/sci/ - Science & Math

>Carl Sagan on {insert_subject_here}
implying that an appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy

>>3096679
The fuck are you talking about? How did I appeal to an authority in any way?

>>3096679
>implying an actual argument wasn't made

Of course it's not unreasonable, we can't say whether there's other life out there until we find it.

It is extremely probable that there is life elsewhere. But intelligent life--that's a different story. Life is almost inevitable under the right conditions. But intelligence and civilization is far and few between. Even among humans civilization is a rather recent thing.

>>3096685
ofc you did:
>Carl Sagan on how big shit is
>Carl Sagan on
>Carl Sagan

>>3096679
He has to be making an argument and then using the authority figure to support his argument for it to be a fallacious appeal to authority.

He asked a question then providing an interesting video to culture debate. I don't know what you thought he said but maybe you should reread.

>>3096669
I'm interesting to know how abundant the basic building blocks are within our own solar system. I know Mars has water, but not the atmospheric conditions for liquid water, while apparently the stuff required to create amino acids is found on several satellites and planets. What's the actual data on this?

>>3096696
>He thinks that as soon as you mention someone's name it's an appeal to authority!

>>3096693
I'm just interested in life in general, not necessarily intelligent life.

>>3096696
>Ask question
>BTW here's a video that's pretty cool
>State that it's Carl Sagan and the subject he is discussing
>HURR APPEAL TO AUTHORITY DERP DERP

few things piss me off more than people who don't understand logical fallacies

>>3096698
His point should have included an estimation of how big shit is rather than providing a link to a Sagan video presenting how big the shit is. That's not objective.
It's superfluous (the average thread reader has an idea regarding the size of the shit) and a mild appeal to authority (like automatically Sagan speaks the truth) not to mention it's time consuming (for a person not familiar with the dimensions of the shit).

>>3096719
You're a prick. Discuss the topic or go away.

>>3096719
He's not making an argument. Presenting someone's opinion to you isn't appealing to anything.

>>3096719
Jesus Christ, this is 4chan, just be glad the topic is science related.

>>3096727
Most verily upset, you are.

>>3096719
A link to some dudes YouTube videos =/= an appeal to authority.

>>3096736
>Carl Sagan
>Some dude

>>3096739
That's an appeal to authority.

Yes, Carl Sagan was an ordinary human being.

>>3096739
>implying Carl Sagan posted those youtube videos
nigga you dumb

>>3096747
Don't drag me into this debate. I'm just surprised someone can be on /sci/ and not know Carl Sagan considering the number of fanboys he has here.

>Actual science thread
>15 posts and 3 image replies omitted.
>Only two replies are on topic

Stay classy faggots.

>>3096752
You're missing the point of what he said. I don't think he was saying he didn't know who Carl Sagan was, he was saying that simply posting a video, regardless of the content, is not an appeal to authority.

>>3096768
You missed the point of my original post then. The juxtaposition of those words with my image was used to show a slight bout of surprise to the other anon calling Carl Sagan "some dude" on a board that is so taken by the man. I was not commenting on this appeal to authority debate at all. A simple misunderstanding on your part and lack of clarity on mine.

I consider the idea of us being the only life out there (Heck, even thinking we're the only INTELLIGENT life out there) as stupid.

There are way too many possibilities. Sextillions of chances.

>>3096747
OP should have simply provided an argument support the idea of a vast universe. But: NO!
OP had to link me to Carl Sagan explaining me that.
Why didn't OP link me to a video of his father explaining that? Because OP appealed to authority.
Also OP was lazy as he did not clarify the pervasive nature of the "basic building blocks of life"

>Considering the vastness of the Universe and how common the basic building blocks of life are, is it unreasonable to think that there may be other life that exists out there? Is it likely?

Yes, life should be extremely common in the universe.
I would go as far to say that it's childish to say that there isn't almost certainly huge amounts of life here.

it's still hard to say because we have too few samples.

There's probably other intelligent life out there.

>We'll never get to see it.

>>3096730
Presenting someone's (in this case an important person) opinion that supports your initial claim, in this case:
"Considering the vastness of the Universe and how common the basic building blocks of life are [..]"

>>3096785
>OP should have simply provided an argument support the idea of a vast universe. But: NO!

Except I never said it was big. Fuck, I could have linked to a video of Carl Sagan saying the Universe only has 3 stars in it. That's not expressing an opinion of my own or forming an argument. That's saying "here's Carl Sagan's opinion", which is what I did. Trivial? No, because the Universe is big and that's common knowledge. I just thought some video discussing it would be a good stimulus to start a discussion and that's the first that came to mind.

>Why didn't OP link me to a video of his father explaining that?

Because it didn't come to mind nor does the video exist.

