posted by Rotinaj

I don't really understand this. It has happened once for sure, considering we are here to talk about it. How is the possibility of it happening somewhere else science fiction?  

Based on an estimate of the number of planets in the observable universe, the odds would be staggering that there is not life elsewhere.

Burden of proof rests where?

There's your answer.

posted by Zunardo

 The best short answer I can give you is because it hasn't been demonstrated elsewhere as of yet.  And I don't think it will be, at least during my natural lifetime.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

we are not alone but whatever is out there is likely plant life or simple organisms

posted by queencitybuckeye

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Especially when the proof of absence has basically been the equivalent of walking next door, seeing nobody, and saying you’re the only person on earth.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Based on an estimate of the number of planets in the observable universe, the odds would be staggering that there is not life elsewhere.

The Drake Equation for determining “probability of advanced life” can still show the probability to be very small. Even science has found that the chance of life evolving to the point we are on Earth is infinitesimally small. 

posted by Laley23

Especially when the proof of absence has basically been the equivalent of walking next door, seeing nobody, and saying you’re the only person on earth.

 

I'm not a scientist, and I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative, I just gave an honest answer to the OP and poll.

 The analogy above is well-taken.  Should a similar analogy apply for proof of existence?

posted by jmog

The Drake Equation for determining “probability of advanced life” can still show the probability to be very small. Even science has found that the chance of life evolving to the point we are on Earth is infinitesimally small. 

I've made that point a few times.  Dinosaurs dominated for like 170 million years, and pretty clearly never evolved to anything remotely involving "intelligent".  Yet man would probably never been able to evolve like it did if not for the one in a billion chance of an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs.

Then you look at how remarkably fast man evolved, while many other species around much longer never really evolved to be more intelligence.  Man is truly a fluke of nature, and it's almost a case AGAINST a planet with life and hundreds of millions of years to evolve ever evolving into intelligent life.

posted by gut

while many other species around much longer never really evolved to be more intelligence.  

posted by ernest_t_bass

I don't normally write that poorly even when I'm drunk.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

No, but an absence of proof IS reason to assume something isn't true.

The burden of proof falls on the affirmative claim.

I would submit that not only are we not alone, we may be the lowest form of intelligent life in a multidimensional multiverse.

There are very few of us that are capable of seeing things beyond anthropomorphic terms, and even those geniuses are limited by what they can verify by their senses. Imagine a blind man who has never seen color detecting/ understanding “redness”. 

That’s where we are in the scheme of things.... maybe even less significant than that.

posted by HitsRus

I would submit that not only are we not alone, we may be the lowest form of intelligent life in a multidimensional multiverse.

There are very few of us that are capable of seeing things beyond anthropomorphic terms, and even those geniuses are limited by what they can verify by their senses. Imagine a blind man who has never seen color detecting/ understanding “redness”. 

That’s where we are in the scheme of things.... maybe even less significant than that.