DDO Olympics: Science

(Note: This was quite rushed, I really have no time to write in the coming days.) I would like to begin this Final Round by noting that it truly has been a pleasure debating with 2-D. The debate has been rational, enlightening, informative, and rather even, and I commend Pro for being able to make this debate like that. Pro starts off his final round by arguing that 'many' is not a comparative term. I'll concede this, for many is an irregular adjective. [1] However, the word 'many' is extraordinarily vague! The only way to demarcate between two completely different interpretations of 'many,' especially as we are not using 'many' in the normal, everyday sense, is to use it in a comparative manner. Pro argues, once again, that I am comparing life to an 'empty void of space.' That is not true. I have noted, that even if we take into account that space is extraordinarily empty, there is still an extremely large 'non-empty' segment, that still makes the amount of intelligent life in the Universe, as calculated through my equation as pitifully low. Pro argues that my definition of intelligent is invalid. He gives several lines of reasoning for this. First, he argues that astrobiologists are only interested in looking life that can engage in communication across interstellar distances. While it is true that astrobiologists spend a substantial amount of time and effort in looking for technologically advanced animals, capable of interstellar communication, that is merely because it is practical. Astrobiologists still take into consideration intelligent life that does not have the potentiality to communicate across interstellar distances. SETI, for instance, still invests money, and time, in dolphin research, as well as possibilities to recognize non-human intelligence [2] [3] [4] Several major staff members of SETI' have research interests in aspects such as animal cognition and communication systems of animals. [5] Surely, if SETI was only interested in life that are capable of interstellar communication, that they would simply remove research programmes such as recognizing non-human intelligence, and dolphin research, for SETI's budget is not exactly massive, ever since the government removed it altogether from NASA funding. The Pufendorf Institute, also has interests in non-human intelligence. [6] Therefore, we conclude that astrobiologists, despite spending substantial amounts of time and effort on ilife that has the potentiality of interplanetary communication, also take into account non-human intelligence sources, with one example being dolphins. Pro gives two responses to my argument that we should be using astrobiological definitions, as we are debating a topic relavent to the subject. First, he argues that astrobiologists are somewhat xenophobic in using such a definition. While I cannot fathom how there is a logical connection between xenophobia and how astrobiologists interpret intelligence, I shall offer no response to this, as I have already critiqued the view that astrobiologists are only interested in intelligent life capable of interstellar communication. Second, he appeals to the zoology discipline, which granted, use a broader definition of intelligence. I have already argued that such definitions are useless in an astrobiological sense. How does such a definition of intelligence demarcate the boundary between 'intelligent life' and 'life? Pro argues that such an argument is invalid, for my definition of intelligence is so specialised that it bears no relevance to anyone outside astrobiology. But my question is: Why does that matter, when we are debating about a topic in such a subject? Even if the name of the scientific discipline was not shown in the resolution, it does not mean that we can stray to definitions in zoology. It is self evident that the notion of intelligent life is clearly a subject by far the most associated with astrobiology. We now can move along to equations. Pro makes a criticism regarding my equation, which in turn takes into account research developed by W&B. He argues that my estimates are arbitary; he especially questions Mo, L, and Lme. He does this by arguing that I have not given scientific references to such subjects. However, scientific research is so vague, and limited on such topics, (Pro admits this himself) that the only rational method of plugging in numbers for specific values is through somewhat arbitrary. Second, I did as much reasoning for this as possible. For Mo, for instance, I cited Nick Lane. Some of the other reasoning is based more through some general knowledge, and really can be found through a quick Google search. But, nevertheless, despite the fact that this is the final round, I shall, due to Pro's criticism, provide scientific references to my reasoning. Mo: The Cambrian Explosion claim is based off recent research in geology. [7] [8] L: Virtually all the reasoning for this can be found in Paul Davies' book The Eerie Silence (I am using an online e-reader, and there are no pages shown), Chapter Four, Subsection: The Perils of Using Statistics of One & The Great Filter. Lme: Virtually all the reasoning for this can be found in W&B's book Rare Earth. [9] Unlike The Eerie Silence (which I have in an epub format), I have a pdf version of Rare Earth, so I'm able to be more exact on this one. He also criticises Ne. He argues that there may be 4 habitable zones: Venus, Earth, Mars, and Europa. There is, unfortunately only one, at least when taking into account intelligent life. Venus has a hideously runaway greenhouse effect that would surely prevent complex life from forming, Europa, according to astrobiologists only possibly anticipate microbial life. [10] Mars is not habitable for life, as “the planet has too little mass to hold an atmosphere, and this has made the situation much worse (although it seems more hospitable for life in the past.) [11] Pro, while criticising me for not providing scientific sources, did not seem to provide a reasonable source for his '1.2 million forms of intelligent life' figure. I do however, note that he provided a source for there being 1.2 million forms of non-insect species in Round 3. However, the problem with this is that Pro has not been able to demonstrate that all non insect species are considered as 'intelligent.' Even if he does, the term 'intelligence' still would be his dictionary definition, one that I have rebutted, and one that he has not satisfactorily defended. Finally, Pro argues from appealing to the Drake Equation. The Drake Equation does no better than my equation avoiding the fact that several parameters are highly disputed! [12] The Drake Equation is also rather vague. Another probem with the Drake Equation is that it does not take into account other factors that I have 'attempted' to take into account in my reasoning. Dvorsky, argues that the Drake Equation does not take into account “the presence of physiochemical variables necessary for the presence of life (such as metallicity needed to form planets)...The equation assumes a sort of cosmological uniformity rather than a dynamic and everchanging universe.”[12] The resolution has been negated. [1] http://www.eflnet.com... [2] http://www.seti.org... [3] http://saganet.org... [4] http://www.astrobio.net... [5] http://intelligence.seti.org... [6] http://www.teokem.lu.se... [7] http://www.news.wisc.edu... [8] http://ncse.com... [9] Rare Earth, Chapter 8. Specifically Page 162-169, if one is talking about scientific references for my reasoning. However, Page 170-183 are also relevant.[10] http://www.usnews.com... [11] http://www2.astro.psu.edu... [12] http://ieet.org...