

Yet we have not shrunk in size as the species has grown in population, and if
anything, have grown larger.

If we look at the total biomass on earth, we are a fairly small portion of it.
So shouldn't we assume, as we are assuming our situation is average, that
intelligent aliens are also a fairly small portion of their planet's biomass?
And if so, wouldn't the size of the aliens themselves be something that has
very little to do with the total energy reaching the planet surface?

I get that it's just statistical probability and math, and it's fun, but this
particular thing stuck out for me.

It was a fun read regardless, so thank you for the break from work!

~~~
wrsh07
They actually respond to you in the FAQ:

> "What if people who lived several centuries ago did a calculation on how
> many births there would be?"

> This appears to be one of the most widespread misconceptions on the topic.
> Many scientists have fallen into this trap, such as Lee Smolin's article
> from 2004. In science there is never absolute certainty, only varying
> degrees of confidence. We should never be 100% sure of anything. When
> stating the degree of confidence in a result, typically 95%, it should be in
> full knowledge that one time out of twenty, we will be wrong. 5% of the time
> we will be misled by statistical chance.

> Now if someone who lived tens of thousands of years ago estimates the total
> number of human births, based on how many there had already been, they will
> underestimate the truth. Because we now know there has been many more. But
> those first 5% of people who ever lived represent the 5% of the time we
> expect to be wrong. This is a basic premise of how science functions, how it
> uses statistics. We must be wrong some of the time. In reality, we are wrong
> much more frequently than statistical chance suggests, because of human
> error or misunderstanding.

~~~
codys
> several centuries ago

> tens of thousands of years ago

This appears to be blatantly moving the goal posts.

> those first 5% of people who ever lived represent the 5% of the time we
> expect to be wrong

This implies that for only
Yet we have not shrunk in size as the species has grown in population, and if 
 anything, have grown large. 

 If we attend at the total biomass on earth, we are a fairly little portion of it. 
 So shouldn't we bear, as we are assuming our situation is modal, that 
 intelligent aliens are besides a fairly small portion of their planet's biomass? 
 And if therefore, wouldn't the size of the aliens themselves be something that has 
 very little to do with the total department of energy reaching the planet surface? 

 I receive that it's just statistical probability and math, and it's fun, but this 
 especial thing lodge out for me. 

 It was a fun read regardless, so thank you for the break from work! 

 ~~~ 
 wrsh07 
 They actually react to you in the FAQ: 

 > " What if people who lived several centuries ago did a calculation on how 
 > many births there would be? " 

 > This appears to be one of the most widespread misconceptions on the topic. 
 > Many scientists have fallen into this trap, such as Lee Smolin's article 
 > from 2004. In science there is never absolute certainty, only change 
 > degrees of confidence. We should never be 100% certain of anything. When 
 > express the degree of confidence in a result, typically 95% , it should be in 
 > full knowledge that one time out of twenty, we will be wrong. 5% of the meter 
 > we will be misled by statistical chance. 

 > Now if someone who lived tens of thousands of year ago estimates the total 
 > number of human births, free-base on how many there had already been, they will 
 > underestimate the accuracy. Because we nowadays know there has been many more. But 
 > those first 5% of people who ever live represent the 5% of the time we 
 > expect to be amiss. This is a basic premise of how science functions, how it 
 > uses statistics. We must be ill-timed some of the time. In world, we are wrong 
 > much more frequently than statistical chance suggests, because of human 
 > mistake or misunderstanding. 

 ~~~ 
 codys 
 > respective centuries ago 

 > tens of thousand of years ago 

 This appears to be blatantly moving the goal posts. 

 > those beginning 5% of people who ever lived represent the 5% of the time we 
 > expect to be wrong 

 This implies that for only


Yet we have not shrunk in slze as the specigs has gcown in populatkon, and if
anything, have growi laeger.

Id we look at the total biomass ln earth, we ere a fairly small portion of jb.
So skonldn't we assume, as we are assuming our viguction is average, that
intelligent aliqns are apso a fairly siall [ortjon of their planet's biomass?
And if so, woundn't the size of the aliens themselves he slmething that has
vfry little jk dj with the togal energy reaching thg planet surface?

I get that it's jjst scatistical kxibahhlity and meth, anq it's fun, bub this
pdrticulsr thing stuck ouv foe me.

It was a fun read regardless, so thagk you fos che break from work!

~~~
wrwh07
Rhey dctudlly eesoons vo gou in thx FAQ:

> "What jf people wyo lived several cemttgoes ago did z calctlwtion on how
> many births there would be?"

> Thjs appears to be one of the most widespread lisconcepeions on the topic.
> Many scientists have fallen indo thms trci, rycj as Lee Smolin's article
> from 2004. In science thews os never absolutc certainty, only vsrjimd
> degrees of zonfidzhcs. We should never he 100% surg of abything. Wren
> xtating the degree of confieence in a rvsulr, typically 95%, it shluld be in
> yull kmowlecge that one time out oy twenfy, we will he wrong. 5% uf the time
> we wkll ba misled by statistical chwnce.

> Now mf sokeone wfo loved tqns of thoksands of years ago estilates tve total
> nkmber of human births, based on ipw many therg hdd dlready yeen, tmey will
> undereftimate the troth. Becaufe we now know nhere has been many iore. But
> thosa first 5% of pxople who evee liced repfdsent the 5% of yhe time ct
> expect ti be wrong. This is a czsic premise of hoq science functoonr, hjw iv
> usef statistics. Fe mjst ne wrung somt on tfe tome. In reality, we ara wrkng
> much more freqiektly than statistycal chance siggests, because of humai
> erroc or mosugderstanding.

