[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Logic, as in… logic… I don’t know how else to make clear what I mean. Basic deductive and inductive logic equations. Foundational stuff. If x is always y and y is always z then x is always z. Go read a book about it, but the point being that there are arguments against it or in question of it that are very simple and logically sound. Basic logic. It’s not something that’s failing more complex logical reasoning, it’s failing basic stuff.

Awesome stuff. You just created a strawman fallacy in your explanation of logic. Might want to go back and re-read that book you're recommending and refer back to argumentation, premises, inferences, and conclusions. You seem to get stuck in deductive reasoning as being the basis of everything where scientific study is more entrenched in inductive reasoning and reliance on ampliative inferences to expand our understanding of the universe around us. You're presenting a position that we know everything there is to know and our logic is based on that knowledge. The logic of science is really based on continual testing and challenging what we think we know and using ampliative inference to challenge our "truth." It is more logical to acknowledge we don't know than take the position we do know, because we continue to find new truths information and facts each and every day.

And you can’t say there’s “little doubt” that human intellectual capacity is greatly limited. Your example isn’t meaningful or an example of limited capacity, it’s an example of limited understanding.

I'll give you this one. Capacity was indeed the wrong term. We have untapped capacity we can leverage. Our understanding and hubris is what is limiting. To suggest we know everything we need to know about our environment, the universe around us, or what rules apply to either, is extremely arrogant and bordering on stupid. All you have to do is look at how the world has changed, how our understanding of things have evolved, in just the past 100 years, and you should be able to see the failure in your approach to this subject. We haven't even left our planet, but we are the masters of the universe? We don't even have complete understanding or mastery of ourselves let alone our own biosphere. We have so much more to learn.

The truth is, we could very well be the most intellectual, advanced life form on any planet in any universe, and our intellectual capacity could be at 100% of what’s possible, period. That wouldn’t mean we know everything there is to know, but it would mean we are capable of understanding everything that can be understood, which includes the rules by which other life forms exist.

This may be your truth, but not THE truth. This is not consistent with what cosmologists believe. It is not consistent with what biologists, let alone astrobiologists believe. You're making a hasty generalization, which is another logic trap. We don't know what rules apply when it comes to forms of life. Our earthly understanding is that everything is carbon based and reliant on liquid water as a solvent. But there is still potential for other forms of life reliant on other elements, like silicon, and other solvents like ammonia or methane. We continue to find life thriving on this planet in conditions we did not think life were possible to exist. And why is that? Because we don't know. We continue to learn and expand our understanding and knowledgebase every day. To suggest we capable of making these absolute judgments is illogical.