Instigator / Pro
25
1634
rating
13
debates
80.77%
won
Topic
#1563
Extraterrestrial Intelligence is More Likely Common than Uncommon
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Jeff_Goldblum
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 2,500
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
19
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description
(this is my first debate on this site, so my apologies if my description does not fully conform to the usual expectations)
Pro will argue that, on balance, the commonality of extraterrestrial intelligence is more likely than not.
Con will argue that, on balance, the rarity of extraterrestrial intelligence is more likely than not.
R1 Introductory arguments
R2 Response to R1 arguments
R3 Response to R2 arguments and concluding statements (no new arguments may be introduced this round)
Definitions:
Extraterrestrial: Life forms that do not originate from Earth.
Intelligence is hard to define. I suggest my opponent and I refer to the following definition - "Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience." (http://www.vetta.org/documents/A-Collection-of-Definitions-of-Intelligence.pdf) However, I accept that my opponent may wish to offer a different interpretation. So long as doing so is germane to our arguments, I think that is fine. In that case, we may have to debate the reasonableness of our competing definitions of intelligence.
Round 1
Thanks to Ramshutu for accepting. I look forward to an interesting debate.
I will be drawing on the Drake Equation for my opening argument (I encourage those unfamiliar to click the link).
****
There are an estimated 160 billion exoplanets in our galaxy.
According to recent preliminary analysis of the ESA's Gaia satellite, 2-12% of exoplanets may be habitable. This may seem small at first, but 160 billion x .02 is 3.2 billion. Not bad.
The next phase of the Drake Equation asks us to consider the likelihood of life arising on a habitable exoplanet. Given that life on Earth arose in less than 1 billion years of Earth's existence, it is reasonable to conclude that the development of life (biogenesis) is fairly easy. S. Blair Hedges of Temple University states, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth, then it could be could be common in the universe." Though I would be confident at placing the likelihood of life arising on habitable planets near 100%, I will be conservative and posit 20%. This leaves us with 640 million planets harboring life.
Next, we must ask what fraction of life-bearing worlds will produce intelligent life. Again, I turn to Earth. The first human (homo erectus) dates back 1.89 million years. Thus, human intelligence essentially sprung up after 3.5 billion years of life on Earth. Since the jump from life to intelligent life took significantly longer than the occurrence of biogenesis, I will be more conservative and posit that of the planets that produce life, only 1% produce intelligent life. I think this is very generous, given that 3.5 billion years is small in cosmic terms. With this 1% figure, 6.4 million worlds home to intelligent life remain in the galaxy. By any reasonable metric, we should consider 6.4 million to indicate extraterrestrial intelligence's commonality.
I am not claiming 6.4 million intelligent species as hard truth. I have made rational guesses using available data. My job is not to definitively prove commonality. I merely need to argue commonality is more likely than not. I believe I have done so.
Finally, I should address the obvious Earth-centrism of my data for habitability, biogenesis, and development of intelligence. Some might consider this a weakness, but it could just as well be a strength. Earth-centrism could just as well be a conservative approach to estimating the abundance of extraterrestrial intelligence, insofar as it excludes non-Earth-like circumstances from its consideration.
Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to the discussion!
0.) Definition and Burden.
Pro must show that the intelligent life is likely common. This is more than simply showing the possibility that life is common.
“Common” - Given the size of the galaxy, commonality would imply that there are at least tens of thousands of intelligent civilizations in the hundreds of millions of planets that likely exist.
“Intelligent” I propose that for this debate we talk about a level of intelligence capable of building a civilization.
1.) Likely uncommon.
The negative case can be summed up as follows:
P1: if intelligent life is common, the galaxy should be full of detectable intelligent civilizations.
P2: We have not observed any intelligent civilizations other than our own.
C1: intelligent life is uncommon.
Or, summarized by Enrico Fermi:
“Where is everyone?”
Defense of P1:
Due to the scale of the galaxy, even if intelligent life is unlikely, the Drake equation implies that the galaxy should be teeming with technologically advanced, intelligent civilizations, of which many should pre-date our own by thousands or even millions of years.[1]
Defence of P2:
We have been observing the galaxy for decades with radio telescopes looking for observational evidence of intelligent life. We have detected no radio broadcasts or any evidence indicating intelligent civilizations[2], there is also no credible evidence that we have ever been visited other than conspiracy theories and outlandish claims on the history channel.[3]
Conclusion:
Given the premises are both proven - the conclusion follows.
