🕷️ Crawler Inspector

URL Lookup

Direct Parameter Lookup

Raw Queries and Responses

1. Shard Calculation

Query:

Response:

Calculated Shard: 154 (from laksa102)

2. Crawled Status Check

Query:

curl -X POST \
  'http://laksa154.int.ahrefs:8124/' \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  -H 'X-ClickHouse-Database: crawler3' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic YXBpOg==' \
  -d 'SELECT getAhrefsURLFromUnparsed(src_unparsed) AS found_url, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(download_stamp), 0) AS crawl_time, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(props_url_first_seen), 0) AS first_indexed_time, download_http_code AS http_code, src_unparsed AS src_unparsed, src_root_hash AS src_root_hash, history_drop_reason AS history_drop_reason, meta_title AS meta_title, meta_descriptions AS meta_descriptions, attrs_boilerpipe_text AS attrs_boilerpipe_text, attrs_markdown AS attrs_markdown, attrs_readable_markdown AS attrs_readable_markdown, meta_canonical AS meta_canonical FROM crawler3.page_info_local FINAL PREWHERE (src_root_hash, src_unparsed) IN ((getAhrefsRootHashFromUnparsed(getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://world.edu/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think/\')), getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://world.edu/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think/\'))) FORMAT JSONEachRow'

Response:

