"The Privileged Planet"
Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the authors of “The Privileged Planet” was a (Carl) Sagonite. However the book refutes Sagan.
It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.
Gonzalez was part of a team of scientists working for NASA on a project trying to determine whether or not there is life “out there”.
At least one peer-reviewed paper (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200) came from that scientific research.
The authors make predictions. For example if/ when we discover other complex life is found elsewhere in the universe, the many factors observed here will also be present there. And that life will be carbon based.
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
“The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.
This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.
Other G. Gonzalez papers that were the basis of the book (just skimming through the references):
“Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120
“Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196
“Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29
“Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458
“Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46
“Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32
“Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226
Chapter 16 offers a “Skeptical Rejoinder” answering the following 14 objections:
1) It’s impossible to falsify your argument.
“The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. The opposite of this would have the same effect- finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.”
2) It’s inevitable. Whatever environment we found ourselves in, we would find examples conducive to its measurability.
“…we are able to compare the measurability of our environment with that of other environment. For the discoveries we have made, we can reflect on the conditions necessary for such discoveries, and then compare those conditions with conditions in other settings. For instance, it’s unquestionable that a relatively transparent atmosphere is more conducive to astronomical curiosity and discovery than is a murky (translucent) or opaque one. We know that, at least in our Solar System, such an atmosphere is rare.”
3) Well, then, it’s just a selection effect of a different sort. There are phenomena we cannot observe and measure. The argument is biased toward measurable phenomena.
“Contrary to the claims of the anti-realist, who doubts the existence of external truth, scientists aren’t locked in a Kantian box where everything we perceive in the universe is primarily the product of our perception. There are many things we have difficulty measuring, and we realize that fact. For instance, we can’t determine the distance and properties of some astronomical objects. But we know they exist, since we can detect them either directly or indirectly, and we know that we don’t know their distances or many of their intrinsic properties. We can compare the objects in this category with the objects we can both detect and measure, and make generalizations about our ability to measure generally.
Similarly, we are not so bereft of imagination that we can conceive only of those things we directly perceive. If nature is regular in its operation, which we have every reason to believe, then we have some justification for extrapolating what we don’t see from what we do see. Theory often predicts the existence of certain objects prior to their discovery, such as additional planets, white dwarfs, black holes, the cosmic background radiation, and neutrinos. For fairly secure theories, we can imagine what conditions would allow us to detect such objects. We can then determine whether our environment allows us to do so and compare it with other settings in the universe. And this has happened numerous times in the past. It is striking how often physicists are able to detect entities that are initially predicted for theoretical reasons.”
4) You’re cherry-picking. You have used a biased sample to argue for correlation.
“This is always a danger with any general hypothesis like the one we’re proposing. When a theorist is looking over a large body of data, it’s always possible that he will pick out the pieces that form an intriguing pattern and ignore the pieces that don’t. As a result, when the data are considered in their entirety, the pattern dissolves. Any argument involving many different scientific disciplines is especially susceptible to such a danger, since it’s impossible to consider every piece of relevant data.
For this reason, we have intentionally chosen important examples from each of the scientific disciplines we’ve considered. We haven’t chosen obscure experiments or conditions of measurability that have little importance for science. For instance, it’s difficult to overestimate the importance of a transparent atmosphere and visible stars for astronomy, or sedimentary processes for geology. Any astrophysicist would admit the historical importance of perfect solar eclipses in the development of stellar physics. No cosmologist would deny the importance of detecting redshift of distant galaxies, or the cosmic background radiation for our knowledge of the history of the universe. Moreover, as we noted in the previous chapter, other scientists have noticed evidence of the correlation, although none have developed the argument as we have. This makes it less likely that we’re creating the correlation out of thin air.
This is an important objection nevertheless, because it would be one way to falsify the claim that there is a correlation between habitability and measurability. If our hypothesis is correct, the correlation will continue to be confirmed not only in areas we have considered but also in areas we haven’t considered. We are convinced that there are still many important discoveries awaiting us- some we can anticipate, some we cannot. At the risk of being wrong, we would be willing to predict that an identifiable subset of gamma ray bursts will one day be found to be useful standard candles. The only reason we have for predicting this is that if the correlation is real, gamma ray bursts would be prime candidates for helping us measure the universe. Perhaps they will allow tomorrow’s astronomers to probe even greater redshifts than we can with Type Ia supernovae today.
