Erratum: in the opening sentence, for "science", read "scientific philosophy".

Those are intriguing propositions but where is the logical relation between the subject and the context of the topic?

Why scientists shouldn't try to do philosophy

So why not?

A few more propositions.

7. We are the ongoing experiment of one of those civilisations.

8. We are (were) colonists coming from one of those civilisations.

9. Sentient life has a tendency to destroy itself.

The Fermi paradox depends on the questionable premise that the development of technologically advanced intelligent life is inevitable. I see no reason to think that.

We don't know how abiogenesis occurred. We have a good idea about some of the necessary conditions: 2nd generation star (so that heavy elements, including carbon) are present; rocky planet (not a gas giant) in the goldilocks zone of a start; An atmosphere of appropriate composition; liquid water;...These were necessary, but not probably not sufficient conditions for life to ensue. Alien-optimists suggest it's myopic to think that more exotic forms of life might develop in completely different circumstances. Perhaps so, but how does one assign a probability to something that is no more than a speculative possibility? Based on what we know, the probability of life developing on any random planet is low.

Prokaryotes are considered some of the earliest forms of life - single celled organisms with cells that lack a nucleus and mitochondria. Evolution generally entails response to environmental pressures. In the development of life, the life forms themselves become key parts of the environment. Genetic mutations are the engine, and there's a lot of randomness to this. This means there's no inevitable line of development for any particular species, and this also implies the composition of any particular ecosystem (the full complement of competing life forms in an environment) is even less probable. So looking back on the evolutionary history of humans, I don't see how anyone could claim we're inevitable.

But suppose beings with human-like complexity develop.Will they necessarily develop science and technology? Consider the Sentinelese: they have the same evolutionary history as we have, but haven't developed science. Clearly, the development of science is not inevitable. Developing science is another necessary, but not sufficient, condition.The inclination to explore planets beyond their own is not inevitable because scientific curiosity leads in a large number of directions. But some might indeed have the inclination, but there's also a dependency on resources. This includes physical resources like raw materials, but also on the collective desire to direct the society's efforts that way instead of others. This further highlights the dependency on particular paths of cultural development. And of course, we're discussing the development of working technology that surpasses anything we've done.

Finally, there's the limitations of what is physically possible. It will never be possible to travel to another galaxy (fantastic speculations about space warps or faster-than-light travel notwithstanding). There's a limit to how far a civilization can and would travel for interstellar travel. The technology would have to be sufficiently robust to survive for many years and to sustain life for those years. What fraction of a lifetime might creatures be willing to expend to make an interstellar journey? Suppose a 20 year-old humanoid would be willing to spend 50 years of a 75 year life span on such a journey, and he could travel close the the speed of life. This means he could travel 50 light-years. How likely is it for there to be a technologically-advanced civilization within 50 light years of here?

Bottom line: the likelihood of an alien civilization visiting earth is extremely low.

So why haven't we encountered aliens already? Or have we? Here are some discussion-points which some of my students have proposed:

1. they have found us, but they have observed that the Earth resembles a primitive swamp where the inhabitants eat each other and slaughter each other, often on slight provocation. Especially strangers, or anybody who is "different". Would you jump into a swamp with alligators, while saying "take me to your leader?"

2. they have seen us, but their government has designated us a "Planetary Park", and their environmental laws forbid them from interfering in pristine, primitive environments.

3. they have passed by but they haven't stopped because by their standards of civilisation we are not sufficiently interesting (gasp! Could it be that we are NOT as fascinating and special as our religions have led us to believe?)

4. they have never found us because at any one time, on average, there are only about a thousand civilisations in the galaxy and the nearest is 3,000 light years away. We're just a needle in a haystack.

5. they have never been here because, barring the discovery of an alternative physics, the difficulties of interstellar travel are insurmountable for any being with a finite life expectancy.

5. actually, they HAVE been here; the small minority of unresolvable UAP phenomena are, in fact, genuine. — alan1000

Fermi's Paradox isn't really a "paradox" since there are many, many reasons why we haven't been contacted by E.T.s yet. The first one is that we HAVE been contacted but it simply hasn't been recorded and/or made public. While this may not sound likely it is a given that up until recently many things that have happen haven't been recorded or even if it was recorded such records have been lost. Even if aliens have visited us hundreds of years ago, such recorded would likely not have survived to the present day and/or believed by the scientific community since stories about real events were often mixed with myth up until a few hundred years ago.

The second reason is simply that if an alien race discovers us, they may have reasons that we do not know of to make their presence known to us just yet. This is a counter intuitive reasons since as human's we WANT aliens to make their existence known to us, but the problem is it isn't what we WANT BUT WHAT THEY WANT that determines what they do, unless we are somehow able to discover them against their wishes. Why they would do this could be hard to fathom, but it is plausible they would rather see what course our civilization takes us before we meet a more advanced civilization: much like an anthropologist might want to be able to study a civilization before it made contact with the rest of the civilized world. While we may think it is better that they contact us and help us with their advance technology (in order to help deal with modern crisis environmental issues, etc.), it is very likely that they would be less concern with our issues than we are. Even if we faced possible extinction of the human race, they could merely collect (or abduct) a small number of our species and bring us somewhere else "IF" they didn't want the human race to perish but also didn't want to make their presence know to the human populace at large.

