DDO Olympics: Science

Thanks to Con for an interesting, well reasoned response. Semantics ‘Many’ is not a comparative term and there is no reason to compare life to the empty void of space. That there are 6.022*10^23 molecules in ten grams of water does not mean that a 48 pack of water is not many. Based on any definition there are many forms of intelligent life in the universe. Both my version and Con’s resolution omit any mention of extraterrestrial life or indicate a definition to one narrow form of scientific inquiry, astrobiology, which makes the resolution appealing for Pro. I disagree that there is ambiguity. It is only a natural bias toward human intelligence and a focus on the search for extraterrestrial life that leads one to interpret the resolution in this context. I’ll point out again that astrobiologists clearly accept that animals are intelligent as Pro’s source indicates. What they are looking for is a type of intelligence that can communicate across interstellar distances. I will submit that this is not even an attempt to define intelligence but to define a very narrow range of intelligence larger than humans currently possess. Con is essentially arguing that because he was focused on a narrow field of science before accepting the debate that standard definitions for terms should not apply. I would say that scientists should stop using the term ‘intelligence’ in such a xenophobic way that miscommunicates ideas to the public. Scientists are looking for electronic signals sent by intelligent life not any form of intelligent life, which is common. Personally, I am interested in Zoology and the emotional, empirical and moral thought patterns commonly seen in many ‘lesser’ forms of life. Ironically, many studies of intelligence in animals make it a point to emphasize the ambiguity of intelligence as Con has. For instance, one prominent researcher has shown that starfish are intelligent for working to remove a source of discomfort and working to avoid danger [20, pg 153]. When they cannot remove a source of discomfort they try again until they are successful. Researchers use measures of response and sensory abilities along with motivation and perspective to observe intelligence in animals [21]. Researchers often point out that other animals are often better at certain tasks that require intelligence outperforming humans. Chimpanzees beat humans hands down on measures of memory [22]. I have not used narrow zoological definitions of intelligence but have applied the standard dictionary definitions for the terms I used. Just because this is a scientific debate does not mean terms should be defined based on the narrow scientific wording in a specific field of scientific inquiry. That a degree of intelligence is not specified is highly relevant in my opinion. The debate resolution only requires some level of intelligence to be satisfied while Con is insisting on a highly advanced intelligence. If I communicated that I objected to the narrow definition of intelligence applying only to humans then I was incorrect. The definition can indeed be applied to many (see what I did there:) forms of intelligent life on earth but is still referring to a very narrow definition used with scientists focused on one area of research. Zoologists use measures of intelligence much closer to the standard dictionary definitions that I have put forward. You cannot define intelligence based on one scientific discipline that was not specified in the resolution. I dispute that the definition of intelligence that Con has used is technical. I would say that it is highly specialized to the point that it is not useful to those outside the field. I think there is a good argument that all animals are intelligent including insects. If Con is arguing that all life adheres to standard dictionary definitions of intelligence I won’t disagree. I do agree that narrowly applying intelligence to non-insect forms of life in the animal kingdom was a conservative estimate of the vast number of intelligent life that forms before one form is adaptive enough to have complex tools, language and measurable self-awareness. Con’s constants are arbitrarily low. I’ll assume that Con is not involved in the search for extraterrestrial life and neither am I. We depend on scientists in the field to make these estimates and we cannot just assign values; I was showing how vast the estimates of intelligent life in the universe are when I threw in arbitrarily small estimates into the drake equation last round. Specifically I am questioning Con’s estimates for Mo, L and LME that Con has not stated a reference for. As for Ne there may well be four habitable zones in our solar system Venus, Earth, Mars, and Europa [10] but this doesn’t have a large impact. I used values dictated by scientists in the field to come up with a range for my numbers and ended up with a reasonable figure to estimate a range of advanced civilizations and by extension all forms of intelligent life in the universe. You need many forms of intelligent life, as seen on earth, before you arrive at a version that can build advanced technology and finding this form of life is the goal of the drake equation. I used a low estimate for a range of the Drake equation of 0.125-400 compare to the classic equation that arrived at a figure of 3,500 [23]. With the very low figures Con has still estimated 660 planets with advanced intelligent life. This number would be quite low as out of the 1.2 million forms of intelligent life on earth there is only one that fits the criteria for the research directed at finding advanced intelligent life. Still using Con’s low-end figure there are still 792 million forms of intelligent life in the Universe, many by any definition. Statistical Drake Equation Modern methods acknowledge that there uncertainty when estimating the constants for the Drake equation and apply statistical analysis to arrive at a probability distribution. This reveals a very high probability of finding at least one form of intelligent life within about 42 thousand light years [23]. This is a volume of space of about 3.16*10^14 cubic light years. Galaxies are about 100,000 light years in diameter [24] or a volume of 4.2*10^15 light years. Multiplying by Con’s conservative figure for the number of galaxies, 176 billion, 1.2 million forms of intelligent life (as on earth) and dividing by the volume with a high probability of at least one form of life and you arrive at a figure of 2.79*10^18 forms of intelligent life in the universe. Recent studies into the issue critical of the drake equation have come up with estimates as high as 4,590 technologically advanced, extraterrestrial forms of life in our galaxy alone [23]. Remember this estimate is low because technologically advanced animals are rare among intelligent forms of life. Even though Con’s source points out that the figure for 176 billion galaxies was a large increase over previous estimates and that the number is always growing I will use this figure along with my conservative estimate of 1.2 million forms of intelligent life and arrive at a figure of 9.7*10^20 forms of intelligent life in the universe. By any definition there are many forms of intelligent life in the Universe. [20] University of California Publications in Zoology, Volume 4 [21] http://nationalzoo.si.edu... [22] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [23] http://www.dailygalaxy.com... [24] http://scienceblogs.com...