Another such prediction concerns evidence of early life. As we mentioned in Chapter Three, Earth’s geophysical processes have erased much of the early history of life. If measurability and discoverability are optimized from our vantage point, however, then we might expect that such information will be preserved somewhere accessible to us. The origin of life is a particularly important question. It would be surprising, assuming the correlation, if it could not be investigated. In fact, we might predict that such evidence is available somewhere, if we search diligently enough. It was precisely this prediction that led one of us (Guillermo) to consider the value of lunar exploration for uncovering relatively well-preserved relics of Earthly life from this early period. Finally, we’re willing to predict that since carbon and oxygen appear so often among our examples of measurability, they will be central characters in future discoveries as well.
Of course, if we’re right about these predictions, this would not prove our position but only further support it. If we’re wrong, conversely, it would not destroy our argument but would put a dent in it. But clearly our argument has a predictive dimension. In contrast, the Copernican and Anthropic Principles in their most unrestrained manifestations seem much less useful. Positing the existence of multiple universes, for instance, doesn’t offer many fecund research programs within our universe. It looks designed primarily to foreclose certain unwelcome metaphysical possibilities.”
5) Your argument is too speculative. It is based on guesses and a thin empirical base.
“Most of the examples we have selected are based on well-understood phenomena, and they are founded on abundant empirical evidence. Examples include the properties of our atmosphere, solar eclipses, sedimentation processes, tectonic processes, the characteristics of the planets in the Solar System, stellar spectra, stellar structure, and our place in the Milky Way galaxy. Some of our other examples have a weaker empirical base, because of the rapid acquisition of knowledge in certain fields. This new knowledge includes extrasolar planets, additional requirements for habitability, and a host of insights in the field of cosmology. But even in these examples our arguments have a reasonable theoretical basis.
Where our discussions are speculative, we have identified them as such. Thus, our discussion of the Circumstellar Habitable Zone, and all the factors that go into defining it, contain speculative elements, as does our discussion of the Galactic Habitable Zone. While we can’t yet estimate the precise boundaries of these habitable zones, present published studies are almost certainly missing many relevant factors, which, when eventually included, will reduce their sizes, and strengthen our argument. Notice, again, we are going out on a limb here and making predictions, which makes our argument vulnerable to future discoveries.”
6) Your argument is too subjective. It lacks the quantitative precision necessary to make a convincing case.
7) How can you have a correlation with a sample size of one?
“While it is true that Earth is the only example we have of a habitable planet, this does not prevent us from finding a correlation between habitability and measurability. First, our argument is not based merely on the particulars of our home planet and the life we know about. We have argued that life in the universe will almost surely resemble life on Earth, at least at the biochemical level, and a planet very much like ours is probably required for technological life. Starting with these basics, we have used knowledge from a broad range of disciplines to consider a broad range of environments. Discovering a correlation between habitability and measurability, then, is based on our knowledge, not our ignorance.
For example, with knowledge of stellar astrophysics and climatology, we cab ask whether a planet around an M dwarf is more or less habitable and offers more or less opportunity for discovery than Earth. Similarly, with our knowledge of galactic astronomy, we can ask how position in the Milky Way affects habitability and the measurability of the local and distant universe.”
And while Earth is the only habitable planet there are 9 planets and many moons that we can use for local comparisons
8) Since life needs complexity, the correlation is trivial. The greater the complexity, the greater the chance for a correlation between habitability and measurability.
9) There may be separate pathways significantly different from ours leading to equally habitable environments.
10) Your argument is bad for science because it encourages skepticism about cosmology.
11) General Relativity appears to be a superfluous law of nature, which is not obviously required for habitability. Yet it is an important part of science. Does this not contradict the correlation?
12) The correlation isn’t mystical or supernatural, since it’s the result of natural processes.
13) You haven’t really challenged naturalism. You’ve just challenged the idea that nature doesn’t exhibit purpose or design.
