Exobiology - A science?

[najab]

stevehw33 said: <i>Once and for all there is NO such thing as exobiology. There is not a single cell or organism which has ever been found off the earth.</i><p>So I guess that means that there's no such thing as gravitational waves and the study of them makes no sense. Nor is there any such thing as dark matter and we shouldn't look for it. Nor, 75 years ago, were there any such thing as tectonic plates, and belief in them could be justly rediculed as "It's philosophy and speculation. It's not science. It's not even a legitimate field in the sciences."<p><i>>There is no such science as 'exobiology' and no such legitimate field of study.</i><p>I'm getting <b>really</b> tired of your arrogance - you are not the lord annointed of planetary science. You do not have the right to declare what is and is not a legitmate science. As far as I, and I venture to say, the scientific community is concerned: if there are peer reviewed papers appearing in refereed journals, then it is science.<p>The scientific community decides what is science, not stevehw33. End of story.</p></p></p></p>

 

[JonClarke]

Exobiology, strictly speaking, the study of life other than that of earth, is at best a science with (as yet) no object. Which is why people now use the term astrobiology, the study of life in the universe. We have at least one example of astrobiology to study, own own. Astrobiology also includes the study of the beginnings of life on earth and astronautical includes (impacts) on its history. Plus the theoretical limits of life, possible habitats on other worlds, and other issues that are the province of xenobiology proper.<br /><br />Jon <br /><br />edited for spelling <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

Of course it's a science!<br /><br />The science of the human behavior and mentation, and the aberrations thereof, took a few years to get recognized as a science. But most professionals regard this work as science.<br /><br />"Exobiology" first needs people to ask the "what if" questions, so we can refine our methodology. These pursuits come well before the first study sample. Xenobiology is in the very important "hypothesis" stage.<br /><br />It is the ability to wonder that defines us as a species, no?

 

[JonClarke]

It is a science without a subject, so it is not really a science as such, more of a speculative philosophy. This does not reduce its validity or interest as a subject for discussion however. That is why, like I said before, the focus is now astrobiology, not xenobiology.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Exobiology is now at the same state that "Exogeoplogy" was before high-res orbiters, landers, and rovers. It is a science of conjecture.

 

[silylene old]

One can add to the list of sciences which study something that you can't see or understand and we don't yet truly know that they are present:<br />string theory<br />dark energy<br />biology of conciousness<br />tachyons<br />certain oddities of Einsteinian relativity (e.g. frame-dragging)<br />certain aspects of quantum theory<br /><br />Yet these are sciences. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

An airship would let you get up close to the rocks, by hovering an lowering a probe. WWI airships did this, the probe being a basket with a man in it, used for reconnaissance through clouds.<br /><br />A good map is essential for a surface rover, whatever the type. A rough terrain model would be enough for an airship, which would never land.<br /><br />Interesting comment about the AI. This is certainly true for a surface vehicle, no operation autonomous AI for such an application has ever been developed. Ironially, flying is much easier, operational UAVs have been about for at least 20 years for reconnaissance. Under water is similar, AUVs have been deployed for at least 10 years on secret squirrel stuff for various navies and also for oceanographic research. The freedom to move in 3D and moving through a simple medium with a single property greatly simplifies the AI problem.<br /><br />Developing materials and systems that would work for months under such conditions might be the biggest challenge.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Conciousness is a given. If conciousness does not exist, what are we doing here? Denying conciousness is sophistry in the end and self refuting. So studying conciousness has a subject.<br /><br />The physics example are really individual problems within the larger field of theoretical phsycis. In each case if experimental verification is not forthcoming they will fall aside.<br /><br />With xenobiology, even if we have explored a thousand star systems and found them lifeness we cannot ever be sure that there might not be life out there, somewhere (or when).<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[mcbethcg]

Operating balloon UAVs near the ground (to get samples) is a different matter, I think.. It would have to be able to navigate while being randomly moved around by winds. And we don't have GPS operating at titan.

