\n<\/p>\n
<\/iframe><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>A survey of 1,055 scientists<\/strong>, including 521 astrobiologists, found that 86.6% believe basic extraterrestrial life likely exists. Agreement among non-astrobiologists was similar.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scientists cite the abundance of habitable environments<\/strong> in the universe and the non-zero probability of life arising as indirect evidence supporting these beliefs.<\/li>\n<li><strong>It seems like a strong consensus<\/strong>, but why isn\u2019t it even higher? There might be life on moons in our solar system, and there are 100 billion planets in just our galaxy. But there\u2019s still no concrete evidence for life outside Earth.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>By Peter Vickers, Durham University; Henry Taylor, University of Birmingham; and Sean McMahon, University of Edinburgh<\/p>\n<h3>Scientists\u2019 opinions on space aliens<\/h3>\n<p>News stories about the likely existence of extraterrestrial life, and our chances of detecting it, tend to be positive. We are often told that we might discover it any time now. Finding life beyond Earth is only a matter of time, we were told in September 2023. We are close was a headline from September 2024. <\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s easy to see why. Headlines such as \u201cWe\u2019re probably not close\u201d or \u201cNobody knows\u201d aren\u2019t very clickable. But what does the relevant community of experts actually think when considered as a whole? Are optimistic predictions common or rare? Is there even a consensus? In our new paper, published in <em>Nature Astronomy<\/em>, we\u2019ve found out.<\/p>\n<p>During February to June 2024, we carried out four surveys regarding the likely existence of basic, complex and intelligent extraterrestrial life. We sent emails to astrobiologists (scientists who study extraterrestrial life), as well as to scientists in other areas, including biologists and physicists.<\/p>\n<p>In total, 521 astrobiologists responded, and we received 534 non-astrobiologist responses. The results reveal that 86.6% of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either \u201cagree\u201d or \u201cstrongly agree\u201d that it\u2019s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe.<\/p>\n<p>Less than 2% disagreed, with 12% staying neutral. So, based on this, we might say that there\u2019s a solid consensus that extraterrestrial life, of some form, exists somewhere out there. <\/p>\n<p>The 2025 EarthSky Lunar Calendar is now available! A unique and beautiful poster-sized calendar. Get yours today!<\/p>\n<h3>Even non-astrobiologists think ET might be out there<\/h3>\n<p>Scientists who weren\u2019t astrobiologists essentially concurred, with an overall agreement score of 88.4%. In other words, one cannot say that astrobiologists are biased toward believing in extraterrestrial life, compared with other scientists.<\/p>\n<p>When we turn to \u201ccomplex\u201d extraterrestrial life or \u201cintelligent\u201d aliens, our results were 67.4% agreement, and 58.2% agreement, respectively for astrobiologists and other scientists. So, scientists tend to think that alien life exists, even in more advanced forms. <\/p>\n<p>These results are made even more significant by the fact that disagreement for all categories was low. For example, only 10.2% of astrobiologists disagreed with the claim that intelligent aliens likely exist.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_498840\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-498840\" style=\"width: 800px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-498840\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Do intelligent aliens exist in the universe? Image via Shutterstock.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h3>Are they guessing about the reality of aliens?<\/h3>\n<p>Are scientists merely speculating? Usually, we should only take notice of a scientific consensus when it is based on evidence (and lots of it). As there is no proper evidence, scientists may be guessing. However, scientists did have the option of voting \u201cneutral\u201d, an option that was chosen by some scientists who felt that they would be speculating. <\/p>\n<p>Only 12% chose this option. There is actually a lot of \u201cindirect\u201d or \u201ctheoretical\u201d evidence that alien life exists. For example, we do now know that habitable environments are very common in the universe. <\/p>\n<p>We have several in our own solar system, including the subsurface oceans of the moons Europa and Enceladus, and arguably also the environment a few kilometers below the surface of Mars. It also seems relevant that Mars used to be highly habitable, with lakes and rivers of liquid water on its surface and a substantial atmosphere.<\/p>\n<p>It is reasonable to generalize from here to a truly gargantuan number of habitable environments across the galaxy and wider universe. We also know (since we\u2019re here) that life can get started from non-life. It happened on Earth, after all. Although the origin of the first, simple forms of life is poorly understood, there is no compelling reason to think that it requires astronomically rare conditions. And even if it does, the probability of life getting started (abiogenesis) is clearly non-zero.