The Drake equation presupposes the likelihood of intelligent life using a biased sample size of 1. Observational evidence refutes the validity of the equation - with the most likely explanation of the lack of evidence is that intelligent life is rare enough that we haven’t yet met it.
Sources:
Round 2
Thanks to Ramshutu for their reply.
**
"Pro must show that the intelligent life is likely common. This is more than simply showing the possibility that life is common."
I agree, so long as we interpret "likely" as "more likely than not" AND recognize Con carries a similar burden. I insist on this standard because it is in the debate description.
"“Intelligent” I propose that for this debate we talk about a level of intelligence capable of building a civilization."
I accept, for simplicity's sake.
**
The remainder of my rebuttal round will be devoted to providing solutions to the Fermi Paradox (FP).
So, if intelligent species (IS) are common, why haven't we made contact?
1. Many IS may not develop sufficiently advanced technology to communicate.
2. Many IS may use communication technologies we do not possess.
3. Many IS may listen rather than signal. We do this. Alexander Zaitsev calls our neglect of sending signals while listening for signals the SETI Paradox. Citing the SETI 2020 roadmap, Zaitsev notes that our signaling-to-searching ratio is less than 1%. If this is a common behavior among intelligent species, establishing contact would be difficult.
4. Many technologically advanced IS may withdraw from reality and 'plug in' to virtual reality, thus curtailing/eliminating communication attempts.
5. Human existence is brief on the cosmic time scale (clip from Carl Sagan for perspective). We have only been engaged in SETI for 60 years. Given radio signals are limited to the speed of light, and given the galaxy is an estimated 100,000 light-years across, should it really be surprising we've received no contact yet? Our 60 years of searching is puny compared to the vastness of the cosmos.
**
I do not claim any single solution resolves the FP on its own. Rather, I believe their cumulative weight shows there is no contradiction between the notion of plentiful extraterrestrial intelligence and no observation (as of yet). There are reasons why communication might be impossible (#1-4), and even if it was not in some cases, the vastness of time and space are no small obstacles (#5).
In Round 1 I used the Drake Equation, available evidence, and reasoning to demonstrate the likelihood of extraterrestrial intelligence. In Round 2, I have offered solutions to the FP that, taken together, give us good reason to dismiss the FP's status as a real paradox. For these reasons, I affirm my position: extraterrestrial intelligence is more likely common than uncommon.
I apologize to my opponent for the delay - real life is being problematic! I will dive right in:
R1.) Potential solutions for the Fermi Paradox.
Pro is undone by the same law of large numbers that he uses to support the Drake equation.
My opponent discusses several speculative solutions to the Fermi paradox. Let’s start with my opponents 6.4m worlds.
Let’s assume 60% are more primitive than us - 2.56m
Say 50% of those don’t explore or transmit outside their planet - 1.28m.
Of the rest, 90% develop technology we cannot sense. - 128k.
Even if only 0.1% of the remaining species are too far away or simply by blind luck haven’t had an antenna or telescope pointed anywhere near them: we should still have definitively observed at least 128 alien civilizations.
R2. Alternative explanations
Even considering my opponents speculative numbers and explanations - we should still have observed multiple intelligent species.
The alternative explanation to why we haven’t is simple; the assumption that intelligent life is common is based on what happened on earth not being lucky.
My opponent uses the probability of life occurring on a habitual planet at 20%, that it becomes intelligent at some point at 1%.
If the chances of life in our timescale is only 2%, complex life is 10%, and intelligent life from that that only 0.1% - it cuts down the number of IS from 6.4m to 6400, under the threshold established for commonality.
This is not even counting the potential for intelligence to arise, then destroy itself through nuclear weapons or climate change - or simply go extinct like 99% of all species. Humanity may not exist in another 1m years due to our own actions or an extinction event that kills us all; such events may not be uncommon on other planets, lowering the number of civilizations.
Conclusion:
The only fact we have is that despite substantial observation of a galaxy that should be teeming with intergalactic civilizations - we have never seen it.
As shown,the simplest and least speculative explanation is that it is not teeming with intelligent life as such life is simply a little rarer than my opponent states.
Round 3
I must note my opponent violated round structure rules. In the description I indicated R2 arguments should be used to reply to R1 arguments. But in his R2, Ramshutu offered a rebuttal to my R2 argument. I politely request voters consider docking Ramshutu for conduct.
Re: Solutions to Fermi Paradox (FP)
Ramshutu takes the solutions I offered in R2 and applies filters to rebut me. To reply effectively, I think I really only need to focus on the filter he applies to solution #5 (obstacle of space/time). He says even if 1 in 1000 species we could communicate with were within our range, we should have made contact by now.