 

[najab]

><i>Einstein's theories are very weel founded, secure and substantiated. They call for the existence of gravity waves. We cannot ignore his theories or their consequences. </i><p>Has anyone <b>observed</b> gravity waves?</p>

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">There is simply no KNOWN life off our planet to study.</font><br /><br />You are correct, there is no <i><b>known</b></i>life outside of our planet, but that does not mean that there is absolutely, without a doubt no life out there. <br /><br />We have not discovered all of the species of fish in the sea, but that does not mean that a species that we have not discovered yet does not exist.<br /><br />What would make us so special to where we know all, and if we haven't discovered it, it doesn't exist.

 

[najab]

><i>There were peer reviewed articles regarding cold fusion, too. There were peer reviewe articles regarding paranormal reports. There were peer reviewed articles involving any number of now discreditted & largely abandoned areas of study.</i><p>Actually, the whole cold fusion fiasco could have been avoided if Fleischmann and Pons <b>had</b> submitted their discovery to a full peer review process. The announcements were made before the papers were even submitted to nature, never mind published in proper journals.<p>Cold fusion was discredited when nobody was able to repeat the results. Despite the brewha over cold fusion: (a) they <i>did</i> discover something interesting; and (b) it was a valid field of scientific inquiry. Science is measured as much by its failures as by sucessful patent applications.<p>><i>The facts are, your comment is illogical. A series of peer reviewed articles does NOT constitute a field of study, necessarily.</i><p>On the contrary. If there are people researching it and people reviewing the research and journals being published, then it is, by definition, a field of study.<p>Let me put the question to you then, since you feel so qualified to decide: "What is science?"</p></p></p></p></p>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"You are not the lord appointed of planetary science." -- najaB<br /><br />"I never presumed I was, but anything for an ad hominem right?" -- stevehw33</font><br /><br />How can a logical, true statement, that you agree with, be an ad hominem?<br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>How can you publish a scientific report on something for which there is not a single existing example?</i><p>It's called theoretical science. Remember you alluded to it when you mentioned Einstein's theories predicting gravity waves?</p>

 

[paleo]

It's an interesting question as to what constitutes a science. Some would call parapsychology a science...I wouldn't.<br /><br /> Sure, I'm also in agreement that life life exists on quadrillions of planets but does that make it a valid 'scientific' argument? Science is about evidence and proof and not conjecture.<br /><br /> I like the term astrobiology. We're part of that and we exist. There's scientific evidence of life on Earth. There's scientific evidence, therefore of life in the Universe. <br /><br /> 'Exobiology' walks a fine line between being a science and being a catch-all for whacko speculation. When one hears or reads 'there has to be...' then the red flags must go up. There doesn't 'have to be' anything for which we have no evidence. No more than there 'has to be' ghosts or 'has to be' ESP or 'has to be' UFOs. Volumes written, but no evidence.<br /><br /> On the positive side exobiology at the academic level is studied (speculated on?) by scientists who practice scientific methodolgy in chemistry, geology, biology, etc. Statements hopefully are always qualified until evidence and proof is produced. A lot of words like 'maybe' and 'probably' and 'could be' , etc. give exobiology more validity rather than unqualified statements of 'fact' that aren't actually 'fact'.<br /><br /> I'd call it a science if scientific methodology is used and it doesn't overstep being more than a collective framework of intellectual pursuit.

 

[najab]

><i>A field of 'Scientific study? You impale yourself on your own badly wielded verbal sword. Paranormal literature is replete with exactly what you write. Researching, reviewing and publishing. And it's all a crock.</i><p>You don't believe it. Fine, neither do it. But that doesn't make the field invalid, nor does it negate their research. Remember, in 100 years they could be proven correct.<p>Science isn't in the results, it is in correctly applied methods, accurate reporting of results and theories, and meticulous peer review.<p>Going back to my previous example: 75 years ago plate tectonics had the same standing amoung 'serious geologists' that paranormal research has today. Yet today it is is the standard explanation. Why? Because of the scientific process.</p></p></p>

 

[najab]

