This makes every argument moot

[jaycanuck]

Every disagreement, every bit of name calling, every racist view should be eliminated by this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

[kalina]

Every disagreement, every bit of name calling, every racist view should be eliminated by this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

A very inspiring message! Almost prophet-like.

[brickcitybrother]

Damn that's perfect ... if only you can condense that into a 15 second statement.

[Fox]

Every disagreement, every bit of name calling, every racist view should be eliminated by this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

:claps

This is the point that governs how I treat people. We're all in it together. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way so sometimes you have to get ignorant lol.

[Faldur]

Sorry for not drinking the cool-aide, were some nice words. Answers nothing... (dawns his asbestos vest)

[trish]

Awww, poor poor Faldur. He's all alone in the universe. There, there...don't get all defensive now.

[jaycanuck]

Sorry for not drinking the cool-aide, were some nice words. Answers nothing... (dawns his asbestos vest)

Wasn't looking to answer anything. Was looking to give hope I guess.

If you want to look at a bit more realistic / doom and gloom outlook, may I direct you to the late and great George Carlin. Although doom and gloom really...it still paints a really nice picture for that little blue dot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

[tommymageeshemales2]

I absolutely agree with Faldur.

Seems you couldn't refer anyone to a more moot topic. So kudos on a cerebral (accidental or otherwise) post and the irony afoot.

And since we're on Carl Sagan - while he explains things in an admirably simple fashion, he has (as another of the vids on Youtube reminded me) arbitrarily concluded that there could be as few as ten OR as many as millions of civilisations capable of radioastronomy in the milkyway. It would appear to me, that this is no conclusion at all, and indeed, moot also.

Point is, just because someone has the rare combination of excellence in a scientific field and a warm way of communicating this to the lay-man does not necessarily mean we can allow his views any more credence than the messages of your local preacher (or any other mainstream theologan), as a purely arbitrary example. I don't disagree the vids overall sentiment, I just don't think it deserves particular lauding.


Remember, while some are looking at the stars - we are all still in the gutter. Although I think someone else has a different take on this analogy.


Ciao!

[jaycanuck]

I absolutely agree with Faldur.

Seems you couldn't refer anyone to a more moot topic. So kudos on a cerebral (accidental or otherwise) post and the irony afoot.

And since we're on Carl Sagan - while he explains things in an admirably simple fashion, he has (as another of the vids on Youtube reminded me) arbitrarily concluded that there could be as few as ten OR as many as millions of civilisations capable of radioastronomy in the milkyway. It would appear to me, that this is no conclusion at all, and indeed, moot also.

Point is, just because someone has the rare combination of excellence in a scientific field and a warm way of communicating this to the lay-man does not necessarily mean we can allow his views any more credence than the messages of your local preacher (or any other mainstream theologan), as a purely arbitrary example. I don't disagree the vids overall sentiment, I just don't think it deserves particular lauding.


Remember, while some are looking at the stars - we are all still in the gutter. Although I think someone else has a different take on this analogy.


Ciao!

My goodness. I didn't say that "we're the only ones here" or "that's the only blue dot". But the message indicates it's our only blue dot. Not just humans but animals, plants whatever. The video was not meant to initiate debate on whether Mr. Sagan's comments were lofty or not.

Perhaps you would like to try a different blue dot? (what I meant by this is...try to get to another one of those Milky Way planets)

[trish]

tommyetc. asserts
Carl Sagan…has arbitrarily concluded that there could be as few as ten OR as many as millions of civilisations capable of radioastronomy in the milkyway. It would appear to me, that this is no conclusion at all, and indeed, moot also.

Sagan’s conclusion, by the way, wasn’t arbitrary, though it admittedly had heaping spoonfuls of guesswork. A consequence of the conclusion is that there are at least ten, which, if true, settles the often argued question, “Are there any?”

Faldur failed to make one complete sentence; so it’s difficult to know wherein your agreement lies.

It's rather surprising that Jay's link raises such hackles?!

[jaycanuck]

"Can we all get along?"