{"found_url":"https:\/\/world.edu\/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think\/","crawl_time":1775255390,"first_indexed_time":1736924916,"http_code":200,"src_unparsed":"edu,world!\/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think\/ s443","src_root_hash":"14849112325556234154","history_drop_reason":null,"meta_title":"Do aliens exist? We studied what scientists really think - World leading higher education information and services","meta_descriptions":[],"attrs_boilerpipe_text":"News stories about the likely existence of extraterrestrial life, and our chances of detecting it, tend to be positive. We are often told that we might discover it any time now. Finding life beyond Earth is \n“only a matter of time”\n, we were told in September 2023. “\nWe are close\n” was a headline from September 2024.\nIt’s easy to see why. Headlines such as “We’re probably not close” or “Nobody knows” aren’t very clickable. But what does the relevant community of experts actually think when considered as a whole? Are optimistic predictions common or rare? Is there even a consensus? In our new paper, \npublished in Nature Astronomy\n, we’ve found out.\nDuring February to June 2024, we carried out four surveys regarding the likely existence of basic, complex and intelligent extraterrestrial life. We sent emails to astrobiologists (scientists who study extraterrestrial life), as well as to scientists in other areas, including biologists and physicists.\nIn total, 521 astrobiologists responded, and we received 534 non-astrobiologist responses. The results reveal that 86.6% of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” that it’s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe.\nLess than 2% disagreed, with 12% staying neutral. So, based on this, we might say that there’s a solid consensus that extraterrestrial life, of some form, exists somewhere out there.\nScientists who weren’t astrobiologists essentially concurred, with an overall agreement score of 88.4%. In other words, one cannot say that astrobiologists are biased toward believing in extraterrestrial life, compared with other scientists.\nWhen we turn to “complex” extraterrestrial life or “intelligent” aliens, our results were 67.4% agreement, and 58.2% agreement, respectively for astrobiologists and other scientists. So, scientists tend to think that alien life exists, even in more advanced forms.\nThese results are made even more significant by the fact that disagreement for all categories was low. For example, only 10.2% of astrobiologists disagreed with the claim that intelligent aliens likely exist.\nOptimists and pessimists\nAre scientists merely speculating? Usually, we should only take notice of a scientific consensus when it is based on evidence (and lots of it). As there is no proper evidence, scientists may be guessing. However, scientists did have the option of voting “neutral”, an option that was chosen by some scientists who felt that they would be speculating.\nOnly 12% chose this option. There is actually a lot of “indirect” or “theoretical” evidence that alien life exists. For example, we do now know that habitable environments are very common in the universe.\nWe have several in our own solar system, including the sub-surface oceans of the moons \nEuropa\n and \nEnceladus\n, and arguably also the environment a few kilometres \nbelow the surface of Mars\n. It also seems relevant that \nMars used to be highly habitable\n, with lakes and rivers of liquid water on its surface and a substantial atmosphere.\nIt is reasonable to generalise from here to a truly gargantuan number of habitable environments across the galaxy, and wider universe. We also know (since we’re here) that life can get started from non-life – it happened on Earth, after all. Although the origin of the first, simple forms of life is poorly understood, there is no compelling reason to think that it requires astronomically rare conditions. And even if it does, the probability of life getting started (\nabiogenesis\n) is clearly non-zero.\nThis can help us to see the 86.6% agreement in a new light. Perhaps it is not, actually, a surprisingly strong consensus. Perhaps it is a surprisingly \nweak\n consensus. Consider the numbers: \nthere are more than 100 billion galaxies\n. And we know that habitable environments are everywhere.\nLet’s say there are 100 billion billion habitable worlds (planets or moons) in the universe. Suppose we are such pessimists that we think life’s chances of getting started on any given habitable world is one in a billion billion. In that case, we would still answer “agree” to the statement that it is likely that alien life exists in the universe.\nThus, optimists and pessimists should all have answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to our survey, with only the most radical pessimists about the origin of life disagreeing.\nBearing this in mind, we could present our data another way. Suppose we discount the 60 neutral votes we received. Perhaps these scientists felt that they would be speculating, and \ndidn’t want to take a stance\n. In which case, it makes sense to ignore their votes. This leaves 461 votes in total, of which 451 were for agree or strongly agree. Now, we have an overall agreement percentage of 97.8%.\nThis move is not as illegitimate as it looks. Scientists know that if they choose “neutral” they can’t possibly be wrong. Thus, this is the “safe” choice. In research, \nit is often called “satisficing”\n.\nAs the geophysicist Edward Bullard \nwrote back in 1975\n while debating whether \nall continents were once joined together\n, instead of making a choice “it is more prudent to keep quiet, … sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data”. Not only is keeping quiet a safe choice for scientists, it means the scientist doesn’t need to think too hard – it is the \neasy\n choice.\nGetting the balance right\nWhat we probably want is balance. On one side, we have the lack of direct empirical evidence and the reluctance of responsible scientists to speculate. On the other side, we have evidence of other kinds, including the truly gargantuan number of habitable environments in the universe.\nWe know that the probability of life getting started is non-zero. Perhaps 86.6% agreement, with 12% neutral and less than 2% disagreement, is a sensible compromise, all things considered.\nPerhaps – given the problem of satisficing – whenever we present such results, we should present two results for overall agreement: one with neutral votes included (86.6%), and one with neutral votes disregarded (97.8%). Neither result is the single, correct result.