14) You haven’t shown that ETs don’t exist.
“This is true, but we did not intend to. In fact, ironically, design might even improve the possibility of ETs.”
Well, yeah…
Stars:
Total number estimated in the Milky Way- 100 billion
Over 80% are low-mass red dwarfs (most likely lack a habitable zone)
1-2% are massive short-lived blue giants
Only about 4% of the stars are early G-type, main-sequence stars like our Sun
50% of those are in binary systems
Then we have to consider what % of those are in the Galactic Habitable Zone
Earth-like planets:
We now know that our solar system is not typical
We do know other planets exist
At least 4% of Sun-like stars have giant planets at least as massive as Jupiter.
Then we have the factors required for a planet to host complex life-
Summary:
Within the Galactic Habitable Zone
Within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone
Liquid water
Orbit a Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star
Protected by gas giants
Nearly circular orbit-
Oxygen rich
Correct mass
Large moon to stabilize the angle of rotation
Moderate rate of rotation
Terrestrial planet
Ratio of water to continents
Plate tectonic re-cycling
Magnetic field
Both plate tectonics and the magnetic field require the core have enough heat to keep it liquid. The convection currents mix the minerals before recycling and also produce the required magnetic field as it flows around the iron inner core.
The Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical. When the Earth is closest to the Sun (perigee) the southern hemisphere is enjoying summer, i.e. the Earth’s axis of rotation has the southern hemisphere at a better angle (than the northern hemisphere) towards the Sun for absorbing its vital rays. The Earth has the bulk of its continents in the northern hemisphere. Water stores the heat and then transfers it around the globe.
(included comment for objection 4 via edit)
It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.
Gonzalez was part of a team of scientists working for NASA on a project trying to determine whether or not there is life “out there”.
At least one peer-reviewed paper (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200) came from that scientific research.
The authors make predictions. For example if/ when we discover other complex life is found elsewhere in the universe, the many factors observed here will also be present there. And that life will be carbon based.
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
“The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.
This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.
Other G. Gonzalez papers that were the basis of the book (just skimming through the references):
“Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120
“Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196
“Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29
“Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458
“Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46
“Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32
“Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226
Chapter 16 offers a “Skeptical Rejoinder” answering the following 14 objections:
1) It’s impossible to falsify your argument.
“The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. The opposite of this would have the same effect- finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.”
2) It’s inevitable. Whatever environment we found ourselves in, we would find examples conducive to its measurability.
“…we are able to compare the measurability of our environment with that of other environment. For the discoveries we have made, we can reflect on the conditions necessary for such discoveries, and then compare those conditions with conditions in other settings. For instance, it’s unquestionable that a relatively transparent atmosphere is more conducive to astronomical curiosity and discovery than is a murky (translucent) or opaque one. We know that, at least in our Solar System, such an atmosphere is rare.”
3) Well, then, it’s just a selection effect of a different sort. There are phenomena we cannot observe and measure. The argument is biased toward measurable phenomena.
“Contrary to the claims of the anti-realist, who doubts the existence of external truth, scientists aren’t locked in a Kantian box where everything we perceive in the universe is primarily the product of our perception. There are many things we have difficulty measuring, and we realize that fact. For instance, we can’t determine the distance and properties of some astronomical objects. But we know they exist, since we can detect them either directly or indirectly, and we know that we don’t know their distances or many of their intrinsic properties. We can compare the objects in this category with the objects we can both detect and measure, and make generalizations about our ability to measure generally.
Similarly, we are not so bereft of imagination that we can conceive only of those things we directly perceive. If nature is regular in its operation, which we have every reason to believe, then we have some justification for extrapolating what we don’t see from what we do see. Theory often predicts the existence of certain objects prior to their discovery, such as additional planets, white dwarfs, black holes, the cosmic background radiation, and neutrinos. For fairly secure theories, we can imagine what conditions would allow us to detect such objects. We can then determine whether our environment allows us to do so and compare it with other settings in the universe. And this has happened numerous times in the past. It is striking how often physicists are able to detect entities that are initially predicted for theoretical reasons.”
4) You’re cherry-picking. You have used a biased sample to argue for correlation.
