Science isn't based on evidence, it relies on evidence. Imagination helps us dream up what may be. Evidence proves if we are right or not.

Evidence is integral to science and is used always. Imagination is what furthers science.

Science is both, based upon current knowledge - which is based upon and verified with observation(evidence), and it relies on verification(observational evidence)...

Again, imagination plays a role, perhaps even a key role, Einstein's thought experiments immediately come to mind. But...

The issue was posed towards looking for planets capable of sutaining life as we know it. I simply stating that life as we know it, in all of it's forms, requires water.

We could imagine all sorts of life that doesn't require what life as we know it does. One of those imaginings may indeed reflect a life form that exists unbeknownst to us. However, there is limited funding, effort, and time to invest in looking for things like planets that would sustain life. It makes no sense whatsoever for us to spend, time, effort, and limited funding seeking planets that would would support some imagined(perhaps possible, perhaps not) life form, that we have absolutely no knowledge of.

I' not sure how much "imagination" science consists of. Rather, it seems to me that that statement is untenable and/or unjustifiable. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that imagination isn't sometimes key, if by "imagination" I mean the ability to infer, deduce, and/or envision something novel, something new. Nothing you've said here contradicts anything I've said. I fail to see the counterargument or point which applies to my own.

What is the following supposed to mean?



"...just because we don't know something doesn't mean it can't exist."

That sounds like nonsense to me. I mean, things that exist aren't the sort of things that can be known. It doesn't make much sense to talk about knowing my car, or the sun, or some such. Knowing "something", when talking about knowing about the world and/or ourselves as opposed to knowing how to breathe or walk or some such, usually refers to knowing something about something. I know my car in the sense of I know what my car looks like, how it drives, etc.

To know something is to know something about something. One cannot know something about that which does not exist, real, imagined, or otherwsise.

Of course things exist which we are unaware of. At least, that's the only reasonable inference I can make based upon the history of human knowledge.

.. do fish drink water..??.

.. yes I too. believe we gain knowledge the deeper we go. but we only receive what we need when we need it.... like a cache of information.. you.... receive it at A scheduled point...

Rubbish. Gratuitous and irrelevant assertion anyone?

It's always easiest to attack a position by first misconstruing it.

Well done.

I respect your opinions, though disagree that what I said is rubbish, gratuitous, or irrelevant.

Asserting my opinion was not intended as an attack which implies aggression, also not intended.

To clarify: I was not suggesting that I believe you to be or not to be a member of the academic establishment. Your assertion that "Science is all about positing things that are based upon the evidence we have... " in my opinion is a rigid and narrow attitude. An attitude that again in my opinion is on par with that of academic establishment. While establishing parameters for focused study is of course logical, it by intent is limiting. Limitation suggests boundaries, however the perceived existence of boundary is not evidence that nothing exists beyond it.

i think your over thinking this...

they are looking for any planet, and once they find one, then they figure out whether it could sustain life as we know it... if the planet is out of the "temperate zone",(how close or far from it's sun) they lose interest in thinking there could be life on it, but other astronomers will still study it... if it's in the temperate zone, the scientists looking for life will study it more, no matter if it has water or not... they key in on earth like planets first, but they study all the planets they find... but they are not going to find life on any other planet through a telescope, they basically make notes on everything they find...

Ya think so, huh?



This is funny. After you charge me with "overthinking", you then proceed to delve even deeper into thought than I, all-the-while never once addressing what I did say...

Ho hum...

Bah.

.. to be a Explorer.
. a knowledge seeker.
. you must dispose of all. concepts of boundaries. our borders.. there too difficult to climb over..

I respect your opinions, though disagree that what I said is rubbish, gratuitous, or irrelevant.

Asserting my opinion was not intended as an attack which implies aggression, also not intended.

To clarify: I was not suggesting that I believe you to be or not to be a member of the academic establishment. Your assertion that "Science is all about positing things that are based upon the evidence we have... " in my opinion is a rigid and narrow attitude. An attitude that again in my opinion is on par with that of academic establishment.

While establishing parameters for focused study is of course logical, it by intent is limiting. Limitation suggests boundaries, however the perceived existence of boundary is not evidence that nothing exists beyond it.

?? ehh, whatever...