[muhmuh]

Sagan’s conclusion, by the way, wasn’t arbitrary, though it admittedly had heaping spoonfuls of guesswork. A consequence of the conclusion is that there are at least ten, which, if true, settles the often argued question, “Are there any?”

ahem? guessing loads of numbers that we have no knowledge whatsoever about isnt science and does not settle anything
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_drake_equation.png

[Quiet Reflections]

Damn that's perfect ... if only you can condense that into a 15 second statement.
I love Carl Sagan. i think his life was remarkable but we all know that he could never make an abbreviated statement due to the large amounts of pot he smoked

[thx1138]

No, we can't:

[tommymageeshemales2]

tommyetc. asserts
Carl Sagan…has arbitrarily concluded that there could be as few as ten OR as many as millions of civilisations capable of radioastronomy in the milkyway. It would appear to me, that this is no conclusion at all, and indeed, moot also.

Sagan’s conclusion, by the way, wasn’t arbitrary, though it admittedly had heaping spoonfuls of guesswork. A consequence of the conclusion is that there are at least ten, which, if true, settles the often argued question, “Are there any?”

Faldur failed to make one complete sentence; so it’s difficult to know wherein your agreement lies.

It's rather surprising that Jay's link raises such hackles?!

I think a number of points have been misunderstood here. Not only points here, but the meaning of the word arbitrary, and possibly moot, has been misunderstood too. Let me explain.

Arbitrary in simple terms means unsupported, random almost. So to make an arbitrary conclusion, would mean you've decided something is x, yet have used some form of argument that relies upon zero or, at the very least, dubious rationale. In Sagan's case his argument is a mathematical equation that, by your own admission, relies heavily on....guesswork. Pure conjecture.

Mama mia! If you can't accept that as arbitrary, then maybe you won't read the following point.

Imagine you put the following question to a grade schooler:

"Johnny, there are 1bn stars in our galaxy, and there are at least 1bn galaxies in the universe. In fact no, because the universe is continuously expanding, there an infinite number of galaxies in the universe. How many civilisations do you think COULD potentially make contact with us, or not even us, make contact with another civilisation who are equally as advanced as they are?".
I, based on my own little bit of guesswork, would be willing to argue that Johnny's conclusion is equally as likely to be right as Sagan's. Well, I'm actually being unfair on myself by saying i'm using guesswork only. I'm also cognisant of what mathematicians call "arbitrary constants". Sagan's equation is littered with them, the 1bn figure for instance. This might as well be infinity.

Trish, I would - if you're interested - ask you to look up what these things are. It would put my point into context. Mathematicians, insurance companies and anyone working with probable outcomes unwittingly rely on them all the time. They're the "plug figure" when all other arguments/logic has been exhausted yet someone still wants to prove the likelihood of something happening is X when in fact it could be Y, or Z or BANANA!!

To summarise, I actually agree with Faldur - whether he formed a complete sentence or not - Sagan has contributed nothing more than most of us should already know, or at least heard before, but have since forgotten. It's trite. We've every right to point that out, or as you put it, raise our hackles.

[tommymageeshemales2]

Sagan’s conclusion, by the way, wasn’t arbitrary, though it admittedly had heaping spoonfuls of guesswork. A consequence of the conclusion is that there are at least ten, which, if true, settles the often argued question, “Are there any?”

ahem? guessing loads of numbers that we have no knowledge whatsoever about isnt science and does not settle anything
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_drake_equation.png

Partially the same point I just made. But put concisely :0)

High 5!!

[Rogers]

"Can we all get along?"

I share the sentiment, jaycanuck, I really do. But if we do ever get off this planet, and that's the only way to ensure human survival, we'll most likely still be at each others throats in space too. I'd say Blade Runner rather than Star Trek. And should we ever come across an alien culture too soon, God only help us...

"I think it would be a disaster. The extraterrestrials would probably be far in advance of us. The history of advanced races meeting more primitive people on this planet is not very happy, and they were the same species. I think we should keep our heads low."
- Stephen Hawking, Interview with National Geographic about the possibility of an alien invasion.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

Professor Hawking hasn't been too well recently.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8008767.stm

[tommymageeshemales2]

30 years isn't so recent.

[jaycanuck]

I think a number of points have been misunderstood here. Not only points here, but the meaning of the word arbitrary, and possibly moot, has been misunderstood too. Let me explain.

