DDO Olympics: Science

Thanks, Pro, for your cogent response.I disagree with Pro’s claim that this debate is not semantical. The debate resolution itself: “It’s likely that there are many forms of intelligent life in the universe,” displays syntactic ambiguity, for it has been interpreted by Pro in a ‘literal’ manner; he is using intelligent life on Earth to support this claim! However, I, on the other hand, interpreted the resolution in regard to the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life. These are completely different interpretations! The word ‘intelligent ‘is ambiguous. Pro, has provided definitions for this, whilst dismissing my definition in his Second Round. He gives two reasons for dismissing my definition. First, the debate resolution does not specify a degree of intelligence. Second, my definition of ‘intelligent’ only applies to humans. Both of those are at best misguided. Whether the debate resolution states a degree of intelligence is completely irrelevant to the debate. As a matter of fact, the definition would be very suitable towards this debate. We are debating about a subject in astrobiology, and it would only seem rational that we use a technical term, advocated by scholars in the field relevant to the subject, rather than an arbitrary dictionary term.It is simply not true that my definition only is applicable towards humans. Dolphins also would fit the definition. Dolphins do have self-awareness [1], do use tools [2][3], and do have a language. [4] Bonobos also, under this definition are considered as intelligent. They do have self-awareness, as they pass the mirror recognition test [5], do use tools [6] and do have a language. [7] So, Pro’s criticisms that the website I used to derive the definition from also classify dolphins and bonobos as ‘intelligent’ simply makes no sense whatsoever. Pro’s ‘definition’ of ‘intelligent,’ when applied to astrobiology, is also completely meaningless. If astronomers and astrobiologists were using such a definition, they would virtually have to start from scratch as they have a completely different working definition of ‘intelligent.’ Gleiser, for instance, defines an intelligent animal as being “capable of self-awareness and developing technology through the directed manipulation of energy and materials.” [8] Other astrobiologists relate intelligence to language and social behaviour. Pro, in advocating his dictionary, non-technical ‘definition’ of ‘intelligent’ is merely attempting to win by definition. It would be suicidal to deny the mountains of peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting his argument, which is based on his definition! He also notes: “Animals all demonstrate some level of learning, problem solving and an ability to adjust to new situations i.e. some form of intelligence.” But how would that demarcate the boundary of intelligent life and life itself? Pro needs to answer these criticisms. Let’s move onto the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. Pro has used the Drake Equation in order to support his argument that there are many forms of intelligent life. I’ll recalculate the amount of intelligent life in a more comprehensive way, through the formula of: Ng, the number of galaxies in the Universe is about 176 billion. [12] I’ll calculate Il, and Hp through using a ‘Great Filter’ where numerous, successive circumstances each have a probability, which are multiplied together. Here is an example of a ‘Great Filter’ (I won’t actually exactly use this, but the point should be obvious): Hp, the number of habitable planets within our galaxy can be calculated with the formula: N*, the number of stars in the Milky Way, is determined to be 300 billion, through a quick Google search. Ng, the number of stars in the galactic habitable zone is 0.05, according to Gonzalez et.al’s research (I discussed this in Round 2)Fp, the fraction of stars with planets, is 2%, or 0.02, according to astronomer Derek Fox; this is based on the Kepler Mission. [10] Fpm, the amount fraction of metal rich planets, (gaseous planets do not support life) is very uncertain; we have a few in the Solar System, and have found about 200 beyond the Solar System. Let’s assign this as 0.4Ne, the planets in star’s habitable zone shall be assigned 0.125, based on our Solar System.Fm, the fraction of planets with large moon, (it gives rise to tidal pools, which are needed for the formation of complex life [11]) is also uncertain. If the Giant Impact Theory for the formation of the moon is true, then the probability would be extremely low. 0.1 would be an optimistic guess.Fj, the fraction of Solar Systems w. Jupiter sized planets, (they give Earth a stable orbit) is also speculative; let’s assign this as 0.5 as a guess.We calculate N (ne) to be 750000.Il can be calculated through the following formula: Pro argues that the origin of life is likely (or O), as life took rather quickly to start on Earth after the Great Heavy Bombardment. Of course, this may be also complete statistical fluke; biologists like Jacques Monod have suggested this. Let’s assign this as 0.5 to compensate for both sides.Watson has already assigned Ub, the development of unicellular cells, and Cc, the development of complex cells as 0.1 (source found in Second Round)Nick Lane has suggested that the likelihood of Mo, the development of multicellular organisms, is low. Even though simple life arrived quickly enough, complex organisms took half of Earth’s lifetime before arsing. Lane believes that the evolutionary pathway from simple life to complex life involved a process that is very unlikely. [13] This is also supported by modern paleontology, which suggests that the Cambrian Explosion may be a chance event caused by the buildup of calcium concentration, in the sea, during the Cambrian explosion. Let’s assign this as 0.001L, or the development of intelligence I’ll assign a paltry 0.00001, because intelligence took an extraordinarily long time to develop stably, without life forms being wiped out due to mass disaster ( this took over 3 billion years!), during a time when the Sun was still burning stably. In other planets, in the case that life actually developed, they may not even be as remotely lucky. Lme, the probability of having a no mass disasters after intelligence has developed, shall be assigned as 0.0001. Earth is actually quite lucky that it is located in a Solar System which resides in a quiet corner of the galaxy, as compared to other regions, with relatively nearby gamma rays, supernovas, etc, which would result in a quick death even of intelligent species. There are also other possibilities of mass extinction that could occur, including alterations of the planet’s spin rates (causes ½ of the planet to become extremely hot, ½ to become extremely cold), moving out of the star’s habitable zone, and an increase in the Sun’s energy output. We have not had any significant extinction since the dinosaurs died out 65 million years, which in my opinion, is an amazing feat. If this is the case, then it would indicate that we are quite lucky.In total, after multiplying all the variables together, we find that the amount of planets in the Universe that holds intelligent life to be a low 660.I have already argued that we should compare this to the size of the Universe, but Pro has argued that most of space is inhospitable. He is correct, but the sheer size of the Universe (the observable Universe is 93 billion light years across! [14]) even if we assume that 99+% of the Universe is inhospitable, would still make it silly to argue that there are ‘many’ forms of intelligent life. Thank you. I apologise if my sources are muddled up; I had difficulty organizing them.[1] http://is.gd... [2] http://is.gd...[3] http://is.gd...[4] http://is.gd...[5] http://is.gd...[6] http://is.gd... [7] http://is.gd... [8] http://is.gd...[9] http://is.gd...[10] http://is.gd...[11] Rare Earth pg. 223[12] http://is.gd...[13] http://is.gd...[14] http://is.gd...