"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
October 2, 2004

George Dishman wrote:

We can _predict_ how many are out there based on the
evidence of the _measured_ frequency of larger planets
in systems, the known limitations on our ability to
detect them and our ideas on planetary formation, but
the scientific method then suggest that we confirm
those ideas by actual measurement.

That is your absolute scientific method.

Not mine, it was around long before I was born. However,
I'm glad to see you understand it.

Other scientific methods suggest we look
at all the evidence, and that there is no single scientific method, and those
methods are allowed to evolve over time. I suppose that concept isn't
mentioned in
your federal rulebook of the scientific method.

We can of course look at all the evidence, and conclusions
are often reached by combining disparate pieces of evidence,
but that doesn't change the scientific method which is to
accept conclusions only where they are traceable to specific
measurements. While you may wish to relax that rule, you
have yet to convince anyone else that I have seen.

The _evidence_ I am aware of which is supportive of the
hypothesis of extra-terrestrial life consists of the Viking
soil experiments (which were more likely to be the result of
inorganic chemistry), ALH84001 which is still controversial
and really tenuous and, IMHO the best so far, the recent
detection of methane in the Martian atmosphere. Now if
you want to put those together in some way that's fine, but
what people have been pointing out is that there is very
limited _evidence_ to consider, regardless of your method.

There may well be more that I don't know about, but can
you can add any _specific_ pieces of _evidence_ to that
list for me to consider?

If you don't follow that, show the calculation by which
you obtained the value of "by the billions" and cite the
specific observational data on which it is based.

Hubble HDF and UDF - simple calculations indicate the number of large galaxies
in a
WMAP estimated universe of 13.7 billion years old is 1 billion, and I
observe
one Earthlike planet in one average galaxy. The result follows.

Good attempt. Now, where is your evidence for the figure of
"one Earthlike planet in one average galaxy". To clarify,
how do you know Earth isn't the only one that meets the
criteria for "Earthlike" in the whole of the Virgo cluster?
PLease state first your criteria for a planet to be
considered "Earthlike" and then cite the measurements from
which you obtained your figure of a mean of 1.0.

Oh, and don't just say "If you take a big enough volume,
there must be a billion in it.", let's see a result in
the form of Earthlike planets per system or per galaxy
or per cubic mega-parsec, whatever you like.

Whatever ...

You do believe there is evidence of universality of physical laws via
spectroscopy,
at least back a finite period of time, don't you?

I believe that certain specific measurements have placed
tight constraints on the possible variation of the laws
(for example the variation of the fine structure constant).
I couldn't cite that evidence but I am sure there are
people in this group who could. The key here is that I only
believe it because there are specific measurements that
support that hypothesis. You are reaching a conclusion
without even being able to state on which particular
observations you are basing your claim. That is
unscientific.

George