Odds of Life on Nearby Planet '100 Percent,' Astronomer Says

You are supposed to write headlines and write stories that say attention-grabbing things like Man Bites Dog! I supose the headline above should be read in that category, with a twist: Here's something wildly incredible and fanciful and improbable: Did you hear about the astronomer, who said, get this, that the odds of life on nearby planet are 100 Percent? What was he thinking? What do astronomers know about biological life, and, besides, if the odds are 100 percent, then there are no odds--at least if I go to Arlington Race Track and find a horse that has a 100 percent chance of winning, they probably won't be taking bets on him. No odds there. 

So: the story at FoxNews is that a planet 20 light years away, circling a red dwarf star, has an interesting temperature profile and daylight to darkness profile: 

Between blazing heat on the star-facing side and freezing cold on the dark side, the average surface temperature may range from 24 degrees below zero to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 31 to minus 12 degrees Celsius), the researchers said.

So, 24 below up to 10 degrees above, constant night and constant night, all sounds promising. Then:

Gliese 581g has a mass three to four times Earth's, the researchers estimated. From the mass and size, they said the world is probably a rocky planet with enough gravity to hold onto an atmosphere.

Probably? Oops. And just what kind of atmosphere? Just how many kinds of atmosphere are even able to support life? Called it Planet Surefire when it comes to life.

I am not saying this planet could not support life. I am just wondering what are the chances that any given astronomer would peg a planet with so many unknowns or uncertainties with a probability of having life on it at 100 percent? Of course, if a news story is in play with a possible headline, I'd up those chances considerably, whatever they are.

If you want to read science, don't read the news.

 

Comments

[the Fish]

Well, the nearest planet to me right now is Earth. So I guess he's right!

[ralphg]

Since then, a planetary symposium has indicated that the planet might not exist at all!

[GL]

. . . if it exist. See Recently Discovered Habitable World May Not Exist. If it doesn't exist, astronomers tell us that the odds of life being on it drop significantly.

[Benighted Savage]

I don't know which is more absurd -- the "artist's renderings" of all of these exo-planets that accompany the news articles, or the fact that a publication called "Astrobiology Magazine" exists.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

I know a young woman, the daughter of a close friend, who plans to major in astrobiology (we sf fans called it xenobiology in the day). So far, my jokes have fallen flat. Indeed, they have been met with increasing hostility, and I have given way in order to maintain the friendship. Live and let live, even if the life is imaginary, I always say. Or, at least I do now. Klaatu barada nikto!

[Benighted Savage]

Live and let live, even if the life is imaginary, I always say. Or, at least I do now. Klaatu barada nikto!

If you look at some of those artist's renderings at a distance, with your eyes closed, you can just make out the image of an Imperial Klingon Battle Cruiser orbiting Gliese 581 g. Honest.

I'm reminded of Mark Twain's _Life on the Mississippi_: "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

[Matt]

"If you want to read science, don't read the news."

Yup. Read the peer reviewed literature instead. Given the sorry state of the US's science education and the lack of understanding of so many news articles, it's no wonder we're so far behind most of the first world in the understanding of climate change, alternative energy, etc., etc.

[Benighted Savage]

Read the peer reviewed literature instead. Given the sorry state of the US's science education and the lack of understanding of so many news articles, it's no wonder we're so far behind most of the first world in the understanding of climate change, alternative energy, etc., etc.

Matt, your statement doesn't make sense. If the US science news articles are poorly and thoughtlessly written, so much so that we should "[r]ead the peer reviewed literature instead," then how would a better understanding of US science news articles benefit us? A better understanding of journalistic idiocies would hone our critical faculties -- is that what you are suggesting?

[Matt]

"f the US science news articles are poorly and thoughtlessly written, so much so that we should "[r]ead the peer reviewed literature instead," then how would a better understanding of US science news articles benefit us?"

"Peer-reviewed" literature is the stuff of scientific journals. It's written by scientists, not news people, and scrutinized (or peer-reviewed" by other scientists before it is published. The idea is to go directly to the horse's mouth and skip the journalistic interpretation thereof.

[Benighted Savage]

"Peer-reviewed" literature is the stuff of scientific journals. It's written by scientists, not news people, and scrutinized (or peer-reviewed" by other scientists before it is published. The idea is to go directly to the horse's mouth and skip the journalistic interpretation thereof.