At first, 1 in 1000 seems conservative. But the galaxy is 100,000 light years across. SETI is only 60 years old. Per my R1 numbers, 1 in every 25,000 planets host intelligent life. Within 50 light years of Earth, there are only 1800 stars. Even in a galaxy full of intelligent life, the speed of light would likely prevent us from making contact in a short 60 year window.
Re: Alternative Explanations and Conclusion
If the chances of life in our timescale is only 2%, complex life is 10%, and intelligent life from that that only 0.1%
I am especially opposed to the section in bold. As noted in R1, life arose on Earth nearly instantaneously. This leaves us with two possibilities: either the swift development of life on Earth represents a cosmic fluke, or the development of life is easy (suggesting its universal abundance). In the absence of hard evidence, I submit it is most reasonable to favor the latter possibility. For this reason, I maintain that my 20% estimate provided in R1 is conservative. If we use my generously conservative 20% and keep the rest of Ramshutu's numbers in the quote, we arrive at 640,000 intelligent species.
As shown,the simplest and least speculative explanation is that it is not teeming with intelligent life
On speculation: It's the nature of this topic. To the extent that I must be criticized for being speculative, so must my opponent.
On simplicity: intelligence's rarity is conceptually no simpler than intelligence's commonality. In both cases, innumerable variables are involved.
Closing
In R1, I used available evidence and reasoning to conclude alien intelligence is likely common. In R2 and R3, I fended off attempts to undermine this proposition with the FP and alternative filters. As I have defeated these objections, and as my R1 is the most reasonable assessment of the available data, I urge judges to vote Pro.
Forfeited
It cancels itself out by unjustifiable sources vote being allocated.
Well done, sir! Making a name for yourself already.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lazarous // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:3; 3 points to Pro, and 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote (via wholly canceling itself out) which does indeed comment on the debate (and does so well, giving feedback to both sides). For more on tied votes: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
**************************************************
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
This nearly left arguments a tie, without a standard for what would be common on these scales, I am having a tough time weighting what would be enough to be considered common or uncommon.
1. Drake
The Drake Equation is a fun part of this debate, which alternates between lending support for pro and con. N=1 was a great point against relying on this.
2. Syllogism
Credit for a well-played syllogism under the likely uncommon heading. Certainly not common enough to be detectable. Pro did well trying to mitigate this, but it is a strong piece against his case.
3. Fermi Paradox
Tied to the syllogism, but pro’s replies are standout enough to merit partly separate consideration. Things like different communication technologies than us, or intelligent without those technologies. Con of course counters with a play on numbers, one that I have no problem with, it’s fairly straight forward; but pro uses the speed of light and the limited time we’ve been broadcasting as a solid defense (even if it was vulnerable to a flip of tying things back to how that does not imply common, such did not occur).
4. Extinction
I think con could have easily won the debate here had he supported our own survival being a fluke, as the basis for everything else is human-centric. However, this was not done. Moreover, the absence of sources left this a bit lackluster, an assertion not tied to the available evidence.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. This is very close to being a tie to me. Had the resolution contained less qualifiers, it might have even gone against pro. As is, I basically have to weight us having not noticed anything in our quiet corner, against the hypothetical likelihood of activity elsewhere (or even nearby using different communication technologies). Basically, pro better supported his end of the hypothetical.
Sources:
I do view these as being within the tied range. While pro certainly had more, con made good use of those too, but did not outright steal them to his side.
Conduct:
I am not overly concerned with the minor format slip-up (as much as I’ve encouraged people to vote against me on conduct when I’ve done likewise), however the forfeiture is a clear matter. This bites twice, as having seen con’s performance I suspect he would have bridged the gap to at least a tie with just a concluding statement to tie things back together.
"I object to the air of authority given to these numbers pulled out of thin air. I generally feel that if you can’t use probabilistic tools to shape your feelings of []certainty, you ought not to dignify them by calling them probabilities."
Yudkowsky, Eliezer. Rationality: From AI to Zombies . Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Kindle Edition.
Re-voted if you wish to check.
I’ll get a vote on this, just finished a very intense bit of Mafia.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Zardi and RM // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct (zardi) and 1 point for conduct to RM
>Reason for Decision: Conduct for the ff'd round. I'd vote on args but my eyes glazed over during the first round.
