I think this PBS Space Time video does a good job demonstrating some problems with Loeb's assumptions in the paper, and how it was communicated.
I feel that there's now a book, published by Loeb, further monetizing this idea is rather telling.
I'm not about to support Loeb monetarily, or with my time, which is the most precious resource of all.
It's an issue of trust. Given other professionals in the same field, who I do trust, framing of the issues with him, there's no reason to.
Honestly, most TV specials are a waste of time. There's always gotta be a hero and a villain. I still think your unusually vehement,
ad hominem dismissal of Loeb is out of bounds and closed-minded - it has nothing to do with whether the man is right or wrong - but that's on you. Be that way.
You're usually very open minded, so I'm a bit shocked.
I'll remind you that in my first post I said the Loeb book is controversial.
So? It's still an interesting read from a learned person. Discussing topics like extraterrestrial life doesn't imply belief in Little Green Men. It's just a topic for interesting conversation.
You don't agree with the dude? Cool. But whether or not you like his personality and self promotion has absolutely nothing to do with whether his theory is interesting, or worthy of discussion.
There was plenty of criticism and controversy over Einstein's theories until 20 or so years later the theory that gravity bends light was proven after the end of WWI. Hell, Galileo was put under house arrest for his book. Demonizing people who reach certain scientific conclusions is nothing new. Copernicus was vilified for his fame and controversial idea that the sun was stationary, until he wasn't.
The world, including the scientific world, has always taken comfort in orthodoxy.
Loeb is neither Galileo nor Copernicus nor Einstein. But he's still a bright person with something to say.
Seems to me that science ought to be about the ability of scientists to freely question each other -
without resorting to pointless ad hominem attacks - and challenge their theories. So controversy among people who actually do know something about what they're talking about isn't bothersome.
Unfortunately, like most other human things, there's back-biting, politics, resentment, and competition in the scientific world. I see it in every field of endeavor. I saw it in so many different industries and professions when I litigated back in the day. But engaging in it doesn't make anyone's argument more impressive or true.
Ancient Roman litigators used to argue their cases by impugning the integrity of the other lawyer; it was standard and approved practice! We moderns don't do that any more in courts of law for obvious reasons. It's irrelevant to the case.
I try to at least listen/engage in discussion if the speaker teaches at a good university. Usually the perspectives are interesting and worthy of consideration.
I can't imagine any subject of scientific inquiry that's more important than knowing if mankind is alone in the universe. So I don't think this topic is, or should be, considered nuts at all. Evidently you do - again, that's not a concern I have.
On another front, there was an article and podcast interview with the reporter who broke the story today in the Times about the thing with the intelligence officer. True or not, it's also an interesting story worth discussion, and it's at least being explored in a serious way.
Obviously it offends you, so don't participate. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it makes no sense to me to bolster a scientific argument by engaging in personality attacks.
exoplanets.nasa.gov