“This is always a danger with any general hypothesis like the one we’re proposing. When a theorist is looking over a large body of data, it’s always possible that he will pick out the pieces that form an intriguing pattern and ignore the pieces that don’t. As a result, when the data are considered in their entirety, the pattern dissolves. Any argument involving many different scientific disciplines is especially susceptible to such a danger, since it’s impossible to consider every piece of relevant data.
For this reason, we have intentionally chosen important examples from each of the scientific disciplines we’ve considered. We haven’t chosen obscure experiments or conditions of measurability that have little importance for science. For instance, it’s difficult to overestimate the importance of a transparent atmosphere and visible stars for astronomy, or sedimentary processes for geology. Any astrophysicist would admit the historical importance of perfect solar eclipses in the development of stellar physics. No cosmologist would deny the importance of detecting redshift of distant galaxies, or the cosmic background radiation for our knowledge of the history of the universe. Moreover, as we noted in the previous chapter, other scientists have noticed evidence of the correlation, although none have developed the argument as we have. This makes it less likely that we’re creating the correlation out of thin air.
This is an important objection nevertheless, because it would be one way to falsify the claim that there is a correlation between habitability and measurability. If our hypothesis is correct, the correlation will continue to be confirmed not only in areas we have considered but also in areas we haven’t considered. We are convinced that there are still many important discoveries awaiting us- some we can anticipate, some we cannot. At the risk of being wrong, we would be willing to predict that an identifiable subset of gamma ray bursts will one day be found to be useful standard candles. The only reason we have for predicting this is that if the correlation is real, gamma ray bursts would be prime candidates for helping us measure the universe. Perhaps they will allow tomorrow’s astronomers to probe even greater redshifts than we can with Type Ia supernovae today.
Another such prediction concerns evidence of early life. As we mentioned in Chapter Three, Earth’s geophysical processes have erased much of the early history of life. If measurability and discoverability are optimized from our vantage point, however, then we might expect that such information will be preserved somewhere accessible to us. The origin of life is a particularly important question. It would be surprising, assuming the correlation, if it could not be investigated. In fact, we might predict that such evidence is available somewhere, if we search diligently enough. It was precisely this prediction that led one of us (Guillermo) to consider the value of lunar exploration for uncovering relatively well-preserved relics of Earthly life from this early period. Finally, we’re willing to predict that since carbon and oxygen appear so often among our examples of measurability, they will be central characters in future discoveries as well.
Of course, if we’re right about these predictions, this would not prove our position but only further support it. If we’re wrong, conversely, it would not destroy our argument but would put a dent in it. But clearly our argument has a predictive dimension. In contrast, the Copernican and Anthropic Principles in their most unrestrained manifestations seem much less useful. Positing the existence of multiple universes, for instance, doesn’t offer many fecund research programs within our universe. It looks designed primarily to foreclose certain unwelcome metaphysical possibilities.”
5) Your argument is too speculative. It is based on guesses and a thin empirical base.
“Most of the examples we have selected are based on well-understood phenomena, and they are founded on abundant empirical evidence. Examples include the properties of our atmosphere, solar eclipses, sedimentation processes, tectonic processes, the characteristics of the planets in the Solar System, stellar spectra, stellar structure, and our place in the Milky Way galaxy. Some of our other examples have a weaker empirical base, because of the rapid acquisition of knowledge in certain fields. This new knowledge includes extrasolar planets, additional requirements for habitability, and a host of insights in the field of cosmology. But even in these examples our arguments have a reasonable theoretical basis.
Where our discussions are speculative, we have identified them as such. Thus, our discussion of the Circumstellar Habitable Zone, and all the factors that go into defining it, contain speculative elements, as does our discussion of the Galactic Habitable Zone. While we can’t yet estimate the precise boundaries of these habitable zones, present published studies are almost certainly missing many relevant factors, which, when eventually included, will reduce their sizes, and strengthen our argument. Notice, again, we are going out on a limb here and making predictions, which makes our argument vulnerable to future discoveries.”
6) Your argument is too subjective. It lacks the quantitative precision necessary to make a convincing case.
7) How can you have a correlation with a sample size of one?