\nEach perspective speaks to different analytical needs and helps prevent oversimplification of the data. Ultimately, reporting both numbers – and being transparent about their contexts – is the most honest way to represent the true complexity of responses.\nAuthor Bios:\nPeter Vickers is Professor in Philosophy of Science at Durham University, Henry Taylor is Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham and Sean McMahon is a Reader in Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh","attrs_markdown":"[![jobs.world.edu](https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Jobs720-25.jpg)](https:\/\/jobs.world.edu\/)\n\n# [World leading higher education information and services](https:\/\/world.edu\/) [Home](https:\/\/world.edu\/) [News](http:\/\/news.world.edu\/) [Blogs](http:\/\/blogs.world.edu\/) [Courses](http:\/\/courses.world.edu\/) [Jobs](http:\/\/jobs.world.edu\/)\n\n[Skip to content](https:\/\/world.edu\/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think\/#content \"Skip to content\")\n\n- [Home](https:\/\/world.edu\/)\n- [News](http:\/\/news.world.edu\/)\n- [Blogs](http:\/\/blogs.world.edu\/)\n- [Courses](http:\/\/courses.world.edu\/)\n- [Jobs](http:\/\/jobs.world.edu\/)\n- [Partners](http:\/\/courses.world.edu\/partners\/)\n- [Contact](https:\/\/world.edu\/contact\/)\n\n[← Could AI replace politicians? A philosopher maps out three possible futures](https:\/\/world.edu\/could-ai-replace-politicians-a-philosopher-maps-out-three-possible-futures\/)\n\n[Welcome, betas, children of generative artificial intelligence →](https:\/\/world.edu\/welcome-betas-children-of-generative-artificial-intelligence\/)\n# Do aliens exist? We studied what scientists really think\nShare:\n\n*Posted by* Peter Vickers, Henry Taylor and Sean McMahon \\| January 15, 2025 \\|  [0 responses](https:\/\/world.edu\/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think\/?noamp=mobile#respond)\n\n![](https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/aliens.png)\n\nNews stories about the likely existence of extraterrestrial life, and our chances of detecting it, tend to be positive. We are often told that we might discover it any time now. Finding life beyond Earth is [“only a matter of time”](https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/science-environment-66950930), we were told in September 2023. “[We are close](https:\/\/www.space.com\/seti-nathalie-cabrol-the-secret-life-of-the-universe)” was a headline from September 2024.\n\nIt’s easy to see why. Headlines such as “We’re probably not close” or “Nobody knows” aren’t very clickable. But what does the relevant community of experts actually think when considered as a whole? Are optimistic predictions common or rare? Is there even a consensus? In our new paper, [published in Nature Astronomy](https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41550-024-02451-0), we’ve found out.\n\nDuring February to June 2024, we carried out four surveys regarding the likely existence of basic, complex and intelligent extraterrestrial life. We sent emails to astrobiologists (scientists who study extraterrestrial life), as well as to scientists in other areas, including biologists and physicists.\n\nIn total, 521 astrobiologists responded, and we received 534 non-astrobiologist responses. The results reveal that 86.6% of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” that it’s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe.\n\nLess than 2% disagreed, with 12% staying neutral. So, based on this, we might say that there’s a solid consensus that extraterrestrial life, of some form, exists somewhere out there.\n\nScientists who weren’t astrobiologists essentially concurred, with an overall agreement score of 88.4%. In other words, one cannot say that astrobiologists are biased toward believing in extraterrestrial life, compared with other scientists.\n\nWhen we turn to “complex” extraterrestrial life or “intelligent” aliens, our results were 67.4% agreement, and 58.2% agreement, respectively for astrobiologists and other scientists. So, scientists tend to think that alien life exists, even in more advanced forms.\n\nThese results are made even more significant by the fact that disagreement for all categories was low. For example, only 10.2% of astrobiologists disagreed with the claim that intelligent aliens likely exist.\n\n#### **Optimists and pessimists**\nAre scientists merely speculating? Usually, we should only take notice of a scientific consensus when it is based on evidence (and lots of it). As there is no proper evidence, scientists may be guessing. However, scientists did have the option of voting “neutral”, an option that was chosen by some scientists who felt that they would be speculating.\n\nOnly 12% chose this option. There is actually a lot of “indirect” or “theoretical” evidence that alien life exists. For example, we do now know that habitable environments are very common in the universe.\n\nWe have several in our own solar system, including the sub-surface oceans of the moons [Europa](https:\/\/theconversation.com\/the-four-most-promising-worlds-for-alien-life-in-the-solar-system-146358) and [Enceladus](https:\/\/theconversation.com\/if-life-exists-on-jupiters-moon-europa-scientists-might-soon-be-able-to-detect-it-226656), and arguably also the environment a few kilometres [below the surface of Mars](https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/j.ctv8pzdnq). It also seems relevant that [Mars used to be highly habitable](https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/full\/10.1126\/science.1242777), with lakes and rivers of liquid water on its surface and a substantial atmosphere.\n\nIt is reasonable to generalise from here to a truly gargantuan number of habitable environments across the galaxy, and wider universe. We also know (since we’re here) that life can get started from non-life – it happened on Earth, after all. Although the origin of the first, simple forms of life is poorly understood, there is no compelling reason to think that it requires astronomically rare conditions. And even if it does, the probability of life getting started ([abiogenesis](https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/science\/abiogenesis)) is clearly non-zero.\n\nThis can help us to see the 86.6% agreement in a new light. Perhaps it is not, actually, a surprisingly strong consensus. Perhaps it is a surprisingly *weak* consensus. Consider the numbers: [there are more than 100 billion galaxies](https:\/\/www.space.com\/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe.html). And we know that habitable environments are everywhere.