ESA: "Strange Milky-Way-Like Galaxy Discovered Swept By Fierce Oxygen Winds"
NASA's Sun-Powered 5-Year Mission to Jupiter

"Nixing 100 Billion Galaxies" --Bayesian Reasoning Dismisses Existence of Alien Life (Today's Most Popular)





Carl Sagan said that "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence." In a stunning display of mathematical logic, David Spiegel of Princeton University and Edwin Turner from the University of Tokyo published a paper in 2012 that turns the Drake equation upside down using Bayesian reasoning to show that just because we evolved on Earth, doesn’t mean that the same occurrence would necessarily happen elsewhere; "using evidence of our own existence doesn’t show anything" they argue, "other than that we are here."

The recent Kepler Space-Telescope discoveries of planets similar to Earth in size and proximity to the planets' respective suns have sparked scientific and public excitement about the possibility of also finding Earth-like life on those worlds.

But the Princeton University researchers have found that the expectation that life — from bacteria to sentient beings — has or will develop on other planets as on Earth might be based more on optimism than scientific evidence.

Astrophysical sciences professor Turner and lead author Spiegel analyzed what is known about the likelihood of life on other planets in an effort to separate the facts from the mere expectation that life exists outside of Earth. The researchers used a Bayesian analysis — which weighs how much of a scientific conclusion stems from actual data and how much comes from the prior assumptions of the scientist — to determine the probability of extraterrestrial life once the influence of these presumptions is minimized.

Turner and Spiegel, who is now at the Institute for Advanced Study, argued in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the idea that life has or could arise in an Earth-like environment has only a small amount of supporting evidence, most of it extrapolated from what is known about abiogenesis, or the emergence of life, on early Earth. Instead, their analysis showed that the expectations of life cropping up on exoplanets — those found outside Earth's solar system — are largely based on the assumption that it would or will happen under the same conditions that allowed life to flourish on this planet.

In fact, the researchers conclude, the current knowledge about life on other planets suggests that it's very possible that Earth is a cosmic aberration where life took shape unusually fast. If so, then the chances of the average terrestrial planet hosting life would be low.

"Fossil evidence suggests that life began very early in Earth's history and that has led people to determine that life might be quite common in the universe because it happened so quickly here, but the knowledge about life on Earth simply doesn't reveal much about the actual probability of life on other planets," Turner said.

"Information about that probability comes largely from the assumptions scientists have going in, and some of the most optimistic conclusions have been based almost entirely on those assumptions," he said.

Turner and Spiegel used Bayes' theorem to assign a sliding mathematical weight to the prior assumption that life exists on other planets. The "value" of that assumption was used to determine the probability of abiogenesis, in this case defined as the average number of times that life arises every billion years on an Earth-like planet. Turner and Spiegel found that as the influence of the assumption increased, the perceived likelihood of life existing also rose, even as the basic scientific data remained the same.

"If scientists start out assuming that the chances of life existing on another planet as it does on Earth are large, then their results will be presented in a way that supports that likelihood," Turner said. "Our work is not a judgment, but an analysis of existing data that suggests the debate about the existence of life on other planets is framed largely by the prior assumptions of the participants."

Joshua Winn, an associate professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that Turner and Spiegel cast convincing doubt on a prominent basis for expecting extraterrestrial life. Winn, who focuses his research on the properties of exoplanets, is familiar with the research but had no role in it.

"There is a commonly heard argument that life must be common or else it would not have arisen so quickly after the surface of the Earth cooled," Winn said. "This argument seems persuasive on its face, but Spiegel and Turner have shown it doesn't stand up to a rigorous statistical examination — with a sample of only one life-bearing planet, one cannot even get a ballpark estimate of the abundance of life in the universe.

"I also have thought that the relatively early emergence of life on Earth gave reasons to be optimistic about the search for life elsewhere," Winn said. "Now I'm not so sure, though I think scientists should still search for life on other planets to the extent we can."

Deep-space satellites and telescope projects have recently identified various planets that resemble Earth in their size and composition, and are within their star's habitable zone, the optimal distance for having liquid water.