“While it is true that Earth is the only example we have of a habitable planet, this does not prevent us from finding a correlation between habitability and measurability. First, our argument is not based merely on the particulars of our home planet and the life we know about. We have argued that life in the universe will almost surely resemble life on Earth, at least at the biochemical level, and a planet very much like ours is probably required for technological life. Starting with these basics, we have used knowledge from a broad range of disciplines to consider a broad range of environments. Discovering a correlation between habitability and measurability, then, is based on our knowledge, not our ignorance.
For example, with knowledge of stellar astrophysics and climatology, we cab ask whether a planet around an M dwarf is more or less habitable and offers more or less opportunity for discovery than Earth. Similarly, with our knowledge of galactic astronomy, we can ask how position in the Milky Way affects habitability and the measurability of the local and distant universe.”
And while Earth is the only habitable planet there are 9 planets and many moons that we can use for local comparisons
8) Since life needs complexity, the correlation is trivial. The greater the complexity, the greater the chance for a correlation between habitability and measurability.
9) There may be separate pathways significantly different from ours leading to equally habitable environments.
10) Your argument is bad for science because it encourages skepticism about cosmology.
11) General Relativity appears to be a superfluous law of nature, which is not obviously required for habitability. Yet it is an important part of science. Does this not contradict the correlation?
12) The correlation isn’t mystical or supernatural, since it’s the result of natural processes.
13) You haven’t really challenged naturalism. You’ve just challenged the idea that nature doesn’t exhibit purpose or design.
14) You haven’t shown that ETs don’t exist.
“This is true, but we did not intend to. In fact, ironically, design might even improve the possibility of ETs.”
Well, yeah…
Stars:
Total number estimated in the Milky Way- 100 billion
Over 80% are low-mass red dwarfs (most likely lack a habitable zone)
1-2% are massive short-lived blue giants
Only about 4% of the stars are early G-type, main-sequence stars like our Sun
50% of those are in binary systems
Then we have to consider what % of those are in the Galactic Habitable Zone
Earth-like planets:
We now know that our solar system is not typical
We do know other planets exist
At least 4% of Sun-like stars have giant planets at least as massive as Jupiter.
Then we have the factors required for a planet to host complex life-
Summary:
Within the Galactic Habitable Zone
Within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone
Liquid water
Orbit a Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star
Protected by gas giants
Nearly circular orbit-
Oxygen rich
Correct mass
Large moon to stabilize the angle of rotation
Moderate rate of rotation
Terrestrial planet
Ratio of water to continents
Plate tectonic re-cycling
Magnetic field
Both plate tectonics and the magnetic field require the core have enough heat to keep it liquid. The convection currents mix the minerals before recycling and also produce the required magnetic field as it flows around the iron inner core.
The Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical. When the Earth is closest to the Sun (perigee) the southern hemisphere is enjoying summer, i.e. the Earth’s axis of rotation has the southern hemisphere at a better angle (than the northern hemisphere) towards the Sun for absorbing its vital rays. The Earth has the bulk of its continents in the northern hemisphere. Water stores the heat and then transfers it around the globe.
(included comment for objection 4 via edit)
posted by Joe G @ 9:13 AM
23 Comments:
At 4:36 PM,
Raevmo said…
I noticed there's no refutation of point 4: cherry picking.
Surely there are many ways in which the earth could be improved as a hospitable place for humans and as a platform for making scientific observations, yet you focus exclusively on the panglossian attributes of earth. Are you sure you are not presenting a biased sample?
At 9:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Raevmo said:
I noticed there's no refutation of point 4: cherry picking.
It's in the book, starting on page 318.
Raevmo said:
Surely there are many ways in which the earth could be improved as a hospitable place for humans and as a platform for making scientific observations,
Provide some examples. IOW show us what will improve the Earth as a habitable place and as a place from which to make scientific discoveries.
Raevmo:
yet you focus exclusively on the panglossian attributes of earth.
I did no such thing. Neither did the authors. ALL of the factors mentioned are necessary for complex life to be sustained. Plate tectonics- required for life and they allow us to study the Earth. Water- required for life and required for scientific experiments. A large moon- required for complex life and required to make scientific discoveries via solar eclipses. In the CHZ- required for life. In the GHZ- required for complex life and required for astronomy. Magnetic field- required for life.