\n\nLet’s say there are 100 billion billion habitable worlds (planets or moons) in the universe. Suppose we are such pessimists that we think life’s chances of getting started on any given habitable world is one in a billion billion. In that case, we would still answer “agree” to the statement that it is likely that alien life exists in the universe.\n\nThus, optimists and pessimists should all have answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to our survey, with only the most radical pessimists about the origin of life disagreeing.\n\nBearing this in mind, we could present our data another way. Suppose we discount the 60 neutral votes we received. Perhaps these scientists felt that they would be speculating, and [didn’t want to take a stance](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0313541). In which case, it makes sense to ignore their votes. This leaves 461 votes in total, of which 451 were for agree or strongly agree. Now, we have an overall agreement percentage of 97.8%.\n\nThis move is not as illegitimate as it looks. Scientists know that if they choose “neutral” they can’t possibly be wrong. Thus, this is the “safe” choice. In research, [it is often called “satisficing”](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/poq\/nfz035).\n\nAs the geophysicist Edward Bullard [wrote back in 1975](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev.ea.03.050175.000245) while debating whether [all continents were once joined together](https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/continentaldrift0001fran), instead of making a choice “it is more prudent to keep quiet, … sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data”. Not only is keeping quiet a safe choice for scientists, it means the scientist doesn’t need to think too hard – it is the *easy* choice.\n\n#### **Getting the balance right**\nWhat we probably want is balance. On one side, we have the lack of direct empirical evidence and the reluctance of responsible scientists to speculate. On the other side, we have evidence of other kinds, including the truly gargantuan number of habitable environments in the universe.\n\nWe know that the probability of life getting started is non-zero. Perhaps 86.6% agreement, with 12% neutral and less than 2% disagreement, is a sensible compromise, all things considered.\n\nPerhaps – given the problem of satisficing – whenever we present such results, we should present two results for overall agreement: one with neutral votes included (86.6%), and one with neutral votes disregarded (97.8%). Neither result is the single, correct result.\n\nEach perspective speaks to different analytical needs and helps prevent oversimplification of the data. Ultimately, reporting both numbers – and being transparent about their contexts – is the most honest way to represent the true complexity of responses.\n\n***Author Bios:** Peter Vickers is Professor in Philosophy of Science at Durham University, Henry Taylor is Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham and Sean McMahon is a Reader in Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh*\n\nTags: [extraterrestrial life](https:\/\/world.edu\/tag\/extraterrestrial-life\/)\n\n- ## About the Author\n  [![](https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1e8d491a5f9b9bf3db67c9e46abbba7bb06b26b458bd5025c55e0a4b9b60ea8a?s=50&d=mm&r=g)](https:\/\/world.edu\/author\/kevin)\n  ### [Kevin](https:\/\/world.edu\/author\/kevin)\n  Kevin is a co founder of the world. [Learn more...](https:\/\/world.edu\/?author=33)\n- ## Archives\n  - [April 2026](https:\/\/world.edu\/2026\/04\/)\n  - [March 2026](https:\/\/world.edu\/2026\/03\/)\n  - [February 2026](https:\/\/world.edu\/2026\/02\/)\n  - [January 2026](https:\/\/world.edu\/2026\/01\/)\n  - [December 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/12\/)\n  - [November 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/11\/)\n  - [October 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/10\/)\n  - [September 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/09\/)\n  - [August 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/08\/)\n  - [July 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/07\/)\n  - [June 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/06\/)\n  - [May 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/05\/)\n  - [April 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/04\/)\n  - [March 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/03\/)\n  - [February 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/02\/)\n  - [January 2025](https:\/\/world.edu\/2025\/01\/)\n  - [December 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/12\/)\n  - [November 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/11\/)\n  - [October 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/10\/)\n  - [September 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/09\/)\n  - [August 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/08\/)\n  - [July 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/07\/)\n  - [June 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/06\/)\n  - [May 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/05\/)\n  - [April 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/04\/)\n  - [March 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/03\/)\n  - [February 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/02\/)\n  - [January 2024](https:\/\/world.edu\/2024\/01\/)\n  - [December 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/12\/)\n  - [November 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/11\/)\n  - [October 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/10\/)\n  - [September 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/09\/)\n  - [August 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/08\/)\n  - [July 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/07\/)\n  - [June 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/06\/)\n  - [May 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/05\/)\n  - [April 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/04\/)\n  - [March 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/03\/)\n  - [February 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/02\/)\n  - [January 2023](https:\/\/world.edu\/2023\/01\/)\n  - [December 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/12\/)\n  - [November 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/11\/)\n  - [October 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/10\/)\n  - [September 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/09\/)\n  - [August 