Even if there were life on some far-away planet system, it would still be pretty rare, right? It wouldn't kill biocentrism. Doubly so for the other -centrisms. The article is trying to combat collective narcissism, which is a worthy goal. Rather than rationalizing how we might not be alone based on skimpy information to the contrary, I prefer this approach: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.in/2013/09/the-next-ten-b...
Of course. When I say "biocentrism" I'm specifically referring to the idea that of all the planets in the universe, abiogenesis only occurred on Earth. So if we did find another island of life, biocentrism would be dead. We would know that Earth wasn't not "uniquely unique" in that respect. I guess the goal of the article was to assert that because the idea of "centrism" has proven so consistently wrong over historical time, that the current intellectually tenable "centrism's" are likely to also be proven false, at least IMO. To what degree life and intelligence emerges in the universe, I don't know, but I'm quite confident this isn't the only region of space-time where it has occurred.Even if there were life on some far-away planet system, it would still be pretty rare, right?
Could you point me at where this is called biocentrism? I was confused because neither sense of the term at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism seems to require uniqueness.When I say "biocentrism" I'm specifically referring to the idea that of all the planets in the universe, abiogenesis only occurred on Earth.
It is a term introduced here (page 204): I believe the point of introducing this term is for philosophical discussion on the current state of astrobiology. I think it is a useful and necessary term when discussing life in the universe. I can understand if some think the term is unnecessary.Biocentrism continues to hold in the sense that, even if most scientists subjectively believe the existence of extraterrestrial life is highly probable, we still haven't proved it yet.
I don't know if "universecentrism" is a word outside of this post. In cosmology, it's called the (weak/strong) anthropic principle or otherwise more generally, anthropocentrism. I disagree with the author that it is more likely correct than previous, smaller-scale versions of anthropocentrism. Is a big leap of faith, a statement we don't really have enough data to assert yet, I think. There are still many plausible explanations humans might be in the position we are as the "only known intelligent life" in the universe. 1. The definition of the phrase itself varies hugely depending on the meaning of each of those 4 words 2. We could be the only "intelligent" life in the local area of the universe, but not the only in the whole universe 3. Given the exponential rate of technological advancement, the simultaneous existence of local intelligent life might be intrinsically unlikely, but not an indication of human exceptionalism in any way 4. We only seem to envision life that fits the parameters of this universe well because we have the most experience with it. It might be that many universes are capable of supporting life in ways we aren't considering. Etc.It would be unfathomably unlikely if we lived in a universe with the size, extent, and homogeneity of the one we observe, and be the only region that developed life and intelligence.
I believe they were terms introduced by clemvidal in his recently released PHD thesis (pg. 204). -- I think we have enough data to be confident that life has arisen elsewhere. I tried to explain my reasoning in the post. Of course, you are entitled to your perspective and it is a fair one to hold. We have no empirical evidence to the contrary. In regards to your points 1-4 I don't necessary disagree with any of your statements. My point with the article was t state that it is highly improbable that humans are the only intelligent species to ever emerge in our universe. That's all. I think its probable that intelligence has emerged several times, although I don't think anyone can assert with any degree of scientific accuracy how many times we should expect it to have arisen.I don't know if "universecentrism" is a word outside of this post.
Steven J. Dick (2000, 196) summarized stages in cosmological worldview
development from Geocentrism, Heliocentrism, Galactocentrism to Biocentrism12. We
add two worldview stages, Intellicentrism and Universecentrism. Three “centrisms”
have been refuted scientifically: Geocentrism, Heliocentrism and Galactocentrism.
a statement we don't really have enough data to assert yet, I think.