Of particular excitement have been the discoveries of NASA's Kepler Space Telescope. In December 2011, NASA announced the first observation of Kepler-22b, a planet 600 light years from Earth and the first found within the habitable zone of a Sun-like star. Weeks later, NASA reported Keplers-20e and -20f, the first Earth-sized planets found orbiting a Sun-like star. NASA has since announced the discovery of over 2000 Kepler planets, with some 500 possible Earth-like candidates.

While these observations tend to stoke the expectation of finding Earth-like life, they do not actually provide evidence that it does or does not exist, Spiegel explained. Instead, these planets have our knowledge of life on Earth projected onto them, he said.

Yet, when what is known about life on Earth is taken away, there is no accurate sense of how probable abiogenesis is on any given planet, Spiegel said. It was this "prior ignorance," or lack of expectations, that he and Turner wanted to account for in their analysis, he said.

"When we use a mathematical prior that truly represents prior ignorance, the data of early life on Earth becomes ambiguous," Spiegel said.

"Our analysis suggests that abiogenesis could be a rather rapid and probable process for other worlds, but it also cannot rule out at high confidence that abiogenesis is a rare, improbable event," Spiegel said. "We really have no idea, even to within orders of magnitude, how probable abiogenesis is, and we show that no evidence exists to substantially change that."

Spiegel and Turner also propose that once this planet's history is considered, the emergence of life on Earth might be so distinct that it is a poor barometer of how it occurred elsewhere, regardless of the likelihood that such life exists.

In a philosophical turn, they suggest that because humans are the ones wondering about the emergence of life, it is possible that we must be on a planet where life began early in order to reach a point so soon after the planet's formation 4.5 billion years ago where we could wonder about it.

Thus, Spiegel and Turner explored how the probability of exoplanetary abiogenesis would change if it turns out that evolution requires, as it did on Earth, roughly 3.5 billion years for life to develop from its most basic form to complex organisms capable of pondering existence. If that were the case, then the 4.5 billion-year-old Earth clearly had a head start. A planet of similar age where life did not begin until several billion years after the planet formed would have only basic life forms at this point.

"Dinosaurs and horseshoe crabs, which were around 200 million years ago, presumably did not consider the probability of abiogenesis. So, we would have to find ourselves on a planet with early abiogenesis to reach this point, irrespective of how probable this process actually is," Spiegel said. "This evolutionary timescale limits our ability to make strong inferences about how probable abiogenesis is."

Turner added, "It could easily be that life came about on Earth one way, but came about on other planets in other ways, if it came about at all. The best way to find out, of course, is to look. But I don't think we'll know by debating the process of how life came about on Earth."

Again, said Winn of MIT, Spiegel and Turner offer a unique consideration for scientists exploring the possibility of life outside of Earth.

"I had never thought about the subtlety that we as a species could never have 'found' ourselves on a planet with a late emergence of life if evolution takes a long time to produce sentience, as it probably does," Winn said.

"With that in mind," he said, "it seems reasonable to say that scientists cannot draw any strong conclusion about life on other planets based on the early emergence of life on Earth."

What Bayesian reasoning overlooks, of course, is the inconvenient fact that there are some one trillion galaxies in the known universe and some 50 billion planets estimated to exist in the Milky Way alone and some 500,000,000 predicted to exist in a habitable zone. Spiegel and Turner point out that basing our expectations of life existing on other planets, for no better reason that it exists here, is really only proof that were are more than capable of deceiving ourselves into thinking that things are much more likely than they really are.

NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has picked up the faint, ghostly glow of stars ejected from ancient galaxies shown below that were gravitationally ripped apart several billion years ago. The mayhem happened 4 billion light-years away, inside an immense collection of nearly 500 galaxies nicknamed “Pandora’s Cluster,” also known as Abell 2744. The Hubble team estimates that the combined light of about 200 billion outcast stars contributes approximately 10 percent of the cluster’s brightness.




They argue that other unknown factors exist that could have contributed to us being here that we don’t yet understand. So, they conclude that, deriving numbers from an equation such as that put forth by Drake, only serves to underscore our belief in the existence of other alien life forms, rather than the actual chances of it being so.

We think evidence will be discovered in the next 20 years: The Kepler mission has discovered 1,235 exoplanets that revolve around a sun, in an area that represents around 1/400th of the Milky Way. By extrapolating these numbers, the Kepler team has estimated that there are at least 50 billion exoplanets in our galaxy — 500 million of which sit inside the habitable "Goldilocks" zones of their suns, the area that it is neither too hot nor too cold to support life.

Astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe. If you want to extrapolate those numbers, that means there are around 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 (50 quintillion) potentially habitable planets in the universe.

As Arthur C. Clarke, physicist and author of 2001: A Space Odyssey wrote, "The idea that we are the only intelligent creatures in a cosmos of a hundred billion galaxies is so preposterous that there are very few astronomers today who would take it seriously. It is safest to assume therefore, that they are out there and to consider the manner in which this may impinge upon human society."To an objectivist, empirical view, the rules of Bayesian statistics can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistency and interpreted as an extension of logic. Using a subjectivist view, however, the state of knowledge measures a "personal belief".

More information: "Life might be rare despite its early emergence on Earth: a Bayesian analysis of the probability of abiogenesis" and

The Daily Galaxy via Princeton University

Image credit: Image credit: NASA/ESA/IAC/HFF Team, STScI


It would be more impressive if you got the fellow's name right. It's Spergel.

ALL talk about life elsewhere (pro or con) is assumptive.

"If scientists start out assuming that the chances of life existing on another planet as it does on Earth are large, then their results will be presented in a way that supports that likelihood,"

They neglect another very important factor - mention LIFE and you have a greater chance of getting referenced due to click baiting.

My reasoning would go something like this:
- there is life on earth
- so there must be a mechanism to create life
- given enough time, the mechanism of life will eventually be initiated

This of course doesn't say anything about the odds of life being created elsewhere. But it does say that if it happened here it CAN happen elsewhere also.

"- given enough time, the mechanism of life will eventually be initiated"

Playing devil's advocate....that is presuming that the conditions which allowed for that mechanism are still possible.

Just as one day future scientists will no longer be able to see stars outside of our galaxy, and the knowledge of the existence of other galaxies could be lost, it's quite possible that we've passed some "point of no return" when it comes to forces/mechanisms at work in an earlier universe.


Look. To retain a posh job at many universities and institutes and organizations one has to publish articles .

aside from his nmormal duties. it doesn't make much difference sometimes what the content of the articles are...just publish. Hence there are a lot of articles published about absolutely nothing important...just speculation based on some twists and turns of statistical B.S. .

Anyone of even moderate intelligence can assume there is lots of life in our galaxy let along our universe and safely assume that despite the rhetoric from skeptics who can't see past their nose and who refuse to accept that Earth is being visited on countless documented occasions of extraterrestrial intelligent life. Screw a bunch of skeptical one sided "have to publish or else" types...that's not science, that's idiocy.

We have had a huge amount of syncronicity to produce us. Not only that Earth is in a sweet spot, but also its history and the fact that we are a very different animal. It is a huge coincidence of conditions.

Assuming Pessimistically There are 150 planets supporting life forms including us only in our milky way galaxy, Which contains 100 billion planets, If we assume one planet for one sun. there are Billions of more galaxies in our Universe, I am 200% sure that there is intelligent life on 10,000 planets even we assume very very pessimistically. mathamatics as i know is incomplete without probability.

I'll stick with A C Clarke's Idea. It seems more comfortable.

Once we return to Titan and the other interesting moons of Jupiter and Saturn, we will have a chance to once and for all determine if life can form outside the earth. Then, of course, we will make more assumptions...

This is largely a misapplication of Bayesian analysis. If we for instance could go to each world and conclusively measure whether life exists or not, then this would inform the probability of finding it on the next planet we find. Even then, lets say we examine 9 planets directly and find no life, Bayesian says the next planet has a fleeting (most likely zero) chance of life, since we have never found life. Now we examine planet 10 and find life, sudden the odds zoom to one in 10. Now that we have a sample with both conditions the odds will not swing wildly but settle down towards the true probability as we test hundreds or thousands of planets.

In this case we don’t even know if what we are measuring informs us well on whether there is life or not. Until we find the first positive, Bayesian is meaningless. Lets assume we could definitively say looking at 1000 planets with radio proved no intelligent life (and currently we can’t even say that). Then assuming there were intelligent life in the universe on one out of 10000 planets, we would have to search 4000 hundred more to have even a 50/50 chance of detecting them.

Without Hits and Misses Bayesian is mostly useless for predicting sparse sets.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)