Essay Prompt: "Most of the participants in the debate over extraterrestrials (and almost all we have read) are scientists, many of them quite prominent. This might suggest (and indeed is implied strongly in our readings) that the question of extraterrestrials is fundamentally scientific, and can be answered definitively by the methods of science. Why is this suggestion probably not true?"
Introduction
The question of plurality has been a popular topic for centuries, and the debate has taken many forms, including fictional works, philosophical debates, "hoaxes," and scientific experiments. Since Ancient Greece, philosophers, astronomers, mathematicians, physicists and many more have speculated about humanity's uniqueness in the universe. Actually encountering extraterrestrial life is the only way to settle the debate, but as far as we know, aliens have never visited Earth, and we do not have the capabilities to explore every corner of the universe looking for extraterrestrial life. Instead, scientists and philosophers have made arguments for or against plurality by analogy, based on their knowledge of Earth. Particularly in the past century, scientific discoveries and new technology have disproved some theories, expanded upon others and created completely new dimensions to consider in the debate. Despite the centuries of attention to the subject from Earth's best minds and the vast advances made in science and technology, we are not significantly closer to either proving or disproving the existence of extraterrestrial life in the Universe than the ancient astronomers were.
Despite a lack of evidence supporting the existence of extraterrestrial life, we continue to establish and fund large, expensive programs (e.g. the Viking Landers and S.E.T.I.). Perhaps it is the simple human emotional need to feel that we are not alone, which causes us to continue and expand our search. The Viking landers provided seemingly negative evidence for life on Mars, but nothing was conclusive, so scientists are still searching. They were able to come up with alternative reasons as to why life could still exist on Mars, despite evidence to the contrary. Many point out our lack of conclusive knowledge on the origin of life and claim that even defining "life" is not something within our scope. Thus we seem to be locked in an ongoing search that will continue until evidence of life is found, or until we can figure out the exact origin of all life.
There have been many arguments proposed both for and against plurality over the years and no definitive answer has been found. This is due to that lack of evidence on both sides of the argument. There have been many different types of arguments used to justify the various viewpoints on plurality over the years. These include the use of deduction by analogy, the principle of plenitude, religion, natural theology, the Copernican principle, astronomy, geology, and many other scientific fields, along with many other diverse theories. Many of these arguments have been used both as support for plurality and as evidence against plurality. The variability of the arguments shows that none of them in and of themselves are very strong evidence for or against plurality, but some are stronger when combined with others. Even though science has played an enormous role in the extraterrestrial life debate, there is also some questioning about whether or not the search is actually scientific. The issues of falsifiability and the demarcation of science have as much bearing as the actual arguments about plurality.
By studying the ever-changing aspects of the extraterrestrial life debate, we can see that this is an idea that humans have not been able to let go of, probably even before its first documentation in ancient Greece. It appears that the curiosity about extraterrestrials is something inherent in all humans and we cannot let it go, no matter its classification as a science, an ideology or a dream.
(Next Page) Part 1: Plurality From Ancient Times to the 18th Century
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.