5 out of 5 scientists are statistical idiots

[earthseed]

There is one key piece of information that we need: How many stars have been intensively studied for planets?<br /><br />I like the poker chip analogy. Lets look at it a bit more. The first chip we pulled was red (our solar system), and somehow we can tell this. So we expect to find more red chips, but we have reason to believe that many or even most of them may be white (no planets).<br /><br />Next we get some more chips. 150 are blue, the rest are gray. The blue is a bit of a surprise (out of the blue). It counters the mostly white hypothesis, but what does it mean about red chips? Note that some of the gray chips may actually be blue (elliptical orbits or otherwise uninhabitable, but we can't detect them). Gray does not mean "not blue".<br /><br />As you have stated, if the first 150 are blue, then we have very good reason to think blue is normal, and the red one might be a fluke. On the other hand, if there are thousands of gray ones, the mostly blue hypothesis becomes rather weak. So to discuss this further, we need to know how many gray chips there are.

 

[toymaker]

New article na Space.com<br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050405_earth_like.html

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Sigh...I think you're missing the irony in this article. The reason "5 out of 5" researchers agree is because only 5 were chosen and it's likely they were chosen specifically because they held this viewpoint. I could start a panel of 5 scientists who believed global warming is not caused by humans and put out a similar headline. </font><br /><br />This is similar to the (true) poll I saw of death row inmates about 10 yrs ago. Unanimously, they all said that the death penalty had not been a deterrant to them comitting crime. Duh! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[plat]

And now they say it isnt rare at all?, is space.com messing with us?

 

[toymaker]

I think it's too early to tell anything certain.<br />The method used favours definetly one kind of planets-so it isn't objective.<br /><br />One thing that is certain is that exo-planets are beginning to be a more interesting field of research then anybody could hope it to be become.<br />I can't wait for the next generation telescopes or even more advanced versions of them-this a definate must for space science.

 

[kauboi]

I think its obvious that opinions keep constantly changing at such a fast rate this days. With such a little amount of data from such a big field, any finding could bring something new. I agree with mrmorris and the others. The statements are too hasty, even if the current data tells other thing, this is irrelevant given the circumstances.

 

[Saiph]

You know, I think this was an april fools column printed a day to early.<br /><br />Date: 31 March 2005<br /><br />I mean really, when was the last time 5 people agreed on anything? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[plat]

LOL...true

 

[Saiph]

I daresay it may be true with the "no black hole" article....nevermind. That apparently is legit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[plat]

Do you think that these scientists that came up with the habitable zone computer program article knows of the eccentric orbits? they probably do

 

[plat]

Nevermind, I just read that they do know of it

 

[earthseed]

I found this paper giving information about the distribution of extra-solar planets. From it I gather that detected solar systems are about 5% of those searched. I do not think that by itself is much of a basis to predict the nature of the other 95%. If the five scientists have a better basis for their beliefs, the article failed to convey them. I do not think they are "idiots" , or there is any bias against habitable solar systems either on their part or the reporter's. On the other hand, she can't count. Re-reading the original SDC article, I notice that at least one of the scientists actually has a different opinion.<blockquote><em>“I have a problem referring to our own solar system as unusual, because we haven’t done that experiment yet, we haven’t searched for our own solar system yet,” said Turnbull.</em></blockquote><br />The authors of the paper I cited are more optimistic about finding earth-like planets.<blockquote><em>The detection of Earth-like planets, however, is only possible from space (induced luminosity variation of about 0.01%). Several space missions aiming to detect terrestrial planets are foreseen (COROT, Eddington, Kepler). Eddington, for example, is expected to find around 2000 terrestrial planets, among them a few tens in the habitable zone of the star.</em></blockquote>and<blockquote><em>So, in about 20 years, we should be able to scientifically give an answer to a fundamental philosophical question, recurrent throughout our history, on the origin, and unicity of life in the Universe. Today, the first element to the answer has already been brought by the discovery of planets around stars similar to our Sun.</em></blockquote><br />But, that is just another scientific opinion. I guess we have to wait a while to find out.

 

[plat]

I think the "Five out of five..." title of the article might have been misleading, because it seems to imply that it is undisputed which it is clearly not

 

[the_masked_squiggy]

Didn't you know that 30% of statistics are made up on the spot?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Didn't you know that 30% of statistics are made up on the spot? "</font><br /><br />I've heard the theory, but only 1-in-4 experts agree that to be the case.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"... habitable zone computer program article ..."</font><br /><br />Off topic somewhat (although since I started the thread, I forgive myself), but one of the things I thought about when reading that article was about how good these 'Hot Jupiters' are at being the solar system vacuum cleaners. There's a body of thought (dunno how many experts agree with it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) that without Jupiter playing 'clean up', Earth would have been bombarded by many more comets, etc. than was otherwise the case.<br /><br />Transferring that thought to these other systems, would a Hot-Jupiter be more effective than our own Jupiter for vacuuming up comets? Personally, I can see arguing it either way. <br /><br />- Anything with a perihelion inside its orbit would be much more likely to get nabbed, since the orbital period would be so much shorter -- plus the circumference of the orbit would be a tiny fraction of Jupiter's, making it <b>much</b> more likely that the planet would be in the right place at the right time to snatch the comet.<br /><br />- On the other hand -- the smaller orbit means that the HJ would sweep a much smaller patch of the system. Anything that does *not* have a wildly eccentric orbit around the sun wouldn't be captured... unless there was a matching 'Cold Jupiter' in the outer system, of course.

 

[toymaker]

"Off topic somewhat (although since I started the thread, I forgive myself), but one of the things I thought about when reading that article was about how good these 'Hot Jupiters' are at being the solar system vacuum cleaners. There's a body of thought (dunno how many experts agree with it ) that without Jupiter playing 'clean up', Earth would have been bombarded by many more comets, etc. than was otherwise the case."<br /><br />The same thing made me wonder about possibility of habitable moons-I asked myself if the constant impacts would make them unsuitable for life.

 

[summoner]

From this article.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Well, according to new calculations by astronomers at Open University, as many as half of all star systems could contain habitable planets.</font><br /><br />Obviously even scientists can disagree. This study used known extrasolar systems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>