Astrobiology Is Mostly Pseudoscience

One of the most popular themes today on with pop-culture is the possibility of life on planets other than earth. Sceptics have come up with many theories such as the Drake Equation or the Fermi Paradox to explain why life on other planets is anything but impossible. Still, we don’t have a single shred of evidence that a biological entity exists or can exist elsewhere other than of our pale blue dot.

Not Science

For something to be considered science, one needs to follow a very specific path that involves extensive observation, measurable experiments, and follow-up repetition of these experiments in order to communicate a set of results. So far, so called “astro-biology” has not observed a living entity other than the one that manifests on earth. On the other hand astro-physics, astro-chemistry and astro-geology have successfully conducted a series of experiments that solidified their fields. Through advances in spectroscopy, analysis of electromagnetic radiation and in some cases geological samples, we are able to conduct various experiments to classify all those involved as scientific. Astro-biology, on the other hand, cannot conduct any experiments. It remains highly speculative due to the lack of the biological factor.

“But, we can’t be alone”

Most definitely. It will sure be a waste of space for us to be the only living things in this universe. The assumption though that we cannot be alone is based only on pure statistical distribution/observation. It cannot be considered science since we have yet to make any observations and/or experiments that involve extra-terrestrial life.

“But, we have found water”

Sure. This does not mean that life necessarily comes along. Assuming that life similar to earth can exist when we add just water and/or an appropriate distance from a star, cannot be considered scientific but rather pseudoscientific or plain naive. This is like assuming that you can make coca-cola if you mix water and cocoa leafs. Surely the mixture is much more complicated than the basic ingredients and the recipe needs to be followed under very specific environmental conditions in order to produce what we all know as coca-cola. Life on earth is far more complicated than a beverage recipe. It involves literally trillions of specific sequential events just to produce the mechanism of self-replication out of the sum of chaotic chemical interactions.

We are committing scientific hubris if we give the answer to ourselves without even making the observation or the experiment to begin with. Assuming that “life” is what we recognize here on earth and seeking to find it elsewhere based on this assumption, is massively erroneous. We cannot possibly assume that the same environmental constituents such as gravity, distance from our star, water and chemical compounds can result in what we call “life” since we don’t even know how life on earth originally begun.

Even if we examine the term “life” or what makes something living, we base our observation on very generic characteristics such as reproduction, respiration, metabolism, production of energy and so on. The list is not quite solid since organisms like viruses and even spiders can "play dead" and shake our very foundations of what we consider to be life. Sure we can investigate and ponder upon these intricacies but we cannot label them science just because is cool to think about it.

Behind The Name

Calling astrobiology a science is a huge step back for science itself since it gives leverage to a large group of people to abuse the term, ending up with a world of dilluted, speculative crap. "Social sciences” are the primary culprits followed by homeopaths, chiropractors and even medical professions that are proven to be more technical rather than epistemological.

It seems that the term “astrobiology” has been adopted and promoted heavily by NASA in a desperate attempt to attract more public attention to its dying program. One way to promote and thus gain public support through taxation, is to give to the masses something interesting, way more interesting than lifeless astro-physics and astro-chemistry. The theme is also tied up with a more spiritual matter through religion and pop-science. Searching for life... outhere, can captivate even the most aloof individual. This is why it has been used so extensively in movies and documentaries alike. We "want to believe".

The governmental employee and pop-science celebrity of NASA, Neil Tyson, is the leading figure of this charade and he is darn good at it. Thing is, most of the things he says, although generically accurate, are nothing more than sensationalism that has little to do with science and more about emotional stimulation of people who want to appear smart. Very few people have noticed that he openly promotes military competition with China and other governmentally malicious acts (taxes) just to advance the program.

Truth is, NASA doesn’t give a shit about life on other planets. NASA is up and foremost a paramilitary government organisation. For example, advances in spectroscopy and robotics do help us identify chemical compositions and place of planets, but for the most part they are used for warfare. If you doubt it, research the most recent robotic advancements and smart materials and you will easily find out that they are used first and foremost for military purposes and then they trend in tech and science blogs for us to enjoy.

Astrobiology merely tagged along with the big 3 (astrophysics, astrochemistry and astrogeology) as a marketing push. Nothing wrong with some marketing, but we need to make sure to identify what is science and what is not.

Science Is In Trouble

I am a supporter of true science that is based on Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability. I believe that it can lead us to great understandings of our world more than any other enquiry the human species have come up with so far. True science is humble, assuming ignorance before knowledge. I cannot accept the way some promoters of science are abusing the idea, inventing fields out of thin air, just to push their agenda. This trend has left us with a a young generation of superficial ignoramuses that believe they understand science just because they watch cool graphics on Discovery Channel or because someone has posted a trending one-minute video on facebook. The meme of the geek (or nerd) has turned out to be something completely different from what we used to know, sacrificed in the name of pop-culture superficiality.

In science, when we do not have an experiment that can be replicated over and over again, we cannot call anything scientific. This is why astrology, homeopathy, alchemy, acupuncture and other fields are not considered scientific. They fail to replicate results under systematic cross-examination. We can’t have something work “some of the time” or worse, give an answer to ourselves and then try to construct an experiment around it. Science is not immune to democracy. With so many movies about aliens, space and life on other planets, the theme fo astrobiology has become almost like a religion, a form of blind faith.