(Thomas Lee Elifritz) wrote in message . com...
October 3, 2004

"George Dishman" wrote in message :

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.

You will go far, by not making any predictions based on evidence which
itself is confirmed by empirical observation.

We can and do make predictions based on evidence
(in the form of observations), the is the purpose
of science, but you are making predictions based
on faith as you admit below. You are being asked
simply to identify the observations on which your
claims are based.

Prepare for greatness,
George.

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.

No, they have been claiming that there is *NO* evidence, which I
simply point out to be nonsense.

Well the way to prove that is to provide _one_ item
of evidence, it only takes one to disprove a claim of
there being none. However, it seems you cannot do that:

... can
you can add any _specific_ pieces of _evidence_ to that
list for me to consider?

They are too numerous to mention,

I'll have to take that as a "no" then.

I suggest you do a little basic research.

May I suggest : http://xxx.lanl.gov/ for starters.

I've already produced three more than you. Perhaps
you should take your own advice because so far you
have only proved everyone else to be right, you are
unable to produce a single item of evidence.

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.

The predicted number based on observations is of the
order of 10^12 galaxies in the observable universe.
You have observed a total of one Earthlike planet
therefore the result is 10^-12 per galaxy, unless of
course you want to cite the papers on
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ where you found reports of the
detection of the other hundred billion that everyone
else has missed.

Good attempt. Now, where is your evidence for the figure of
"one Earthlike planet in one average galaxy".

Earth to George, do you copy, over.

I not only copy, I can also count. One Earthlike planet
observed in a predicted number of 10^12 galaxies is not
an average of one Earthlike planet per 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.

The point is, if you want to do science, which you clearly don't, then
you have to make the leap to prediction, and you have to have some
basis of 'faith' in the basic framework of 'scientific methods and
results'.

No, Thomas. The purpose of the scientific method is to
eliminate the errors caused by introducing faith and
ensure that everything can be shown to have been derived,
either directly or indirectly, from observation.

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.

Only to your absolutist and obsolete perspective of science.

Thanks for the compliment. Now you too know what
"the scientific method" means.

George