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/08\/)\n  - [July 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/07\/)\n  - [June 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/06\/)\n  - [May 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/05\/)\n  - [April 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/04\/)\n  - [March 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/03\/)\n  - [February 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/02\/)\n  - [January 2022](https:\/\/world.edu\/2022\/01\/)\n  - [December 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/12\/)\n  - [November 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/11\/)\n  - [October 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/10\/)\n  - [September 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/09\/)\n  - [August 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/08\/)\n  - [July 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/07\/)\n  - [June 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/06\/)\n  - [May 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/05\/)\n  - [April 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/04\/)\n  - [March 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/03\/)\n  - [February 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/02\/)\n  - [January 2021](https:\/\/world.edu\/2021\/01\/)\n  - [December 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/12\/)\n  - [November 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/11\/)\n  - [October 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/10\/)\n  - [September 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/09\/)\n  - [August 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/08\/)\n  - [July 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/07\/)\n  - [June 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/06\/)\n  - [May 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/05\/)\n  - [April 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/04\/)\n  - [March 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/03\/)\n  - [February 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/02\/)\n  - [January 2020](https:\/\/world.edu\/2020\/01\/)\n  - [December 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/12\/)\n  - [November 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/11\/)\n  - [October 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/10\/)\n  - [September 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/09\/)\n  - [August 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/08\/)\n  - [July 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/07\/)\n  - [June 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/06\/)\n  - [May 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/05\/)\n  - [April 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/04\/)\n  - [March 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/03\/)\n  - [February 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/02\/)\n  - [January 2019](https:\/\/world.edu\/2019\/01\/)\n  - [December 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/12\/)\n  - [November 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/11\/)\n  - [October 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/10\/)\n  - [September 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/09\/)\n  - [August 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/08\/)\n  - [July 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/07\/)\n  - [June 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/06\/)\n  - [May 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/05\/)\n  - [April 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/04\/)\n  - [March 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/03\/)\n  - [February 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/02\/)\n  - [January 2018](https:\/\/world.edu\/2018\/01\/)\n  - [December 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/12\/)\n  - [November 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/11\/)\n  - [October 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/10\/)\n  - [September 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/09\/)\n  - [August 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/08\/)\n  - [July 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/07\/)\n  - [June 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/06\/)\n  - [May 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/05\/)\n  - [April 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/04\/)\n  - [March 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/03\/)\n  - [February 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/02\/)\n  - [January 2017](https:\/\/world.edu\/2017\/01\/)\n\n© world[.](https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-link)edu 2012\n\n[Skip to toolbar](https:\/\/world.edu\/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think\/#wp-toolbar)\n\n- [World.edu](https:\/\/world.edu\/)\n  - [Home](https:\/\/world.edu\/)\n  - [News](http:\/\/news.world.edu\/)\n  - [Blogs](http:\/\/blogs.world.edu\/)\n  - [Courses](http:\/\/courses.world.edu\/)\n  - [Jobs](http:\/\/jobs.world.edu\/)\n- [Log In](https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-login.php)\n\n![](https:\/\/d5nxst8fruw4z.cloudfront.net\/atrk.gif?account=EGv9f1a8Mu00M0)","attrs_readable_markdown":"![](https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/aliens.png)\n\nNews stories about the likely existence of extraterrestrial life, and our chances of detecting it, tend to be positive. We are often told that we might discover it any time now. Finding life beyond Earth is [“only a matter of time”](https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/science-environment-66950930), we were told in September 2023. “[We are close](https:\/\/www.space.com\/seti-nathalie-cabrol-the-secret-life-of-the-universe)” was a headline from September 2024.\n\nIt’s easy to see why. Headlines such as “We’re probably not close” or “Nobody knows” aren’t very clickable. But what does the relevant community of experts actually think when considered as a whole? Are optimistic predictions common or rare? Is there even a consensus? In our new paper, [published in Nature Astronomy](https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41550-024-02451-0), we’ve found out.\n\nDuring February to June 2024, we carried out four surveys regarding the likely existence of basic, complex and intelligent extraterrestrial life. We sent emails to astrobiologists (scientists who study extraterrestrial life), as well as to scientists in other areas, including biologists and physicists.