Originally Posted by tommo
Occam's Razor isn't really "the simplest explanation is usually correct".
It's "the theory that explains the given phenomena while making the least new assumptions is more likely to be correct."
For example, we have a meteor with bacteria on it.
It could be bacteria from Earth.
- We know there is bacteria on Earth.
- This meteor was found on Earth.
It could be bacteria from somewhere else in space.
- We don't know whether bacteria is anywhere else in space.
- Meteors usually come from belts in space, not planets, so it is far fetched to assume one hit Earth, out of all the places it could have gone after being knocked off a planet.
As you can see, the second hypothesis makes more assumptions and is least likely to be correct. It's not really a thing for simple minds and that is a very simple minded thing to say frankly.
Because I don't like anyone invoking occam's razor since nobody seems to get it, lets clarify. The statement "A meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it" has two assumptions, that a meteorite was found and that there was bacteria fossils in it. The statement "a meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it and the bacteria is extraterrestrial in origin." has 3 assumptions (was found, has bacteria fossils, from space), and is less likely to be true. The statement "a meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it and the bacteria is terrestrial in origin." has 3 assumptions and is less likely to be true (than the first statement). Neither of these assumptions (space, earth) is more or less likely than the other, even if one is more "plausible". Occam's razor literally only addresses the number of assumptions.
Take the statements, "That man's name is bill and he is wearing a blue shirt", or "that man is wearing a blue shirt." The second is most likely to be true because it makes one less assumption, regardless of what you know or do not know about the situation, that is just the way it is.
I'd also like to mention that this discovery, true or not, has no bearing on panspermia as the finding was of fossils, and not actual bacteria.
Edit: I would also like to point out since no one has yet; its possible that the meteorite was not contaminated but that the bacteria fossils are still of terrestrial origin. The meteorite could be a by-product of the theorized collision of earth and a mars size planet that became the moon that has been orbitting the sun for billions of years and has recently returned to this planet. I personally think this is the most likely possibility because, how do you contaminate a meteorite with bacteria fossils? Fossils are made of the rock they are found in so it would be plainly obvious if they were composed of a different rock. Regardless of whether there is life out there or not (there is) the chances of some errant meteorite from another solar system flying billions of light years through empty space and ending up on the planet earth are laughably and unimaginably remote.
|
|
Bookmarks