So, the solution to America being "so far behind most of the first world in the understanding of climate change, alternative energy, etc., etc." is not to reform science education or try to improve journalistic standards for science news, but to get people to, say, skip the newsy sections of _Science_ and just read the research articles and reports that appear in the back of each issue? Won't that just result in a lot of people reading without understanding, albeit in a different way? Not to mention the fact that those technical journals are either expensive if you want a subscription or an article reprint, or else hard to access unless you live close by a good research library and have stacks access.

[Matt]

"o, the solution to America being "so far behind most of the first world in the understanding of climate change, alternative energy, etc., etc." is not to reform science education or try to improve journalistic standards for science news"

And I said this ... where???

I'm not sure why you're so determinedly confused and argumentative. Look back at the comment in the original article, viz. "If you want to read science, don't read the news." The author is correct. News articles are very often way off base, as you'll see if you read the original articles in the scientific journals on which the news articles are based.

[Bob Srigley]

One problem with reading original articles in scientific journals is that they are all committed to the evolutionary/ materialist paradigm. Sometimes there is a note of desperation in the efforts of these scientists to convince us that the conclusions they devoutly wish were true are in fact "proven." I'm reminded of an incompetent scout leader who keeps yelling back, "I'm not lost." as he continues to thrash in the bush. I think the Bible strongly supports the notion that we are alone here and that the whole drama of creation, fall and redemption played out by God and the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve is the only show in town. The earth was created first and then on the fourth day all the starry hosts along with whatever planets might be associated with them. Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world and he became man on this earth, lived for 30 some odd years here and died on a cross outside of Jerusalem here on this earth.
Of course God could have created other habitable worlds if he chose, he could have created myriad of universes as some are currently theorizing. However the theological questions which arise from these conjectures such as whether all these other worlds are also subject to our fall ("All creation groans...")or whether there was a need for a savior for each of them, whether the price paid on calvary was sufficient for them as well....These conjectures become rather silly when viewed against the grandeur of the plan which God has actually revealed to us in his word, and which answers well any common sense appraisal. One suspects that the search for ET and his kin is a distraction from the simple truth of the gospel.
For any who are interested here is a succinct comment on the supposed find of the habitable planet: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/10/16/news-to-note-10162010#one

[Benighted Savage]

Look back at the comment in the original article, viz. "If you want to read science, don't read the news." The author is correct. News articles are very often way off base, as you'll see if you read the original articles in the scientific journals on which the news articles are based.

I've been looking back at your original post, where your approval of Mr. Kushiner's concluding statement -- (A) "Read the peer reviewed literature instead." -- is conjoined with the following -- (B) "Given the sorry state of the US's science education and the lack of understanding of so many news articles, it's no wonder we're so far behind most of the first world in the understanding of climate change, alternative energy, etc., etc." What I found confusing, and what I've been trying to puzzle out by asking you questions, is the relationship between your statement (A) -- which is given the form of a recommendation -- and your (rather bold) Statement (B) -- your account of the US's "sorry state." Since you haven't answered any of my questions after two posts, I guess I'll just have to remain puzzled about what you meant:^(

[Matt]

"hat I found confusing, and what I've been trying to puzzle out by asking you questions, is the relationship between your statement (A) -- which is given the form of a recommendation -- and your (rather bold) Statement (B)"

B.S., I've no idea why you should be confused or what impels you to draw the conclusions you manage to come up with. For some reason best known to yourself, you've apparently already decided I'm against reforming science education (???), and now you want to fight about something else, although you're not clear what it is (and I have no clue.) Look, I don't have infinite time. Both A and B are true. For more information about B, check out some studies comparing relative performance of math and science students from various countries. We can't trust the accuracy of journalists' interpretations of real science, still less that of the journalists interpreting the interpretations, and even less than that can we trust the interpretations of those who have read the interpretations of the interpretations. And so on. For the real story, you're best off going to a peer-reviewed journal and studying the research yourself, where it's likely that every statement will be carefully supported and qualified.

[Jerry]

Are you implying that reading science journalism is going to give you information opposed to that the rest of the first-world's understanding of climate change, alternative energy, and etc?