\n\nIn total, 521 astrobiologists responded, and we received 534 non-astrobiologist responses. The results reveal that 86.6% of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” that it’s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe.\n\nLess than 2% disagreed, with 12% staying neutral. So, based on this, we might say that there’s a solid consensus that extraterrestrial life, of some form, exists somewhere out there.\n\nScientists who weren’t astrobiologists essentially concurred, with an overall agreement score of 88.4%. In other words, one cannot say that astrobiologists are biased toward believing in extraterrestrial life, compared with other scientists.\n\nWhen we turn to “complex” extraterrestrial life or “intelligent” aliens, our results were 67.4% agreement, and 58.2% agreement, respectively for astrobiologists and other scientists. So, scientists tend to think that alien life exists, even in more advanced forms.\n\nThese results are made even more significant by the fact that disagreement for all categories was low. For example, only 10.2% of astrobiologists disagreed with the claim that intelligent aliens likely exist.\n\n#### **Optimists and pessimists**\nAre scientists merely speculating? Usually, we should only take notice of a scientific consensus when it is based on evidence (and lots of it). As there is no proper evidence, scientists may be guessing. However, scientists did have the option of voting “neutral”, an option that was chosen by some scientists who felt that they would be speculating.\n\nOnly 12% chose this option. There is actually a lot of “indirect” or “theoretical” evidence that alien life exists. For example, we do now know that habitable environments are very common in the universe.\n\nWe have several in our own solar system, including the sub-surface oceans of the moons [Europa](https:\/\/theconversation.com\/the-four-most-promising-worlds-for-alien-life-in-the-solar-system-146358) and [Enceladus](https:\/\/theconversation.com\/if-life-exists-on-jupiters-moon-europa-scientists-might-soon-be-able-to-detect-it-226656), and arguably also the environment a few kilometres [below the surface of Mars](https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/j.ctv8pzdnq). It also seems relevant that [Mars used to be highly habitable](https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/full\/10.1126\/science.1242777), with lakes and rivers of liquid water on its surface and a substantial atmosphere.\n\nIt is reasonable to generalise from here to a truly gargantuan number of habitable environments across the galaxy, and wider universe. We also know (since we’re here) that life can get started from non-life – it happened on Earth, after all. Although the origin of the first, simple forms of life is poorly understood, there is no compelling reason to think that it requires astronomically rare conditions. And even if it does, the probability of life getting started ([abiogenesis](https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/science\/abiogenesis)) is clearly non-zero.\n\nThis can help us to see the 86.6% agreement in a new light. Perhaps it is not, actually, a surprisingly strong consensus. Perhaps it is a surprisingly *weak* consensus. Consider the numbers: [there are more than 100 billion galaxies](https:\/\/www.space.com\/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe.html). And we know that habitable environments are everywhere.\n\nLet’s say there are 100 billion billion habitable worlds (planets or moons) in the universe. Suppose we are such pessimists that we think life’s chances of getting started on any given habitable world is one in a billion billion. In that case, we would still answer “agree” to the statement that it is likely that alien life exists in the universe.\n\nThus, optimists and pessimists should all have answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to our survey, with only the most radical pessimists about the origin of life disagreeing.\n\nBearing this in mind, we could present our data another way. Suppose we discount the 60 neutral votes we received. Perhaps these scientists felt that they would be speculating, and [didn’t want to take a stance](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0313541). In which case, it makes sense to ignore their votes. This leaves 461 votes in total, of which 451 were for agree or strongly agree. Now, we have an overall agreement percentage of 97.8%.\n\nThis move is not as illegitimate as it looks. Scientists know that if they choose “neutral” they can’t possibly be wrong. Thus, this is the “safe” choice. In research, [it is often called “satisficing”](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/poq\/nfz035).\n\nAs the geophysicist Edward Bullard [wrote back in 1975](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev.ea.03.050175.000245) while debating whether [all continents were once joined together](https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/continentaldrift0001fran), instead of making a choice “it is more prudent to keep quiet, … sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data”. Not only is keeping quiet a safe choice for scientists, it means the scientist doesn’t need to think too hard – it is the *easy* choice.\n\n#### **Getting the balance right**\nWhat we probably want is balance. On one side, we have the lack of direct empirical evidence and the reluctance of responsible scientists to speculate. On the other side, we have evidence of other kinds, including the truly gargantuan number of habitable environments in the universe.\n\nWe know that the probability of life getting started is non-zero. Perhaps 86.6% agreement, with 12% neutral and less than 2% disagreement, is a sensible compromise, all things considered.\n\nPerhaps – given the problem of satisficing – whenever we present such results, we should present two results for overall agreement: one with neutral votes included (86.6%), and one with neutral votes disregarded (97.8%). Neither result is the single, correct result.\n\nEach perspective speaks to different analytical needs and helps prevent oversimplification of the data. Ultimately, reporting both numbers – and being transparent about their contexts – is the most honest way to represent the true complexity of responses.\n\n***Author Bios:** Peter Vickers is Professor in Philosophy of Science at Durham University, Henry Taylor is Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham and Sean McMahon is a Reader in Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh*","meta_canonical":null}