Raevmo asks:
Are you sure you are not presenting a biased sample?
I am very sure. Ya see these factors have been determined using scientific research and all of our current knowledge of life, physics, chemistry and geology.
At 12:03 PM,
Joe G said…
OK I have included TPP's comment to objection 4- cherry picking- in the OP.
The Privelged Planet Q&A
Some other articles by the authors
At 2:56 PM,
Raevmo said…
It has been argued that Jupiter lowers the frequency with which comets strike the earth and do terrible damage, but if it were up to me, I would have created a solar system without a giant comet belt in the first place. There's a good chance that in the future lots of humans will be wiped out by such a comet.
I really don't understand why plate tectonics are required for life (could you please explain or refer?), but they also cause earth quakes, and I don't see how they provide a benefit for humankind.
And what's up with the earth magnetic field? The earth depolarizes from time to time, exposing earthly creatures to heavy doses of radiation from time to time. This might speed up evolution of course (by increasing mutation rates), but again it doesn't strike me as the perfect solution.
At 7:00 PM,
Joe G said…
No one sez that intelligent design is optimal design (or perfect design). Designers work with what they have.
"Asteroids are a subtle contributor to Earth's habitability- we need them early on to deliver water and organics, but not too many later on, since they have the unfortunate tendency to extinguish life. This most habitable of circumstances left us a small remnant population of asteroid remains to study the formation of the Solar System and the preceeding history of the production of elements within the stars. Just enough meteorites are delivered to Earth to make studying them a practical endeavor." (page 78)
Plate tectonics- necessary for recycling the planet's raw materials (carbon dioxide), mountain building, subducts old sea floor. And as I said they also help us understand the Earth's interior (seismic waves).
Earthquake damage is due to our stupidity. It could easily be minimized by avoiding faults. Science has told us where the faults are. Now we need to move or accept the consequences and the responsibilty.
Magnetic field- without it science tells us there wouldn't be any life.
At 11:01 AM,
Zachriel said…
The puddle looks around at his world.
See how well the hole fits me! Where I am a little larger, my hole is a little larger. Where I bend, it bends. Every one of my dimples has a counterpart in the hole I live it.
There is no way this hole could have been formed so perfectly for me! It must have been designed.
(The falsification criteria is pretty laughable, too.)
At 11:24 AM,
Joe G said…
When puddles can look around and ponder your plagiarism of Doug Adams may be worth something. Until then it is just inane drivel.
And when you have an intelligent explanation for the scientific data that is presented in "The Privileged Planet" that does NOT include ID, please present it. So far all we have is "multiple atomic accidents, multiple chance collisions, multiple lucky events all wrapped around multiple metaphysical universes".
I would bet that Zach never read the book and hasn't watched the video.
At 6:09 PM,
Raevmo said…
Joe says:
"No one sez that intelligent design is optimal design (or perfect design). Designers work with what they have."
This contradicts your post, which says that the earth is "best" in many ways. I gave some examples of ways in which earth could be improved, upon your request. So now you admit that earth is not optimal, that there could be planets even better suited for humankind. In other words: earth is not so special or "privileged" after all, thus reducing the main message of the video to nonsense.
I don't understand why you should feel the need anyway to show that earth is so special. After all, God kicked us out of paradise, which is the ultimate perfect place.
At 11:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe says:
"No one sez that intelligent design is optimal design (or perfect design). Designers work with what they have."
Zach:
This contradicts your post, which says that the earth is "best" in many ways.
It is. Just how much astronomy could take place on Jupiter?
Raevmo:
I gave some examples of ways in which earth could be improved, upon your request.
You did?
Raevmo:
So now you admit that earth is not optimal, that there could be planets even better suited for humankind.
Optimal is a relative word. However I doubt there is any planet even better suited for humankind. There isn't any data to suggest such a planet existed. However if it did exist I am sure the same factors present here will also be present there.
Raevmo:
In other words: earth is not so special or "privileged" after all, thus reducing the main message of the video.