The Fermi's Paradox isn't that complicated if one is able and willing to think outside of the box a little bit.

The Fermi paradox depends on the questionable premise that the development of technologically advanced intelligent life is inevitable. I see no reason to think that. — Relativist

That says it in a nutshell. From Wiki:

Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi's name is associated with the paradox because of a casual conversation in the summer of 1950 with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York, and Emil Konopinski

After lunch everyone laughed at Fermi's outburst, Where is everybody!?

Famous scientists can be sophomoric just like amateur philosophers on TPF.

After lunch everyone laughed at Fermi's outburst, Where is everybody!?

Famous scientists can be sophomoric just like amateur philosophers on TPF. — jgill

:smirk: :up:

Famous scientists can be sophomoric just like amateur philosophers on TPF. — jgill

Are you suggesting that famous philosophers or academic philosophers on TPF are never sophomoric/pretentious/juvenile/totally wrong?
I think we get a lot more utter nonsense from philosophers of all ability levels than we ever get from scientists.

I don't think it's a problem when scientists do philosophy, only when they conflate philosophy and science.

Fermi's paradox is an example of trying to force an explanation on a description. In a quantitative study of abiogenesis, it was observed that, rather than the 90 or so precursor elements being randomly distributed among a large number of seed sites (of artificial membranes) some seed sites contained zero elements whereas a small number contained all the elements to produce biotic chemicals from prebiotic. Although the statistical probability of abiogenesis occurring in the context of the experiment was infinitesimally small, it did in fact occur.

So it is an observable feature of nature that its stochastic nature seems to break down or be superseded by more localized or focal effects where life (or perhaps negentropy itself) is concerned. Which makes sense, insamuch as negentropy is really a contradiction of the most basic law governing mechanics.

Silentium est aureum.

9. Sentient life has a tendency to destroy itself. — praxis

From the perspective of our point in history this possibility has a huge appeal. Especially when you consider that it can be argued that prior civilizations mostly or uniformly ended as a result of environmental degradation (see Collapse by Jared Diamond). Prior civilizations were local, but with our current global civilization, the collapse will also be global.

There is a basic problem: before a civilization can attain interstellar travel it must endure a period of time where it has the capability to destroy it's host planets capacity to sustain it. We are in that period now. As we now understand to are regret, restraining that capability is not so easy. Will we reach even one exoplanet before we destroy our own? It seems unlikely.

How sad it would be if this is the answers to the paradox. :cry:

My feeling is that it is a mainly a combination of this and 5. Where a civilization would have slipped through the cracks of one, the other snuffs it out.

The rare civilization that would survive it's self extinction period would not commit itself to the extraordinary and costly endeavor of space travel. Seek within, not without, and all that. And the one which would have committed itself would have done so ultimately out of an intense drive to dominate the universe, and so can never survive its self extinction period .

And if 4 is true, if civilizations are deeply improbable, then it is just hopeless.

The title of the topic is interesting, but when I read the description, I was kind of disappointed. I read nothing about what I expected. But this of course happens often and is part of the "game" here.
Anyway, it looks like this is a quiz and you want to extend it beyond the realm of your class! :smile:
This is interesting too.

However, I can't find how is philosophy involved here.

Otherwise, the question itself "Why scientists shouldn't try to do philosophy" made me immediately think also of a question: "Why should or would they?" Their "business" is totally different from that of philosophers, isn't it?

Erratum: in the opening sentence, for "science", read "scientific philosophy". — alan1000

I believe it would be better if you had left as it was", because I don't think that there's such a thing like "scientific philosophy". The closest thing I can think of, linguistically-wise", is "philosophy of science", which of course is totally irrelevant.

Otherwise, the main types of philosophy are theoretical philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology), practical philosophy (ethics, social and political philosophy, aesthetics), logic, and history of philosophy. On can of course describe them in a different way, and also talk about branches of philosophy, adding "philosophy of science" in them, which I mentioned earlier

Logic & Epistemology are branches of philosophy along with Metaphysics, Ethics, and Aesthetics.

Scientists need to be good at logic and understand the limitations of (scientific) knowledge. A few classes in philosophy is a must for any scientist worth the name.

"A few classes in philosophy is a must for any scientist worth the name."

What the man said!

In the end, Fermi's Paradox fails for the same reason that the Ontological Argument for the existence of God fails: you can't prove a matter of fact by appealing to purely logical arguments. Matters of fact can only be estalished by appeal to data.

The so-called "Fermi Paradox" also fails because its assumption that we (e.g. mid-20th century "scientists" like Fermi) would, or even could, recognize "aliens" – either their signals or presence – is unwarranted.

'I don't think that there's such a thing like "scientific philosophy". The closest thing I can think of, linguistically-wise", is "philosophy of science"'

There is a difference. "Philosophy of science" is about the nature and aims of science, and its relationship to other philosophic cagtegories like ethics and metaphysics. "Scientific philosophy" occurs within the discipline of science itself, and deals with questions like "What is the nature of infinity? How should we define "the universe"? How do we reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity?" Wherever there is a puzzle in science which cannot be resolved by appeal to current data, you have a question in scientific philosophy.

Blooper: for "cagtegories" read "categories".