Comments on: Does the Drake Equation require smaller coefficients?

By: Rando

Rando — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:05:38 +0000

The aspect of the paper that is being trumpeted as significant is gratuitously speculative and based on selection bias. Only 4% of known giant planets are outside of the snow line because of bias, nothing more. I can’t accept this assumption or the anthropic bias inherent to this general kind of reasoning. It’s an otherwise unremarkable paper getting undeserved hype.

By: LCaution

LCaution — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:17:01 +0000

I’m not a scientist, but I simply do not and cannot understand how any rational person could assert either that, in the entire known universe, life of any kind has developed only once on this spec of dust – or that if life exists elsewhere it must have developed on the same type of planet or solar system. Moreover I would be deeply disappointed to discover that anything as flawed as DNA/RNA would be the universal basis for life.

By: Does the Drake Equation require downsizing? - tDiscuss

Does the Drake Equation require downsizing? - tDiscuss — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:28:50 +0000

[…] The Drake Equation is that famous equation where you count how many stars there are, figure out the chance of a star having planets, of planets having water, etc. etc. until finally you get some rough estimate of the chance of live evolving elsewhere in the universe. It’s a little more complicated (… http://scienceblogs.com/… […]

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:19:00 +0000

I feel a little more lonely after reading this…