Exobiology - A science?

[silylene old]

One definition of a scientific belief is that it must be conceivable to be able to run an experiment or gather an observation which has the potential to falsify the belief.<br /><br />Exobiology fails this definition (as do many of the other "sciences" I listed).<br /> <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>

 

[centsworth_II]

Forget exobiology -- until we find life elsewhere.<br /><br />Astrobiology is the science of all life in the universe -- beginning with that on Earth. Of course astrobiology has a slant towards searching for life outside of Earth. To do this, the conditions required for life, and its origin, need to be understood. This understanding begins with life on Earth. So I would say that anyone studying life (on Earth) with the objective of using the information to search for life outside of Earth is an astrobiologist.<br /><br />I realize that life elsewhere may not resemble life on Earth, even at the molecular level. But I'm betting it does, most of the time, just as our sun and planets resemble those throughout the universe. On the other hand, maybe life as we know it is rare and another form exists throughout the universe. Just as the "bright matter and energy" we once thought constituted our universe turns out to be dwarfted by "dark matter and energy" that we didn't even suspect existed.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One definition of a scientific belief is that it must be conceivable to be able to run an experiment or gather an observation which has the potential to falsify the belief. <br /> <br />Exobiology fails this definition<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Excuse me!?<br /><br />Science isn't <i>beliefs</i> (although the humanist religion pushers would have you <i>believe</i> it to be so). Science is the practise of using a well-developed methodology to better describe the phenomenal universe, that is, this realm of cause and effect.<br /><br />Exobiology absolutely follows this methodology. By formulating hypotheses and testing them, this scientific pursuit better describes the universe. Let's use a real-world example:<br /><br />Observation: Deep space is hostile to life-as-we-know-it, yet some bacteria form spores that appear to be resistant to very extreme conditions.<br />Testable Hypothesis: Bacteria can be transported through deep space.<br />Procedure: Expose several strains of bacterial spore to the conditions of transportation through deep space (testing apparatus is according to your budget).<br />Result: ???<br /><br />Depending on the result, we modify the hypothesis. If we find that an entire class of Earth bacteria survive a stint through deep space, then we know something about exobiology. On the other side of that coin, if we find that NO type of Earth bacteria can survive in deep space, then we know something different about exobiology.<br /><br />But please, please note, that in both cases, we learn something about exobiology.

 

[silylene old]

I should've said theory or proposition or hypothesis. But I think you understood what I intended. Don't want to play word games.<br /><br />Science has to consist of potentially falsifiable propositions, in order to be science.<br /><br />from Wikipedia, though there are dozens of similar references to this concept:<br /><br /><i>Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit consideration of the possibility of its being false.<br /><br />"Falsifiable" does not mean "false". For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow.<br /><br />Any theory not falsifiable is said to be unscientific, but this does not mean it is necessarily nonsense or meaningless. Psychoanalytic theory, for example, is held up by followers of Popper as an example of an ideology rather than a science. A patient regarded by his psychoanalyst as "in denial" about his alcoholism might be viewed as confirming he is an alcoholic because he denies that he is. If he abstains from drinking liquor, the patient is showing how desperate he is to buttress his denials. In other words, there is no way the patient could convincingly demonstrate he is not an alcoholic. This is an example of what Popper called a "closed circle". The proposition that the patient is an alcoholic is not falsifiable.</i><br /> <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>

 

[bobvanx]

silylene, I agree, words games suck. Reading these white letters in a gray box, though, words are what I see.<br /><br />Anyway, the main thrust of my post was that exobiology does study falsifiable propositions. Therefore it is a true science.<br /><br />The key point, I think, is that falsifiability is upheld, "even if that observation has not been made." So a proposition like "There are microbes living under Mars' polar ice" is falsifiable. We haven't made the observation yet, but we could.

 

[alokmohan]

It is a science without data to check up.Hope titan life may open new chapter.

 

[alokmohan]

Unfair comparison.

 

[nexium]

Why is it unfair? I thought Exobiology fit nicely and logically in the list of not very hard science by 5stones. Neil

 

[centsworth_II]

Exobiology may fit into the list nicely, but 5stone10<br />was proposing that UFOlogy be fit in. And the original list is silylene's.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>