on axioms. There has been absolutely no observation of extraterrestrial life. My concern in debating that topic is that the latter consideration would outweigh the former.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 5:15:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 4:56:11 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/7/2014 4:02:54 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 10:13:17 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:49:05 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:15:25 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.

But the debater arguing that extraterrestrial life has an impossible BoP. Like I said in the OP, you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, because there is no evidence. There's just a series of logical arguments.

When did logical arguments stop being evidence?

There's a difference between deductive reasoning and empiricism. Deductive reasoning rests on two premises that are assumed valid to draw a conclusion. Empiricism uses experimentation and observation to draw conclusions. For example, here's a good logical argument for extraterrestrial life:

P1. There are many other potentially habitable planets in the galaxy
P2. There are many other galaxies in the universe
C. Therefore, on at least one other planet in the universe, there should be extraterrestrial life

But give me some observation of extraterrestrial life.

Well, first off, the terms empiricism and deductive reasoning were never mentioned. You mentioned evidence and logical arguments. Empiricism is a world view in regards to what is considered evidence, while deductive reasoning is a logical process. Evidences and logical arguments aren't necessarily grounded in either empiricism or deductive reasoning, there are various other methods to attaining or forming, respectively, both.

I asked you about evidence and logical arguments not being the same thing, and you named me a logical process and a world view, and neglected to explain why such a thing was relevant. As such, I'm confused about your reply.

And as to observations of extraterrestrial life, I neither said I could, nor even implied I could, provide such a thing, so I don't know why you're telling me to give you it.

I think you misunderstood the entire point of what I was saying. The best that a person arguing for the existence of extraterrestrial life can do is provide some logical arguments using deductive reasoning predicated on axioms. There has been absolutely no observation of extraterrestrial life. My concern in debating that topic is that the latter consideration would outweigh the former.

You could debate "It is reasonable to believe that (intelligent) extraterrestrial life exists," and then the debate would be on whether lack of observable evidence outweighs logical arguments for the plausibility of the existence of extraterrestrial life.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 5:40:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 5:15:07 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/7/2014 4:56:11 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/7/2014 4:02:54 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 10:13:17 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:49:05 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:15:25 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.

But the debater arguing that extraterrestrial life has an impossible BoP. Like I said in the OP, you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, because there is no evidence. There's just a series of logical arguments.

When did logical arguments stop being evidence?

There's a difference between deductive reasoning and empiricism. Deductive reasoning rests on two premises that are assumed valid to draw a conclusion. Empiricism uses experimentation and observation to draw conclusions. For example, here's a good logical argument for extraterrestrial life:

P1. There are many other potentially habitable planets in the galaxy
P2. There are many other galaxies in the universe
C. Therefore, on at least one other planet in the universe, there should be extraterrestrial life

But give me some observation of extraterrestrial life.

Well, first off, the terms empiricism and deductive reasoning were never mentioned. You mentioned evidence and logical arguments. Empiricism is a world view in regards to what is considered evidence, while deductive reasoning is a logical process. Evidences and logical arguments aren't necessarily grounded in either empiricism or deductive reasoning, there are various other methods to attaining or forming, respectively, both.

I asked you about evidence and logical arguments not being the same thing, and you named me a logical process and a world view, and neglected to explain why such a thing was relevant. As such, I'm confused about your reply.

And as to observations of extraterrestrial life, I neither said I could, nor even implied I could, provide such a thing, so I don't know why you're telling me to give you it.

I think you misunderstood the entire point of what I was saying. The best that a person arguing for the existence of extraterrestrial life can do is provide some logical arguments using deductive reasoning predicated on axioms. There has been absolutely no observation of extraterrestrial life. My concern in debating that topic is that the latter consideration would outweigh the former.

You could debate "It is reasonable to believe that (intelligent) extraterrestrial life exists," and then the debate would be on whether lack of observable evidence outweighs logical arguments for the plausibility of the existence of extraterrestrial life.

That makes sense.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 6:57:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 4:56:11 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/7/2014 4:02:54 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 10:13:17 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:49:05 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:15:25 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:13:56 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

"Extraterrestrial life most likely exists" or "Extraterrestrial life most likely does not exist"

This way the argument of "possible" cannot be used, it is whatever is more likely.