Arbitrary in simple terms means unsupported, random almost. So to make an arbitrary conclusion, would mean you've decided something is x, yet have used some form of argument that relies upon zero or, at the very least, dubious rationale. In Sagan's case his argument is a mathematical equation that, by your own admission, relies heavily on....guesswork. Pure conjecture.

Mama mia! If you can't accept that as arbitrary, then maybe you won't read the following point.

Imagine you put the following question to a grade schooler:

"Johnny, there are 1bn stars in our galaxy, and there are at least 1bn galaxies in the universe. In fact no, because the universe is continuously expanding, there an infinite number of galaxies in the universe. How many civilisations do you think COULD potentially make contact with us, or not even us, make contact with another civilisation who are equally as advanced as they are?".
I, based on my own little bit of guesswork, would be willing to argue that Johnny's conclusion is equally as likely to be right as Sagan's. Well, I'm actually being unfair on myself by saying i'm using guesswork only. I'm also cognisant of what mathematicians call "arbitrary constants". Sagan's equation is littered with them, the 1bn figure for instance. This might as well be infinity.

Trish, I would - if you're interested - ask you to look up what these things are. It would put my point into context. Mathematicians, insurance companies and anyone working with probable outcomes unwittingly rely on them all the time. They're the "plug figure" when all other arguments/logic has been exhausted yet someone still wants to prove the likelihood of something happening is X when in fact it could be Y, or Z or BANANA!!

To summarise, I actually agree with Faldur - whether he formed a complete sentence or not - Sagan has contributed nothing more than most of us should already know, or at least heard before, but have since forgotten. It's trite. We've every right to point that out, or as you put it, raise our hackles.


I think there's been a misunderstanding in my subject heading. When I said "argument" is moot I wasn't relating to Sagan's theories on the universe. I meant argument as in our daily conflicts on this planet.


Every disagreement, every bit of name calling, every racist view should be eliminated by this.

I had no intention to debate whether Mr. Sagan's theories were right or wrong. The simple fact is that I believe there are other planets that support life out there. I'm saying that unless you have a faster-than-light ship to get to those planets..... THIS IS IT .

I meant this posting to be a bit of hope but obviously there are some who don't want to see the bigger picture.

[tommymageeshemales2]

well that's certainly dressed me down jay....

Anyway, I and everyone else who had the gumption to post to this thread, has (let's assume) understood your intentions on posting the link. It can only be seen as a positive act. Trying to spread a positive message. A message of hope. Like I said in my original post, I don't disagree with that sentiment at all. So, Bravo to Sagan for making it and Bravo to you for perpetuating it.

What I do disagree with is the rationale on which that message is founded. Take a stand back and *you* might finally realise the big picture is getting bigger and bigger....like the expansion of the universe, now ain't that a convenient likeness.

[trish]

I too, don’t take a whole lot of stock in Sagan’s estimate. But I responded because I sensed a certain derisive provocation in tommyetc's post.

Carl Sagan, in addition to his professional work, wrote for the general public. Among his popular works is an essay in which he attempts to estimate the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might communicate. He uses an equation attributed to Frank Drake. It is not an equation derived from first principles nor does it originate from any deep statistical analysis. It’s just a simplistic back of the envelope affair. It asserts that the number N of such civilizations is equal to the mean rate of star formation in our galaxy times the proportion of stars that have planets times the average number of those that can support life times the proportion of those with intelligent life times the proportion of those that emit detectable evidence of their existence into space times the temporal window over which they emit detectable signals. The equation itself has an ad-hoc nature; it assumes, for example, that all civilizations have planetary origins. To determine N one needs upper and lower bounds on all the variables that appear as factors in Drake’s formula. Some of these bounds can be ascertained with some clarity, such as the rate of star birth in our galaxy. Some of the bounds require a generous amount of guesswork, such as the proportion of planets that support life which have intelligent life. So I agree with Muhmuh when he says this is not science. I don’t think Sagan thought it was science either, but I may be wrong there. Does anyone know if Carl published or attempted to publish his estimates using the Drake equation in any refereed scientific journals?

