The premise that we do not have the information to conclude that abiogenesis on planets similar to our own is common is correct, but I’m not sure that this is particularly changing much about scientists’ beliefs in the field. If my experience is representative, this seems more like an articulation of what most scientists in the field already believe.
The linked synopsis seems to significantly overstate the case the paper is making though. Compare
So, they contend, deriving numbers from an equation such as that put forth by Drake, only serves to bump up our belief in the existence of other alien life forms, not the actual chances of it being so.
When taken at face value, some might conclude that such arguments hold no more logic than arguments for the existence of God, i.e. it’s more about faith, than science.
To
A Bayesian approach to estimating the probability of abiogenesis claries the relative infuence of data and of our prior beliefs. Although a “best guess” of the probability of abiogenesis suggests that life should be common in the galaxy if early-
Earth-like conditions are, still, the data are consistent (under plausible priors) with life being extremely rare, as shown in
Figure 3.
Also, note that the linked synopsis claims that the Drake Equation drives an overly optimistic value of the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, citing the aforementioned paper, whereas the paper itself only attempts to establish the possibility of fℓ (the probability of life arising on a planet capable of supporting it) being low, making no criticism of the equation itself.
The premise that we do not have the information to conclude that abiogenesis on planets similar to our own is common is correct, but I’m not sure that this is particularly changing much about scientists’ beliefs in the field. If my experience is representative, this seems more like an articulation of what most scientists in the field already believe.
The linked synopsis seems to significantly overstate the case the paper is making though. Compare
To
Also, note that the linked synopsis claims that the Drake Equation drives an overly optimistic value of the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, citing the aforementioned paper, whereas the paper itself only attempts to establish the possibility of fℓ (the probability of life arising on a planet capable of supporting it) being low, making no criticism of the equation itself.
Thanks for clearing that up