The data put forth in both "Rare Earth" ( a non-ID friendly book) and "The Privileged Planet", peer-reviewed scientific data, suggests the Earth is very rare and we are very privileged.
Raevmo:
I don't understand why you should feel the need anyway to show that earth is so special.
People should know what the scientific data tells us. Especially when that data is verifiable, testable and makes valid predictions.
Raevmo:
After all, God kicked us out of paradise, which is the ultimate perfect place.
How do you know?
At 9:23 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I take it bald assertion is all you have."
An example of the implications of the nested hierarchy is the strong correlation between having mammary glands and the number of ear bones. There are any number of such correlations.
As the nested hierarchy is a specific mathematical relationship, morphological characteristics and genomic characteristics can be organized by rote, today generally with a computer algorithm.
I note you point to supposed violations of the nested hierarchy to support your own assertions, but ignore them when they don't.
If you claim that the nested hierarchy does not exist independently of the human mind, then I'm not sure there is anything that could convince you. You have delved deeply into the philosophy of hand-waving.
joe g: "Just how much astronomy could take place on Jupiter?"
As there are a hundred billion stars in just the Milky Way, there is ample opportunity for astronomy on other planets.
Raevmo: I gave some examples of ways in which earth could be improved, upon your request.
joe g: "You did?"
Yes, he did.
joe g: "However I doubt there is any planet even better suited for humankind."
Humankind evolved in the terrestrial environment. And the puddle adapted to its hole. Look how well it fits!
joe g: "The data ... suggests the Earth is very rare."
Yes, if the Earth is one in a million, that means there is only about a hundred thousand such planets in the Milky Way.
joe g: "Especially when that data is verifiable, testable and makes valid predictions."
I keep asking for those empirical predictions. I have my magnifying glass and notepad at the ready.
At 11:49 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Just how much astronomy could take place on Jupiter?"
Zach:
As there are a hundred billion stars in just the Milky Way, there is ample opportunity for astronomy on other planets.
Out of the 100 billion how many our like our Sun? 4%
Out of that number how many are located in the GHZ? Don't know
Out of that number how many have planets? don't know
Out of that number how many planets have a transparent atmosphere?
Ya see Zach it just gets worse as the factors are weighed.
joe g: "However I doubt there is any planet even better suited for humankind."
Zach:
Humankind evolved in the terrestrial environment.
According to the scientific data humans couldn't live in any other scenario. IOW a terestrial planet of the correct size, with surface water(liquid) is required.
joe g: "The data ... suggests the Earth is very rare."
Zach:
Yes, if the Earth is one in a million, that means there is only about a hundred thousand such planets in the Milky Way.
The data demonstrates that in an anti-ID scenario our Earth would be it for this galaxy and probably the universe.
joe g: "Especially when that data is verifiable, testable and makes valid predictions."
Zach:
I keep asking for those empirical predictions.
And I have presented some. The following fits:
“The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. The opposite of this would have the same effect- finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.”
There are more in the book. Instead of continuing to argue from ignorance perhaps you should read it.
At 2:31 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: Don't know"
It's hard to calculate a product when some of the terms are undefined.
joe g: According to the scientific data humans couldn't live in any other scenario. IOW a terestrial planet of the correct size, with surface water(liquid) is required."
Think joe g!! Think.
Of course humans have to have a terrestrial-like environment to live. But that doesn't apply to rock-eating organisms.
No one posits the universe is populated with humanoids.
joe g: The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. "
That's complete nonsense as a falsification. Why superior? Why not comparable? And how do you define making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment? What can that possibly mean. On Mars, we would have astronomy, but no oceanography. But we might make other discoveries that would be unavailable on Earth, such as the dynamics of CO2 glaciers.
At 8:36 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: Don't know"
Zach:
It's hard to calculate a product when some of the terms are undefined.
Then we go with what we do know.
joe g: According to the scientific data humans couldn't live in any other scenario. IOW a terestrial planet of the correct size, with surface water(liquid) is required."
Zach:
Think joe g!! Think.
Of course humans have to have a terrestrial-like environment to live. But that doesn't apply to rock-eating organisms.