<font color="orange">"You are not the lord appointed of planetary science." -- najaB<br /><br />"I never presumed I was, but anything for an ad hominem right?" -- stevehw33</font><br /><br />Actually, it wasn't even close to an ad hominem? I don't know if you remember this?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />The National Space Science Center's Lunar Fact Sheet lists a the composition of the Lunar Atmosphere. The American Geophysical Union talks of a Lunar Atmosphere. The IAU has published a number of papers on the Lunar Atmosphere. The Apollo 17 astronauts even took along an experiment to study its composition. I think I'll take their opinion over yours any day. -- najaB<br /><br />Just because some scientists use the term does not make it any more correct or less absurd. -- stevehw33</font>font color=green>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">The phrase "lord appointed of planetary science" is innately, intentionally insulting. How can you not see that?</font><br /><br />He said you were <b>not</b> "lord appointed of planetary science". As I said, a logical, true statement. You agreed with it, I'd assumed you had read it correctly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">"We have not discovered all the species of fish in the sea, but that does not mean that a species that we have not discovered yet, does not exist." <br /><br />Except for the Obvious fact that we HAVE the OTHER fish already.</font><br /><br />WE are the other fish. We are real existing examples in ourselves.

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">I have plenty of citrus in my backyard. Were anyone to believe they could find more there each season, no one would be shocked. I am NOT lookin, however, in my own orchard for mangosteens. They cannot and will not grow there. That is my point.</font><br /><br />Of course you would not look for alien life on Earth, but you may look for it in other orchards, planets, or moons.<br /><br />Good try, but the analogy is not a good one and proves, as do all anologies, nothing.--Stevehw33

 

[silylene old]

Jon, I am not denying that exobiology is a science and worthy of study. I think it is. I was simply listing out other well-accepted scientific areas which happen to have "fuzzy boundries".<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Conciousness is a given. If conciousness does not exist, what are we doing here? Denying conciousness is sophistry in the end and self refuting. So studying conciousness has a subject. </font><br />I don't deny conciousness (of course!). I listed it simply since the study of it is an unusual, in that what we study, we cannot define (nor replicate), yet we know it exists! It's the only science like this.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The physics example are really individual problems within the larger field of theoretical phsycis. In each case if experimental verification is not forthcoming they will fall aside. </font><br />agreed. These are simply examples of scientific study of a hypothetical phenomena thought to exist, but not yet observed. In such manner, they are similar to exobiology. <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>

 

[rogers_buck]

By the time we have the technology to survey at great distances for biology, the problem might not be so interesting. What I mean by that is our abilities to simulate organic chemistry will be so far advance we will consider the problem no more interesting than any other less organized chemical reaction given any particular initial conditions. We might, to a high degree of confidence, predict which world has life and which does not. Of course the problem would evolve to the next layer of complexity, which of these worlds has technological life?<br /><br />I'm not sure our abilities to simulate might not exceed our needs for ground truth. Computing power is exponentially growing, after all. Our future selves might live in a universe populated by worlds hip deep in shroedinger cats.

 

[paleo]

Rogers, good perspective.<br /><br /> The dichotomy between organic and inorganic chemistry is artificial. The laws of physics, chemistry, etc. are no different in what we call life or non life.<br /><br /> Life 'has' to happen under certain conditions. Any other result would defy the physical laws of the universe as we know them. Life isn't 'special' in any context other than that which our human consciousness gives it.

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">list of sciences which study something that you can't see or understand and we don't yet truly know that they are present: <br />string theory <br />dark energy <br />biology of conciousness <br />tachyons <br />certain oddities of Einsteinian relativity (e.g. frame-dragging) <br />certain aspects of quantum theory <br /><br />Yet these are sciences.</font><br /><br /><br />You forgot to list UFOlogy, which fits your - '...something that you can't see or understand and we don't yet truly know that they are present' - criteria !!

 

[phaze]

Semantics... blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />But as long as we are on this - Webster's and American Heritage both consider 'exobiology' to be a branch of 'biology', which they note is a life science. <br /><br />Also of note, exobiology is considered not only the search for extraterrestrial life - but ALSO the study of the effects of extraterrestrial environments on living organisms.<br /><br />Extraterrestrial is defined as being "outside the Earth or its atmosphere."<br /><br />OK - so I don't know much about nothing, but I'm pretty sure there have been some studies on the effects of being outside the Earth's atmosphere on living creatures. <br /><br />Thus, exobiology is a science. <br /><br />