3. Robots.txt Check

Query:

Response:

4. Spam/Ban Check

Query:

Response:

5. Seen Status Check

ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled

📄

INDEXABLE

✅

CRAWLED

4 days ago

🤖

ROBOTS ALLOWED

Page Info Filters

Filter	Status	Condition	Details
HTTP status	PASS	`download_http_code = 200`	HTTP 200
Age cutoff	PASS	`download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH`	0.1 months ago
History drop	PASS	`isNull(history_drop_reason)`	No drop reason
Spam/ban	PASS	`fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0`	ml_spam_score=0
Canonical	PASS	`meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed`	Not set

Page Details

Property	Value
URL	https://world.edu/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think/
Last Crawled	2026-04-03 22:29:50 (4 days ago)
First Indexed	2025-01-15 07:08:36 (1 year ago)
HTTP Status Code	200
Meta Title	Do aliens exist? We studied what scientists really think - World leading higher education information and services
Meta Description	null
Meta Canonical	null
Boilerpipe Text	News stories about the likely existence of extraterrestrial life, and our chances of detecting it, tend to be positive. We are often told that we might discover it any time now. Finding life beyond Earth is “only a matter of time” , we were told in September 2023. “ We are close ” was a headline from September 2024. It’s easy to see why. Headlines such as “We’re probably not close” or “Nobody knows” aren’t very clickable. But what does the relevant community of experts actually think when considered as a whole? Are optimistic predictions common or rare? Is there even a consensus? In our new paper, published in Nature Astronomy , we’ve found out. During February to June 2024, we carried out four surveys regarding the likely existence of basic, complex and intelligent extraterrestrial life. We sent emails to astrobiologists (scientists who study extraterrestrial life), as well as to scientists in other areas, including biologists and physicists. In total, 521 astrobiologists responded, and we received 534 non-astrobiologist responses. The results reveal that 86.6% of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” that it’s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe. Less than 2% disagreed, with 12% staying neutral. So, based on this, we might say that there’s a solid consensus that extraterrestrial life, of some form, exists somewhere out there. Scientists who weren’t astrobiologists essentially concurred, with an overall agreement score of 88.4%. In other words, one cannot say that astrobiologists are biased toward believing in extraterrestrial life, compared with other scientists. When we turn to “complex” extraterrestrial life or “intelligent” aliens, our results were 67.4% agreement, and 58.2% agreement, respectively for astrobiologists and other scientists. So, scientists tend to think that alien life exists, even in more advanced forms. These results are made even more significant by the fact that disagreement for all categories was low. For example, only 10.2% of astrobiologists disagreed with the claim that intelligent aliens likely exist. Optimists and pessimists Are scientists merely speculating? Usually, we should only take notice of a scientific consensus when it is based on evidence (and lots of it). As there is no proper evidence, scientists may be guessing. However, scientists did have the option of voting “neutral”, an option that was chosen by some scientists who felt that they would be speculating. Only 12% chose this option. There is actually a lot of “indirect” or “theoretical” evidence that alien life exists. For example, we do now know that habitable environments are very common in the universe. We have several in our own solar system, including the sub-surface oceans of the moons Europa and Enceladus , and arguably also the environment a few kilometres below the surface of Mars . It also seems relevant that Mars used to be highly habitable , with lakes and rivers of liquid water on its surface and a substantial atmosphere. It is reasonable to generalise from here to a truly gargantuan number of habitable environments across the galaxy, and wider universe. We also know (since we’re here) that life can get started from non-life – it happened on Earth, after all. Although the origin of the first, simple forms of life is poorly understood, there is no compelling reason to think that it requires astronomically rare conditions. And even if it does, the probability of life getting started ( abiogenesis ) is clearly non-zero. This can help us to see the 86.6% agreement in a new light. Perhaps it is not, actually, a surprisingly strong consensus. Perhaps it is a surprisingly weak consensus. Consider the numbers: there are more than 100 billion galaxies . And we know that habitable environments are everywhere. Let’s say there are 100 billion billion habitable worlds (planets or moons) in the universe. Suppose we are such pessimists that we think life’s chances of getting started on any given habitable world is one in a billion billion. In that case, we would still answer “agree” to the statement that it is likely that alien life exists in the universe. Thus, optimists and pessimists should all have answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to our survey, with only the most radical pessimists about the origin of life disagreeing. Bearing this in mind, we could present our data another way. Suppose we discount the 60 neutral votes we received. Perhaps these scientists felt that they would be speculating, and didn’t want to take a stance . In which case, it makes sense to ignore their votes. This leaves 461 votes in total, of which 451 were for agree or strongly agree. Now, we have an overall agreement percentage of 97.8%. This move is not as illegitimate as it looks. Scientists know that if they choose “neutral” they can’t possibly be wrong. Thus, this is the “safe” choice. In research, it is often called “satisficing” . As the geophysicist Edward Bullard wrote back in 1975 while debating whether all continents were once joined together , instead of making a choice “it is more prudent to keep quiet, … sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data”. Not