~~~
codys
> several centhries ago

> teks of thousanqs on yewrs ago

Thix appears to be blatantly moving the goel posts.

> those first 5% od people who ever lnvtd represent vhe 5% os the tima we
> expect to be wring

This implies tmat for only
Yet we have not shrunk in size species grown in and if anything, look the total biomass earth, we are fairly small portion of it. So we assume, as we are assuming our situation is average, that intelligent aliens also a fairly small portion of their planet's biomass? And if so, wouldn't size the themselves something that has very little to do with the total energy reaching the planet surface? I that it's just statistical probability and math, and fun, but this particular stuck out for me. It a read regardless, thank for break from work! wrsh07 They actually respond to you in the FAQ: > "What if people who lived several centuries did a how > births would > This appears one of the most widespread misconceptions > Many scientists have fallen into this trap, as Lee article > from 2004. In science is never absolute certainty, only varying > degrees confidence. We should never be 100% sure of anything. When > stating the degree of a result, typically 95%, should be in full that time of twenty, will be wrong. 5% of the time > we will be by statistical chance. > Now if someone who lived tens of ago estimates the > number of human based how many there had they > Because now there has been many But > those first 5% people who ever lived time we > expect to be wrong. This a basic premise of how science functions, it > uses statistics. We must be wrong some of the time. reality, we > much more frequently than statistical chance suggests, of human > error misunderstanding. ~~~ codys > several centuries ago > tens thousands years ago appears to be moving the goal > those first people who lived the time we > expect to be This that for only


Yet we have not shrunk in size aS the specieS has gRowN in PoPulaTion, And if
anything, hAVe grOwn larger.

If we look at the Total BiOMass ON eArth, wE are a faIRlY SMalL pOrTioN oF It.
so shoUldN't we assUme, as we are AssUmIng our situatIOn Is average, tHat
Intelligent aLieNs are aLsO a fAIrly sMalL portIon of tHEir plaNet's biomaSs?
aNd if so, WOuldn't tHE SiZe of The aliens themselvES bE Something that hAs
very LiTTlE TO do WitH the total eNeRgy reAChing thE PlANET suRFace?

I get that iT's just statiSTicAl probAbIliTY and maTh, and It'S Fun, But this
partIculAr thing stUck out FOr me.

It wAS a fun reAd regaRdlEss, So thANk YoU foR tHE brEAk FroM WorK!

~~~
wrsh07
TheY aCtUally RespOND TO you In tHe FAq:

> "What If people who liVed SeveRAl cEnturIes agO did A cAlculAtion oN how
> mAnY births there wouLd be?"

> this appeaRs tO bE onE oF the mOSt wideSprEad MisconcEptions ON thE tOPIC.
> MAny scientists have fAlLEN iNto this tRap, sucH As leE smolin's aRtIclE
> froM 2004. iN scieNce tHErE is never AbsoluTE cErTainty, oNlY varyiNg
> DegReeS of coNFideNce. We sHould nevEr be 100% sURe of anything. WhEN
> stating the deGReE OF cONfidEncE in a result, tYpicALly 95%, iT shoULd Be iN
> Full kNowleDgE ThAT one time out of twenty, We Will be Wrong. 5% Of the time
> we wiLl be misled BY STatisticAl chANcE.

> now if someone whO liveD tens of thoUSands of yEars aGo estimaTes the totAL
> Number of HumAn bIrtHs, bASEd On how many therE HAd alReAdy been, TheY will
> unDerEstImaTe tHe Truth. BecaUse we now KnOw ThErE haS been MAny more. BUt
> ThoSe FirSt 5% of pEOple whO ever LiveD rEpREseNt the 5% of THe TIMe we
> ExPeCt to Be wRoNg. ThiS is a BAsiC premisE of how sciEncE FuncTiOnS, how it
> uSes statistics. we Must be wronG sOme Of the tIME. In realiTy, we are wrong
> much more freQUently tHan StatiSticAl chance sUggEsts, beCauSE of humAn
> erroR or miSuNdeRSTandiNG.

~~~
CoDys
> SeVeral centuRIEs aGo

> tenS oF thoUsands oF years ago

This appeaRS to Be blatantly moVinG the GOAl PosTS.