On the other hand, if for each variable reasons are given for its chosen bounds, then I disagree that the choices can be called arbitrary. To my ear, arbitrary means willy-nilly. When a mathematician says, “Let x be a value arbitrarily chosen from a set S,” she means that what follows will be independent of the specific value chosen for x. Sagan doesn’t think that the value of N is independent of the values of the variables that appear in Drake’s equation. He thinks those values need to be chosen with reason and he attempts to justify his choices with reasons. His choices and reasons may be seriously flawed and dubious to the point of rendering his conclusion highly unreliable. I just wouldn’t say the choices are arbitrary. So I suppose tommyetc. and I have a minor disagreement on the meaning of the word ‘arbitrary” and it is this disagreement which makes his assessment of Sagan’s essay on the Drake equation sound a bit too harsh to my ear. The phrase, “his conclusion is no conclusion at all” just seems to add to that harshness. A conclusion given with reasons may be wrong or incorrect or not a consequence of the reasons given; but to claim it’s no conclusion at all is to claim it somehow fails to be an understandable proposition, perhaps it's ungrammatical to point of not making sense, or says nothing at all, or perhaps it asserts a simple tautology. But the claim that there are at least ten civilizations in our galaxy is indeed understandable and it’s not a simple tautology.

[tommymageeshemales2]

If you want harsh Trish, I could bring Oscar Wilde back into it again. “She lacks the indefinable charm of weakness”.

Now it would be harsh, and unfounded, to say that about you since our paths have never crossed. Although, I can see you've made plenty of posts and can only imagine they don't involve uploading pornographic images (which my alter-ego has a tendency to do, hence my 400 or so posts). Perhaps you post on other threads where you don’t mount an argument for, what would appear to be, argument’s sake alone – so, do you lack the charm of restraint? Only you can say.


On your response, on the face of it, it’s articulate. But that’s just the face of it. The guts of the post point out the obvious, to me at least. But I am willing to declare touché! My first point showed not only derision, for the doe-eyed nature of the “this makes every argument moot” original post, but disdain too!! And I certainly intended to provoke. It’s a quick, brutal and some might say harsh way of getting people, who have the will and the capacity to, to think.... or raise their hackles as you put it.

Ta-ta!

Tommyetc.

[Alyssa87]

i saved this vid.
thanks for posting.

i get so caught up in my own mental and emotional problems so much. its good to take a step back.

: )

[jaycanuck]

Ta-ta!

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


i saved this vid.
thanks for posting.

i get so caught up in my own mental and emotional problems so much. its good to take a step back.

: )

This was the intended reaction..and you are most definitely a most deserving person of it.

[trish]

If you want harsh Trish, I could bring Oscar Wilde back into it again. “She lacks the indefinable charm of weakness”.

That’s rather flattering actually. But how can you say in the same post that your intent was to brutally provoke and that my response was made for argument’s sake alone? I claim I was provoked :) Yet, I thought my response was rather conciliatory. It certainly wasn’t an attack. In any case thank you for revealing the real point of your irritation which is not Sagan’s logic (for which he can indeed be faulted) but his doe-eyed sentimentality (which oddly warrants your disdain). Toot-a-loo.

I saved the clip as well, Jay, but I’m sorry my posts weren’t exactly what you were hoping for. I'll try to behave better in the future.
:)

[jjhill]

My buddy does it when a pen and paper. To explain why woman love bad guys, they do one good thing and that's all they see

[jaycanuck]

If you want harsh Trish, I could bring Oscar Wilde back into it again. “She lacks the indefinable charm of weakness”.

That’s rather flattering actually. But how can you say in the same post that your intent was to brutally provoke and that my response was made for argument’s sake alone? I claim I was provoked :) Yet, I thought my response was rather conciliatory. It certainly wasn’t an attack. In any case thank you for revealing the real point of your irritation which is not Sagan’s logic (for which he can indeed be faulted) but his doe-eyed sentimentality (which oddly warrants your disdain). Toot-a-loo.

I saved the clip as well, Jay, but I’m sorry my posts weren’t exactly what you were hoping for. I'll try to behave better in the future.
:)

That's fine Trish. For those who got a positive message, I'm happy I could help. For those who wish to see cynicysm, so be it.