>Also OP was lazy as he did not clarify the pervasive nature of the "basic building blocks of life"

Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur

>>3096801
>Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur

Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Carbon alone should be enough.

>>3096800
But it's common knowledge that the Universe is big. What does it matter who he links to? It's the question that is important.

>>3096801
It's not "a good stimulus" it's fucking redundant.

>>3096820
Then ignore it instead of derailing an entire thread.

>>3096820
>Implying you had to watch it

>>3096693
>Life is almost inevitable under the right conditions.
That's quite a statement coming from a species who can't seem to put those conditions together to make it happen in a lab.

>>3096679
I don't think you know what an appeal to authority is and I don't think it even matters.

>>3096833
Yes we can, just slap some clay, and all the needed elements, wait for billion years and tadaa, life.

>>3096833
We've made the basic amino chains under conditions that we believe the original primordial soup was made. We just need a few billions years to get it rolling.

>>3096832
>implying that whether I'm watching it or not changes the fact of that link being completely unnecessary.

>>3096851
Pointing out that it was unnecessary was also unnecessary. You could have ignored it and the thread would have developed as if it were not there.

>>3096851
>implying that whether I'm reading your posts or not changes the fact that they are completely unnecessary.

>>3096866
Dam you, sensei. I will get you...
Some day...

>>3096867
>Saging a science thread

probability that life exists somewhere else seems pretty high. a much better estimation can be made once life is actually reconstructed in a lab
>doesn't think life's a good thing, though

>>3096872
>Doesn't know how to use sage.

>>3096877
doesn't know how to english comprehension

I've seen some train wrecked threads in my time but this is something special. Threads have been derailed by pornography, CP, trolls of various quality, copy pasta and completely unrelated discussions, but never had I seen a thread so derailed over such a trivial point.

Get a life nerds.

>>3096876
>doesn't think life's a good thing, though

Wait, what do you mean? You don't think life is a good thing?

>>3096883
>>3096883
>>3096883
>thinks he said something clever

>>3096887
creatures fucking and eating each other for billions of years? nature red in tooth and claw? seems obviouis to me that life is fucking stupid
>in b4 someone asks the dumbass question "why don't i just kill myself"

>>3096888

>>3096842
It didn't take 4 billion years. Life emerged within a couple million years of when the planet became habitable. But it's not like there some million-year-long reaction taking place. If you knew how it happened, you'd be able to reproduce it in the lab.

Clay + needed elements + 4 billion years will probably yield you nothing.

>>3096849
Amino acids form in fucking space. You don't get credit for making amino acids.

>>3096893
Firstly, why don't you just kill yourself?

Secondly, how is life any more or less stupid than any other process? Hell, at least all that killing and fucking allows for things that can experience all the other shit in the Universe.

>>3096904
>intentionally not answering your question.
>letting you actually contemplate the question instead of herp derp "lol life needs to exist so people can enjoy it and the universe can know itself" anthropic mystical mumbo jumbo

>>3096913
>letting you actually contemplate the question instead of herp derp "lol life needs to exist so people can enjoy it and the universe can know itself" anthropic mystical mumbo jumbo

What is to contemplate? Either something can arise that can acknowledge the Universe or it doesn't. If you believe that even that in itself is trivial, then fine, the whole thing is, but then how is life 'stupid'? Stupid implied negative qualities, which implies some sort criteria by which you are judging something.

What is/isn't stupid and what about life makes it stupid?

Not sure if troll.

>>3096898
Yes, the we could just wait the couple million years that it takes, this time can vary

>>3096849
As he pointed out we have made the amino acids. Those things are basically life.

Now the important question is what is life?
What do you classify as life?

We have these amino acids, they can replicate and stuff. They just don't contain any information. It takes time for this information to accumulate.

Now we could speed this, but wouldn't that be cheating?

Also we have created life, using a cell form bacteria and using man made DNA.

>>3096913
>He thinks he's deep

>>3096925
>Stupid implied negative qualities, which implies some sort criteria by which you are judging something.
right, it implies negative qualities. what creates a negative quality? only a brain creates a negative quality. what creates a brain? only life creates a brain. what creates life? dumb physical forces.
>Not sure if troll.
fuck you

>>3096938
>he thinks saying "he thinks he's deep" is deep

>>3096942
Present a proper argument. Some molecules fuck around and produce some compounds capable of reproduction and that's somehow stupid? Explain or stop posting.

>>3096947
>tells me to present 'a proper argument' and to explain.
end of conversation. you're too stupid to communicate with.

>>3096951
You made a statement, I asked you to elaborate on your points and your response was "Hurp I'm deliberately not going to answer."

Sounds like some half baked trolling to me. Goodnight.

Professional thread derailer debriefing:
Mission accomplished.

Could life be Silicon based?