But the debater arguing that extraterrestrial life has an impossible BoP. Like I said in the OP, you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, because there is no evidence. There's just a series of logical arguments.

When did logical arguments stop being evidence?

There's a difference between deductive reasoning and empiricism. Deductive reasoning rests on two premises that are assumed valid to draw a conclusion. Empiricism uses experimentation and observation to draw conclusions. For example, here's a good logical argument for extraterrestrial life:

P1. There are many other potentially habitable planets in the galaxy
P2. There are many other galaxies in the universe
C. Therefore, on at least one other planet in the universe, there should be extraterrestrial life

But give me some observation of extraterrestrial life.

Well, first off, the terms empiricism and deductive reasoning were never mentioned. You mentioned evidence and logical arguments. Empiricism is a world view in regards to what is considered evidence, while deductive reasoning is a logical process. Evidences and logical arguments aren't necessarily grounded in either empiricism or deductive reasoning, there are various other methods to attaining or forming, respectively, both.

I asked you about evidence and logical arguments not being the same thing, and you named me a logical process and a world view, and neglected to explain why such a thing was relevant. As such, I'm confused about your reply.

And as to observations of extraterrestrial life, I neither said I could, nor even implied I could, provide such a thing, so I don't know why you're telling me to give you it.

I think you misunderstood the entire point of what I was saying.

I disagree, I didn't missunderstand anything. Rather, I never purported to understand your point, even going so far as to state my confusion as to your reply. In fact, I'm still confused as to your reply.

The best that a person arguing for the existence of extraterrestrial life can do is provide some logical arguments using deductive reasoning predicated on axioms.

Well, no, that's the best you've seen. But regardless, if the axioms hold true, then the conclusion of the reasoning is necessarily true. Deductive reasoning is nice like that.

There has been absolutely no observation of extraterrestrial life. My concern in debating that topic is that the latter consideration would outweigh the former.

So, with the best of my ability to understand, this is what I've come up with. Essentially, what I believe you're saying is that empiricism is a superior epistemological method than rationalism. As such, deductive reasoning cannot constitute evidence, or at least it is evidential to a lesser degree. Is that close?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
psieti
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 9:54:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you want to argue--and convince reasonable people--that other life exists in the Universe, then you're wasting your time.

On the other hand, if you want to end, and 'win' the debate, then ask the folks searching for other life--SETI researchers, and especially NASA--a simple question: "Would you welcome a message, or undeniable proof of presence, from any other civilizations who are, and have been for decades, interacting with our civilization?"

Here's the explanation:
http://ufospsychicets.blogspot.com...
Politicallion
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 10:33:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Extraterrestrial life is there. The science of the universe is vague. Man has only been able to scale the moon. If the astrophysicists claim that the atmosphere in Mars has an atmosphere which is rich in carbon dioxide. If that is true then there is a 100% possibility of other beings evolving there. It is not necessary that in order to live, you should breathe oxygen. There are beings underwater.... beyond the depths of our imagination living on this very earth who breathe hydrogen sulfide (an extremely deadly gas which can kill you in a couple of minutes). Plants over there make their food using chemosynthesis. This is a quintessential for extraterrestrial life.
Meshak
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 11:07:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 9:04:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
How exactly would you word the resolution of a debate on extraterrestrial life? It's obviously possible, but you can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that extraterrestrial life exists. What position could a debater affirming extraterrestrial life that would be conducive for a good debate?

Positive resolutions (that is to say, debates about what is or is not the case) are hard to do, simply because they're questions of fact. Extra terrestrial life is kind of a known unknown; we know that we don't know whether there is life beyond ours or not. In that ETL is a known unknown, debating about it isn't probably the best idea. It is, however, interesting to think about.... especially in the hope that one day humans could colonize some other planet.
Tsar of DDO
MoorJenni
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 1:46:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the universe of quadrillions of stars. Consequently, in the universe of quadrillions of planets. Certainly in the universe somewhere there are other civilizations. It can not be that life could have arisen only only on planet earth.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 6:11:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Since life arised once, it is at least "not impossible" that it arised twice. Since most of the components of life have been observed to arise in lab, it's likely they arised in any planet with conditions similar to those tested in the laboratory.