Is there life on other planets?

[gonzo914]

When do you use the word "phenomena" and when do you use "phenomenon"?

From American Heritage Book of English Usage --

The word phenomenon comes to us from Greek via Latin and usually keeps its Greek plural form phenomena when it means “an occurrence or fact that is perceptible to the senses.” You may sometimes come across phenomena used as a singular noun, as in This is a very strange phenomena, but this usage may strike some readers as incorrect.
You can use phenomenons as the plural in nonscientific writing when the meaning is “extraordinary things, occurrences, or persons,” as in The Beatles were phenomenons in the history of rock ’n’ roll.

From American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition

phenomenon
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. phe·nom·e·na (-n)
1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. 2. Inflected forms: pl. phe·nom·e·nons
a. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel. b. A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. See synonyms at wonder. 3. Philosophy In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. 4. Physics An observable event.
ETYMOLOGY: Late Latin phaenomenon, from Greek phainomenon, from neuter present participle of phainesthai, to appear. See bh-1 in Appendix I.
USAGE NOTE: Phenomenon is the only singular form of this noun; phenomena is the usual plural. Phenomenons may also be used as the plural in nonscientific writing when the meaning is “extraordinary things, occurrences, or persons”: They were phenomenons in the history of music.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: phe·nom·e·na
Inflected Form(s): plural -nas
nonstandard : PHENOMENON
usage Phenomena has been in occasional use as a singular for more than 400 years and its plural phenomenas for more than 350. Our evidence shows that it is primarily a speech form used by poets, critics, and professors, among others, but one that sometimes turns up in edited prose <the Borgia were, in modern terms, a media phenomena -- Economist>. It is etymologically no more irregular than stamina, agenda, and candelabra, but it has nowhere near the frequency of use that they have, and while they are standard, phenomena is still rather borderline.

To be safe on unassailable linguistic ground, if you only have one, it's a phenomenon, but if you have a brace, or a dozen, or a gaggle, or a whole raft full of them, you have phenomena.

[DavidT]

...Of course there may be a good reason not to tell us in our primitive state of development...

"They" couldn't be very intelligent and share technology that would allow us to potentially trash more planets like we've trashed our own. There's probably a notation on all inter-gallactic maps indicating that we don't even play well with ourselves, let alone others.

[Lorenzo]

...Of course there may be a good reason not to tell us in our primitive state of development...

"They" couldn't be very intelligent and share technology that would allow us to potentially trash more planets like we've trashed our own. There's probably a notation on all inter-gallactic maps indicating that we don't even play well with ourselves, let alone others.

Also, some stars don't even play well with themselves. It's possible, because of the chaotic randomness demonstrated throughout "nature" that some stars, or stellar systems, may have already destroyed any signs of life within---without thinking--perhaps Mars has done this. And, like us, there's probably no perfect system that guarantees anything no matter what is done. Life probably clings to the best system possible...for as long as possible (shrug). It's hard to imagine life in the universe, as we've observed it, is somehow better than ours...anywhere.

[Walden]

Also, some stars don't even play well with themselves.

Woody Guthrie and Johnny Cash seemed to have a little trouble at times.

[DavidT]

Also, some stars don't even play well with themselves.

Woody Guthrie and Johnny Cash seemed to have a little trouble at times.

Then there was Pee Wee Herman...

[djm]

Besides all the elements required to establish the basis for life to evolve (water, climate, energy source, etc. ) consider the vissicitudes our planet has experienced such as meteor impacts, ice ages, etc. any of which could have slowed down or stopped the development of life on any planet (both Mars and Venus are good examples: Mars of impacts, Venus of global warming). Even given the infinite nature of the universe as we understand it, and the sheer weight of the number of possibilities, the odds for life are pretty small, and the distribution of life so scattered that there is little likelihood of people from one inhabited planet ever coming into contact with another.

djm

[DavidT]

There's that tunnel vision. You are assuming carbon-based, fresh-water-dependent and air-breathing in your definition of 'life".
On a different note, all those disasters you describe have happened here before, and will likely happen again.

[fiddleronvermouth]

A friend of mine had a theory (and later realized it wasn't original), that
Faerie abduction and returning insane or poetic from the faerie mound
has simply been replaced by UFO abduction. i.e., there's some
phenomena that causes people to imagine an abduction, and societal
pressure causes them to put an outlandish story to it. It's rather
Postmodern, now that I think about it.

I'd like to find out if there are any studies of that phenomena.

I read Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind: A Reporter's Notebook on Alien Abduction, UFOs, and the Conference at M.I.T. by C. D. B. Bryan a while back. Well, half of it, anyway.

