NASA announcement
Out of context: Reply #25
- Started
- Last post
- 181 Responses
- detritus0
It's not my 'error', it's a logical interpretation of the happenstance of your only popping up in these sorts of threads. And Lo, "'first' error"! - hark at the innately arrogant implication that I am, by default, wrong!
I'd, of course, agree with your argument about complex life being extraordinarily rare - such assertions are nothing new, and nothing outwith current scientific thought.
But it's the subtext to "seems that the most current data has turned the dated "copernican principle" on it's head." that I question - your insinuation being that the data we have access to now is the sum total of what we should expect and that it shouldn't point to anything other than this being the case.
We are nothing special. We are a moderately unlikely statistical event in a mind-bogglingly large universe. Our beliefs, religious or otherwise, are irrelevant to these questions whilst we poke around in the dark.
Anyway, there's nothing said here that hasn't been said here a hundred times before, so I bid you adieu (after reading your inevitable reply, of course).