No one posits the universe is populated with humanoids.
Think Zach, think! What rock-eating organism can also make scientific observations?
joe g: The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. "
Zach:
That's complete nonsense as a falsification.
That you think so just further exposes your scientific illiteracy. It should also be noted that the falsification provided is more of a falsification than you have provided for evolutionism.
And again IF you had read the book, as opposed to arguing from ignorance, then you may understand. Their premise is habitability = measurability.
Mars could NOT sustain complex life. Therefor we wouldn't have astronomy.
As my OP stated we can compare our enviroment to a host of others.
At 11:26 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Mars could NOT sustain complex life. Therefor we wouldn't have astronomy."
You just contradicted your own cite again. The so-called potential falsification asked for an environment hostile to life.
At 10:39 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Mars could NOT sustain complex life. Therefor we wouldn't have astronomy."
Zach:
You just contradicted your own cite again.
That you say so demonstrates I did no such thing.
Zach:
The so-called potential falsification asked for an environment hostile to life.
Last I checked Mars was hostile to life. Has it changed?
There isn't any reason to believe astronomy from Mars would be better than or equal to astronomy from Earth. And Mars doesn't have total solar eclipses. The earth is the only known platform in our solar system that offers that. And it just so happens to be the only known place with life.
At 4:52 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "That you say so demonstrates I did no such thing."
Your references suggested a strawman of a falsification, as reading the previous comments indicates.
At 9:53 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "That you say so demonstrates I did no such thing."
Zach:
Your references suggested a strawman of a falsification,
That is false
Zach:
as reading the previous comments indicates.
Lol! YOU have demonstrated you can't even follow along.
So Zach, tell us, how is the falsification presented a strawman?
IF we find such a place- hostile to life and offers a better platform for making scientific discoveries the authors' main premise, that habitability = measurability, will be falsified.
At 1:58 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "So Zach, tell us, how is the falsification presented a strawman?
IF we find such a place- hostile to life and offers a better platform for making scientific discoveries the authors' main premise, that habitability = measurability, will be falsified."
Because the platform must be "better", not merely equal or comparable. It leaves undefined what is meant by "better" in a scientific context. And it must be someplace where it is virtually impossible to reach during the shelf-life of the book.
If you want to study the characteristics of co2 glaciers, then Earth may not be the best place. Perhaps Mars. If you want to study ring formation, then Earth may not be the best place. Perhaps Titan.
It is not persuasive, and it is certainly not conclusive as you claim. It's justifying a preordained conclusion.
At 9:51 AM,
Joe G said…
On Titan we couldn't see the rings!
However I will send the authors an email asking them what happens if we find a hostile to life planet that offers the same discovery possibilities as Earth does.
Zach:
It is not persuasive, and it is certainly not conclusive as you claim.
I don't claim it's conclusive. I do claim that intelligent design is a far better explanation than "sheer dumb luck"- which is the anti-ID position.
Zach:
It's justifying a preordained conclusion.
Gonzalez was a Saganite. So his preconceived conclusion was very different before this research started. Go figure...
At 10:10 AM,
Joe G said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 10:10 AM,
Joe G said…
The key word is decisive:
“The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. The opposite of this would have the same effect- finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.”
However I understand why Zach would want to get hung up on this and try to distract from the relevant data.
So tell us Zach- how could we falsify the anti-ID premise- that we are here due to sheer dumb luck?
At 10:46 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "So tell us Zach- how could we falsify the anti-ID premise- that we are here due to sheer dumb luck?"
"Dumb luck" is not a particularly useful scientific construct. Just as cometary apparitions can be explained by the Theory of Gravity and there are contingent reasons why they sometimes hit planets; the diversity of life can be explained by the interaction of various mechanisms, including variation, selection, and contingency.
At 10:59 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "So tell us Zach- how could we falsify the anti-ID premise- that we are here due to sheer dumb luck?"
Zach:
"Dumb luck" is not a particularly useful scientific construct.
I know. But it is all the anti-ID position has. Go figure...
Thank you for admitting the anti-ID position is not a particularly useful scientific construct.
Post a Comment
<< Home