posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Pauligirl
Maybe you need to talk to the Original Poster since the title of thread is "Life on earth is living proof Extraterrestials exists." Life on
earth is only proof of life on earth. Yes, I think life exists in the universe-I think the majority posting in the thread also think that. But since
the OP used the word "proof," it's not an irrational demand to ask for it. Not odds, chance, probability or mathematical statistics. Odds are in
his/her favor, but they are only odds. Not proof.
Here's the main reference to 'proof' in the original post:
So that makes 300 sextillion (probably still under exaggerated number) x ?????? might as well call it infinite.
So does it not seem plausible that you are living proof life develops here and elsewhere as well, I think it does and so should you.
The problem is with their colloquial use of "proof" in "you are living proof". You have to work a little to reconstruct what their intended use
What they were attempting to describe is a thought experiment in which you're asked to imagine a certain universe full of planets revolving around
suns. You are shown a small handful of those planets, one of which is absolutely teeming with life. You're then told that there are 300 sextillion
other suns in this universe. You're then invited to guess at the likelihood that at least one of those 300 sextillion other suns contains a planet
with life. This is just a thought experiment. Then you're supposed to realize that this is actually a description of our current situation, and that
you yourself are one of those billions of lifeforms on that one planet. So you've become a part of a living 'premise'. That's
the sense in
which "you are living proof". You're supposed to be the living analog of an abstract premise from an inductive proof.
This is a well-known argument. It's an inductive proof, where a proof is a series of premises that lead to a conclusion.
And "you are living proof" is a well-known idiom. It's intended to drive a point home by placing yourself within the living analog to an inductive
So their use of the word 'proof' does not refer to direct, empirical proof. They're using it more in the sense of 'you're part of an inductive
proof,' or 'you're part of a logical proof'.
So there is more than one way to use the word 'proof'
. These are called 'homonyms'.
This is why I do think it's irrational to demand empirical 'proof' from the OP. Furthermore, they more or less tell you that they don't have
proof right in their original post when they say that they don't have "substantial evidence in a pic form". So why ask for something
they just admitted they don't have?
edit on 15-2-2013 by Brighter because: (no reason given)