<\/p>\n<p>This can help us to see the 86.6% agreement in a new light. Perhaps it is not, actually, a surprisingly strong consensus. Perhaps it is a surprisingly <em>weak<\/em> consensus. Consider the numbers: there are more than 100 billion galaxies.<\/p>\n<h3>We know that habitable environments are everywhere<\/h3>\n<p>Let\u2019s say there are 100 billion billion habitable worlds (planets or moons) in the universe. Suppose we are such pessimists that we think life\u2019s chances of getting started on any given habitable world is one in a billion billion. In that case, we would still answer \u201cagree\u201d to the statement that it is likely that alien life exists in the universe. <\/p>\n<p>Thus, optimists and pessimists should all have answered \u201cagree\u201d or \u201cstrongly agree\u201d to our survey, with only the most radical pessimists about the origin of life disagreeing.<\/p>\n<p>Bearing this in mind, we could present our data another way. Suppose we discount the 60 neutral votes we received. Perhaps these scientists felt that they would be speculating, and didn\u2019t want to take a stance. In which case, it makes sense to ignore their votes. This leaves 461 votes in total, of which 451 were for agree or strongly agree. Now, we have an overall agreement percentage of 97.8%.<\/p>\n<p>This move is not as illegitimate as it looks. Scientists know that if they choose \u201cneutral\u201d they can\u2019t possibly be wrong. Thus, this is the \u201csafe\u201d choice. In research, it is often called satisficing.<\/p>\n<p>As the geophysicist Edward Bullard wrote back in 1975 while debating whether all continents were once joined together, instead of making a choice \u201cit is more prudent to keep quiet \u2026 sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data.\u201d Not only is keeping quiet a safe choice for scientists, it means the scientist doesn\u2019t need to think too hard. It is the <em>easy<\/em> choice.<\/p>\n<h3>Getting the balance right<\/h3>\n<p>What we probably want is balance. On one side, we have the lack of direct empirical evidence and the reluctance of responsible scientists to speculate. On the other side, we have evidence of other kinds, including the truly gargantuan number of habitable environments in the universe. <\/p>\n<p>We know that the probability of life getting started is non-zero. Perhaps 86.6% agreement, with 12% neutral and less than 2% disagreement, is a sensible compromise, all things considered. <\/p>\n<p>Perhaps \u2013 given the problem of satisficing \u2013 whenever we present such results, we should present two results for overall agreement: one with neutral votes included (86.6%), and one with neutral votes disregarded (97.8%). Neither result is the single, correct result. <\/p>\n<p>Each perspective speaks to different analytical needs and helps prevent oversimplification of the data. Ultimately, reporting both numbers \u2013 and being transparent about their contexts \u2013 is the most honest way to represent the true complexity of responses.<\/p>\n<p>This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.<\/p>\n<p>Bottom line: Aliens probably exist according to a survey of more than 1,000 scientists. Nearly 87% of them believe extraterrestrial life exists elsewhere in the universe. The real number of believers, however, could be much greater.<\/p>\n<p>Read more: Interstellar signal linked to aliens was just a truck<\/p>\n<p>Read more: What does \u201chabitable\u201d mean to astronomers?<\/p>\n<p><!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/241505\/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic\" alt=\"The Conversation\" width=\"1\" height=\"1\" style=\"border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer-when-downgrade\"\/><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https:\/\/theconversation.com\/republishing-guidelines --><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"cp-load-after-post\"\/><\/div>\n<p><br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/earthsky.org\/space\/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think\/?rand=772280\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A survey of 1,055 scientists, including 521 astrobiologists, found that 86.6% believe basic extraterrestrial life likely exists. Agreement among non-astrobiologists was similar. Scientists cite the abundance of habitable environments in… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":792834,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-792833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-earth-sky"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/792833","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=792833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/792833\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/792834"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=792833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=792833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=792833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}