{"title":"Astrobiologists are rational but not Bayesian","authors":"W. Bains, J. Petkowski","doi":"10.1017/s1473550421000185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The search for biosignatures is likely to generate controversial results, with no single biosignature being clear proof of the presence of life. Bayesian statistical frameworks have been suggested as a tool for testing the effect that a new observation has on our belief in the presence of life on another planet. We test this approach here using the tentative discovery of phosphine on Venus as an example of a possible detection of a biosignature on an otherwise well-characterized planet. We report on a survey of astrobiologists' views on the likelihood of life on Enceladus, Europa, Mars, Titan and Venus before the announcement of the detection of phosphine in Venus' atmosphere (the Bayesian Prior Probability) and after the announcement (the Posterior Probability). Survey results show that respondents have a general view on the likelihood of life on any world, independent of the relative ranking of specific bodies, and that there is a distinct ‘fans of icy moons’ sub-community. The announcement of the potential presence of phosphine on Venus resulted in the community showing a small but significant increase in its confidence that there was life on Venus; nevertheless the community still considers Venus to be the least likely abode of life among the five targets considered, last after Titan. We derive a Bayesian formulation that explicitly includes both the uncertainty in the interpretation of the signal as well as uncertainty in whether phosphine on Venus could have been produced by life. We show that although the community has shown rational restraint about a highly unexpected and still tentative detection, their changing expectations do not fit a Bayesian model.","PeriodicalId":13879,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Astrobiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s1473550421000185","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Astrobiology","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1473550421000185","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
The search for biosignatures is likely to generate controversial results, with no single biosignature being clear proof of the presence of life. Bayesian statistical frameworks have been suggested as a tool for testing the effect that a new observation has on our belief in the presence of life on another planet. We test this approach here using the tentative discovery of phosphine on Venus as an example of a possible detection of a biosignature on an otherwise well-characterized planet. We report on a survey of astrobiologists' views on the likelihood of life on Enceladus, Europa, Mars, Titan and Venus before the announcement of the detection of phosphine in Venus' atmosphere (the Bayesian Prior Probability) and after the announcement (the Posterior Probability). Survey results show that respondents have a general view on the likelihood of life on any world, independent of the relative ranking of specific bodies, and that there is a distinct ‘fans of icy moons’ sub-community. The announcement of the potential presence of phosphine on Venus resulted in the community showing a small but significant increase in its confidence that there was life on Venus; nevertheless the community still considers Venus to be the least likely abode of life among the five targets considered, last after Titan. We derive a Bayesian formulation that explicitly includes both the uncertainty in the interpretation of the signal as well as uncertainty in whether phosphine on Venus could have been produced by life. We show that although the community has shown rational restraint about a highly unexpected and still tentative detection, their changing expectations do not fit a Bayesian model.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Astrobiology is the peer-reviewed forum for practitioners in this exciting interdisciplinary field. Coverage includes cosmic prebiotic chemistry, planetary evolution, the search for planetary systems and habitable zones, extremophile biology and experimental simulation of extraterrestrial environments, Mars as an abode of life, life detection in our solar system and beyond, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, the history of the science of astrobiology, as well as societal and educational aspects of astrobiology. Occasionally an issue of the journal is devoted to the keynote plenary research papers from an international meeting. A notable feature of the journal is the global distribution of its authors.