Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6652281" data-attributes="member: 177">No, actually.&nbsp; Pessimism, by definition, over-weights probabilities to one side, and therefore is not realistic.&nbsp; But, pessimists frequently make claim to being realistic.But - real science now:&nbsp; We only have one planet with life on it that we know about*.&nbsp; That means no statistically relevant sample set, and thus no real understanding of the probabilities.&nbsp; Statements as to what are &quot;realistic expectations&quot; are therefore hubris.&nbsp; The only way to gain more information to decide the question either way, is to *look* for it.&nbsp; And looking for it honestly requires a mind open to the possibility.&nbsp; Deciding you already know the answer is the antithesis of scientific inquiry.*And, despite the claim that we have been looking for decades - our technology is, at best, only recently really up to the challenge, and the funding has never been there for anything like a comprehensive approach.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6652281, member: 177"] No, actually. Pessimism, by definition, over-weights probabilities to one side, and therefore is not realistic. But, pessimists frequently make claim to being realistic. But - real science now: We only have one planet with life on it that we know about*. That means no statistically relevant sample set, and thus no real understanding of the probabilities. Statements as to what are "realistic expectations" are therefore hubris. The only way to gain more information to decide the question either way, is to *look* for it. And looking for it honestly requires a mind open to the possibility. Deciding you already know the answer is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. *And, despite the claim that we have been looking for decades - our technology is, at best, only recently really up to the challenge, and the funding has never been there for anything like a comprehensive approach. [/QUOTE]

Verification