It is:

a compilation of testimonials and interviews about alien abductions. Bryan's sources, interviewed at a five-day academic conference held at M.I.T., include psychiatrists, researchers, science writers, "ufologists," and abductees, including John Mack, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard and author of Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens. In addition, Close Encounters includes transcripts from hypnotherapy sessions with self-described "abductees." Bryan, journalist and author of Friendly Fire (1976), blends a reporter's objectivity with great compassion for the traumatized victims of these mysterious and horrific violations.

I found it really interesting. Not interesting enough to read the whole thing... (but that has more to do with the fact I haven't seen it since I moved and don't know where it went.... ooh... do you think... naaaaaaah).

On thing I learned that corrected my misperceptions about "abductees" is that they are generally ordinary people with no interest in the paranormal, are usually VERY reluctant to share their stories (contrary to the popular fallacy that they are attention-seeking crackpots).

The other thing that surprised me was the consistency of their reports. I wouldn't expect that if the events were fabricated.

For some reason people find the idea of aliens zipping around in our atmosphere very difficult to believe. I don't. Why wouldn't there be? I'll reserve my final judgement until I can climb onto a spaceship myself and take a few photos, but I wouldn't attempt to get a friend committed if they started going on and on about UFOs and little grey men.

[djm]

There's that tunnel vision. You are assuming carbon-based, fresh-water-dependent and air-breathing in your definition of 'life".
On a different note, all those disasters you describe have happened here before, and will likely happen again.

This is not tunnel vision. It is addressing the issue in terms we know of. If you have visions of water fairies that you wish to substantiate, please do so.

Yes, these events have happened here before, and could happen again. That is my point. Any one of these events could terminate all life on a planet. What I am saying is that, not only would finding the right set of circumstances for life to develop on a planet be rare, but the possibility of a disasterous event terminating that life is also so very great that it is a wonder there is life here, let alone elsewhere in the universe. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, just that it seems to me that it must be incredibly rare.

djm

[bradhurley]

Actually I think the odds are pretty high that there is life on quite a few other planets in the universe, but it's virtually impossible that any life form even remotely similar to humans has evolved anywhere else. There's a basic misconception that evolution operates in an inevitable direction (from one-celled organisms to more complicated ones, culminating in intelligent beings), whereas in reality chance plays a huge role in how new life forms evolve. A planet that has had nothing but bacteria-like organisms living on it for trillions of years could be considered just as highly "evolved" as Earth. Evolution doesn't lead inexorably toward "higher" life forms or intelligence; it doesn't lead anywhere, really...it's the result of natural selection and random mutation that act over time to fine-tune individuals to their environment. Here on Earth, a cockroach is just as highly evolved as a human; in fact maybe more so because cockroaches have been around a lot longer than we have.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if life existed on other planets, but I'd be very surprised if there are other "intelligent" life forms out there that would be capable of creating technologies etc.

[fearfaoin]

For some reason people find the idea of aliens zipping around in our atmosphere very difficult to believe. I don't. Why wouldn't there be?

You could just as easily ask "why would there be aliens quietly zipping
about", not making their presence know to the population at large, and
not trying to just take over, enslave humans, and control our resources.

The other thing that surprised me was the consistency of their reports. I wouldn't expect that if the events were fabricated.

There's a folklore that goes along with aliens. If you ask two people
to describe, say, a leprachan, their descriptions might differ a bit,
but would mostly be consistant. Same would go for aliens.
An interesting experiment would be to get a person who hadn't read
the book and hadn't ever experienced an abduction to make up an
abduction story. I'd be willing to bet his story would be pretty close
to many in the book.

I think I might have to read that, though. Sounds interesting.
I'm not necessarily a hardnosed sceptic, I just think every devil
needs an advocate.

[SteveShaw]

Of course there's life on other planets. Where the dickens do you lot think Superman came from?! Gimme strength, willya!

[Nanohedron]

Where the dickens do you lot think Superman came from?!

A bad clothier.

[fearfaoin]

Of course there's life on other planets. Where the dickens do you lot think Superman came from?! Gimme strength, willya!

Superman is a right wing conspiracy to control the Kryptonite market...

[SteveShaw]

Evolution doesn't lead inexorably toward "higher" life forms or intelligence; it doesn't lead anywhere, really...it's the result of natural selection and random mutation that act over time to fine-tune individuals to their environment. Here on Earth, a cockroach is just as highly evolved as a human; in fact maybe more so because cockroaches have been around a lot longer than we have.

You need a bit more than that for evolution - you need isolation mechanisms too. "Highly-evolved" is a bit fraught. An organism that's well adapted may stick around without changing much for a very long time, like cockroaches, whereas humans are the products of recent and rapid evolution. Then you have to take into account the generation time. Mice can get through several generations a year, as many as humans could get through in the best part of a century, so their potential is for more rapid evolution than in humans. Depending on how you define "higher" life-forms, you could actually say that evolution has generally led inexorably to higher forms. Depending on the definition of course! Not easy stuff...