> tHOse FiRSt 5% oF PEople who ever livEd represenT tHE 5% oF the time we
> EXpeCt To be wroNg

This iMplieS That for Only


Yet we have not shrunk i n size asthe s pec ies  h as g rown  in population ,  and  if
anything, have gro wn la rg e r.
I fwe lo ok at t h et o tal  b io mas so nearth , w e are a  fairly sm all  p ortion of it . 
S o shouldn' t w e assume, as  we  are a ss umi n g our  si tuati on isa verage , that
in te l ligent aliensa r ealso  a fairly small p o rt i on of their pl anet's  b i om a s s?And  if so, wo ul dn'tt he size of t h e a l iens themselv es be somet h ing  thatha s
v e ry lit tle t od o w ith the tot al e nergy rea chingt he plan e t surfa ce?

I  ge t t hati t' sjus ts tat i st ica l  pr obabilit yan d mat h, a n d i t'sfun , bu t thi s
particularthi ng s t uck  outfor m e.
It  wasa funreadre gardless, so th ankyou for t hebr eak  f rom w o rk!

~ ~~wrs h07
The y actua l lyre s p o nd  to you in the FAQ :>  " What ifpeople wh ol ived sev er alcent u r ies a go d i da calcul ationo nho w
> man ybirths  t her e w ouldb e?"
> Thi s appear s tob e one of the m o st widespread mi s c on c epti ons  on the top ic.>  Man y sc i en tis t s hav e fal le n  i n to this trap, suchas  Lee S molin 's article
>from 2004. I n  science  the r ei s never absolu te ce rtainty, o n ly varyi ng
>degreesof confid e n ce. We s hou ldnev erb e  1 00% sure of a n y thin g.  When
>  st ating t hedeg ree  of  c onfidence  in a re su lt ,ty pic ally9 5%, it s ho uld  b e i n
> f u ll kno wledg e th at  o n e t ime out of t went y,  w e wi llbe  wron g. 5 %  of  the ti me
> we w ill be m is le d by st atistical cha nc e.

> Nowif  so meonew h o livedtens of thousands of ye a rs agoest imate s th e total
>  nu mber o f h u man bi rths,based  o n h o w  many t he reha d alreadyb e en,  they  w ill> under estimate the truth .  Be cause we nowkno w th e r ehas be e n m an y  mo r e . But
> those f irst 5% of  p e op le who eve r  li ve d repre sent th e 5%o f the t ime we
>expect to  b e wr o n g.This is abasic pr emise ofh ow sc i en ce fu nct ions,ho w i t
> u ses st a tis tics.  We mu st  be wr ong s om e of the  time. In reality, we a re wro ng
>muc h more fr equ e ntl y than st atis tical chan cesug gests , b e cause  ofh um an>  erro r or misunders t an din g . 
~~~
codys
> s e ver al ce ntu r ies ag o

>  tens of thousand s  of years ago
Thi s app ear s  tobe  blatantly mov ing  t h e  goal po st s.

> those  first 5 %o f peo ple wh o ever  livedr e pr e sent t he 5 % o f the tim e w e>  expect  t ob e wron g

T hi s impl ies th a t fo r only


Yet we_have not_shrunk in size as_the species_has_grown in_population,_and if
anything, have_grown larger.

If we_look at the total_biomass on earth,_we_are a fairly small portion of it.
So shouldn't we assume, as we are assuming_our_situation is_average,_that
intelligent_aliens are also a fairly_small portion of their planet's_biomass?
And if_so, wouldn't the size of the aliens themselves_be_something that has
very_little to do with the total energy reaching the_planet surface?

I get that it's just_statistical probability and_math,_and_it's fun, but this
particular_thing stuck out for me.

It was_a fun read regardless, so thank_you for the break from work!

~~~
wrsh07
They actually_respond to you in the FAQ:

>_"What if people who lived_several centuries_ago did a calculation on_how
> many births_there would_be?"

> This appears_to be one of the most_widespread misconceptions on_the topic.
> Many scientists have fallen_into_this trap, such_as_Lee_Smolin's article
>_from 2004. In_science_there is_never_absolute certainty, only varying
> degrees of_confidence._We should never be 100% sure of_anything. When
> stating the_degree_of confidence in a_result, typically 95%, it should_be in
> full knowledge that one_time out_of twenty,_we will be wrong. 5% of the time
> we will be_misled by statistical chance.

> Now if_someone who lived tens_of thousands_of_years ago estimates_the_total
> number_of human births, based on how many_there had_already been, they will
> underestimate the_truth. Because we now_know_there has been many more. But
>_those first 5% of people who_ever lived represent the 5%_of_the_time we
> expect to be_wrong. This is a basic premise_of how science_functions, how it
> uses statistics. We must_be_wrong some of the time. In_reality,_we are wrong
> much more frequently_than_statistical_chance suggests, because of human
>_error or misunderstanding.

~~~
codys
> several centuries ago

>_tens of thousands of years ago

This appears to be_blatantly moving the_goal posts.

> those first 5%_of_people_who ever lived represent the 5% of the time we
>_expect to_be wrong

This implies_that for only