>Reason for Mod Action: RM's vote is removed because cvbs are removed. Zardi's vote doesn't meet the requirements for voting. In order to award conduct point, a user must:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
In this case, one forfeited round is not enough to award just a conduct point as the debater didn't forfeit more than 1/2 the rounds.
************************************************************************
Almost gave conduct to the wrong side. #whoops
Ah, okay.
So be more specific?
Finally, as far as conduct points are concerned, the voter must explain why misconduct is excessive, which is defined as follows:
"Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic"
If you honestly think that the non-standardized structure made the debate inscrutable, please include that in the RFD. That said, I appreciate the attempt at fixing your vote. I don't mean to admonish you harshly.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points awarded to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Interesting debate. Well done both of you!
Here's my break down.
ROUND ONE
Pro - States the probability of life appearing in our universe
Con - States how life cannot exists due to no contacts, and poorly clashes with Pro
ROUND TWO
Pro - Cements previous arguments sufficiently
Con - Poorly clashes with Pro by overusing assumptions, but sufficiently cements previous arguments
ROUND THREE
Omitted.
REASONING
Arguments - Pro ; Pro provided more factual arguments, cemented it, and Con poorly clashed with them
Sources - Pro ; Pro outnumbers Con 10:3 on sources
S&G - Tie ; No major negatives were found in both
Conduct - Pro ; Not following format and forfeiting a round negatively impacted Con
>Reason for Mod Action: I hate to remove this vote. Unfortunately, I have to. First, arguments need to be explained. I get the the voter feels that Con's refutations were weak, but the Voting Guidelines demands that it also be explained why one argument is superior to another.
"Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed"
Also, according to the Voting Guidelines:
"In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points."
None of this is done either.
I thought I knew how I was voting, but in writing the vote I saw a point which I had not giving enough consideration... If nothing else, I'll get a conduct only vote in for the forfeit (the rule slip is also noted).
bump
I hate to be a nag, but I'm curious if you plan to vote on this? I ask because I think Dynamic's vote is going to be removed again, and I'm worried about the clock running out with no votes as a result.
bump
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: "This debate was actually really interesting to read.
Both sides provided decent arguments, and while Con attempted to disprove Pro's case, Pro sufficiently concreted his side.
Both sides also provided good sources, by Pro outweighed Con just a bit on this.
Con didn't follow the specified format, and while I wouldn't take that as a major Pro vote, Con did forfeit his last round."
>Reason for Mod Action: The points awarded for arguments, conduct, and sources need to be explained better. Why is it that Pro sufficiently "concreted" his side? What made Pro's sources better than Con's? Why is the non-specific format severe enough to award Pro the conduct point? Until these questions are answered, the RFD unfortunately violates the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
bump
This is your requested ping
Before reading this...
Common and Uncommon in the spam of galaxies should be pre-defined to avoid Kritiks about that.
2,500 seems like a fun challenge. The thing is, you'll always wish you had just 500 more to respond to all those points, but if there's more, there is more to which you need to to respond; so same problem.
I regret setting the character limit at 2,500.
What I did in rebuttal 1, is use a similar approach to the Drake equation; assigning odds to the events and scenarios you listed, then starting with your 6.4m intelligent life forms, wiggling these planets down to how many of them we should have observed. The number at the end of each sentence is the number of planets that have evolved intelligent life that pass the filter you added; even with tiny numbers; there would be a enough close by species that could potentially have either made contact or have been observed.
i am so sick of this planet, and its taking forever to repair the warp drive, thank god for vodka
Ramshutu, I'm surprised you disagree. Water is the foundation of life, and many planets have water on them. You should know this. You are after all a glass of water xD
I'm having trouble understanding your numbers in your "R1)." reply. Maybe I'm just being dense. But would you mind breaking down what you're saying there?
This looks like an interesting debate so far! Please ping me when the debate is over and I'll vote on it.
show me a little green man then
If readers are interested in the Fermi Paradox mentioned here, I recommend Stephen Webb's "Where is Everybody?" (https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Teeming-Aliens-WHERE-EVERYBODY/dp/0387955011)
It offers 50 explanations to the Fermi Paradox. Since it is obviously behind a paywall, I didn't think it would be fair to use it as a source. But it is still very interesting and I highly recommend if anyone wants reading on the subject that is fun yet scientifically valid.
Is it considered poor form to hyperlink one's sources, instead of using the in-text citation method?
Even though I did not specify how to cite sources in the description, could a judge legitimately award sources to my opponent on the basis that I'm hyperlinking?