only is keeping quiet a safe choice for scientists, it means the scientist doesn’t need to think too hard – it is the easy choice. Getting the balance right What we probably want is balance. On one side, we have the lack of direct empirical evidence and the reluctance of responsible scientists to speculate. On the other side, we have evidence of other kinds, including the truly gargantuan number of habitable environments in the universe. We know that the probability of life getting started is non-zero. Perhaps 86.6% agreement, with 12% neutral and less than 2% disagreement, is a sensible compromise, all things considered. Perhaps – given the problem of satisficing – whenever we present such results, we should present two results for overall agreement: one with neutral votes included (86.6%), and one with neutral votes disregarded (97.8%). Neither result is the single, correct result. Each perspective speaks to different analytical needs and helps prevent oversimplification of the data. Ultimately, reporting both numbers – and being transparent about their contexts – is the most honest way to represent the true complexity of responses. Author Bios: Peter Vickers is Professor in Philosophy of Science at Durham University, Henry Taylor is Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham and Sean McMahon is a Reader in Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh
Markdown	[![jobs.world.edu](https://world.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Jobs720-25.jpg)](https://jobs.world.edu/) # [World leading higher education information and services](https://world.edu/) [Home](https://world.edu/) [News](http://news.world.edu/) [Blogs](http://blogs.world.edu/) [Courses](http://courses.world.edu/) [Jobs](http://jobs.world.edu/) [Skip to content](https://world.edu/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think/#content "Skip to content") - [Home](https://world.edu/) - [News](http://news.world.edu/) - [Blogs](http://blogs.world.edu/) - [Courses](http://courses.world.edu/) - [Jobs](http://jobs.world.edu/) - [Partners](http://courses.world.edu/partners/) - [Contact](https://world.edu/contact/) [← Could AI replace politicians? A philosopher maps out three possible futures](https://world.edu/could-ai-replace-politicians-a-philosopher-maps-out-three-possible-futures/) [Welcome, betas, children of generative artificial intelligence →](https://world.edu/welcome-betas-children-of-generative-artificial-intelligence/) # Do aliens exist? We studied what scientists really think Share: Posted by Peter Vickers, Henry Taylor and Sean McMahon \\| January 15, 2025 \\| [0 responses](https://world.edu/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think/?noamp=mobile#respond) ![](https://world.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/aliens.png) News stories about the likely existence of extraterrestrial life, and our chances of detecting it, tend to be positive. We are often told that we might discover it any time now. Finding life beyond Earth is [“only a matter of time”](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66950930), we were told in September 2023. “[We are close](https://www.space.com/seti-nathalie-cabrol-the-secret-life-of-the-universe)” was a headline from September 2024. It’s easy to see why. Headlines such as “We’re probably not close” or “Nobody knows” aren’t very clickable. But what does the relevant community of experts actually think when considered as a whole? Are optimistic predictions common or rare? Is there even a consensus? In our new paper, [published in Nature Astronomy](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02451-0), we’ve found out. During February to June 2024, we carried out four surveys regarding the likely existence of basic, complex and intelligent extraterrestrial life. We sent emails to astrobiologists (scientists who study extraterrestrial life), as well as to scientists in other areas, including biologists and physicists. In total, 521 astrobiologists responded, and we received 534 non-astrobiologist responses. The results reveal that 86.6% of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” that it’s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe. Less than 2% disagreed, with 12% staying neutral. So, based on this, we might say that there’s a solid consensus that extraterrestrial life, of some form, exists somewhere out there. Scientists who weren’t astrobiologists essentially concurred, with an overall agreement score of 88.4%. In other words, one cannot say that astrobiologists are biased toward believing in extraterrestrial life, compared with other scientists. When we turn to “complex” extraterrestrial life or “intelligent” aliens, our results were 67.4% agreement, and 58.2% agreement, respectively for astrobiologists and other scientists. So, scientists tend to think that alien life exists, even in more advanced forms. These results are made even more significant by the fact that disagreement for all categories was low. For example, only 10.2% of astrobiologists disagreed with the claim that intelligent aliens likely exist. #### Optimists and pessimists Are scientists merely speculating? Usually, we should only take notice of a scientific consensus when it is based on evidence (and lots of it). As there is no proper evidence, scientists may be guessing. However, scientists did have the option of voting “neutral”, an option that was chosen by some scientists who felt that they would be speculating. Only 12% chose this option. There is actually a lot of “indirect” or “theoretical” evidence that alien life exists. For example, we do now know that habitable environments are very common in the universe. We have several in our own solar system, including the sub-surface oceans of the moons [Europa](https://theconversation.com/the-four-most-promising-worlds-for-alien-life-in-the-solar-system-146358) and [Enceladus](https://theconversation.com/if-life-exists-on-jupiters-moon-europa-scientists-might-soon-be-able-to-detect-it-226656), and arguably also the environment a few kilometres [below the surface of Mars](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv8pzdnq). It also seems relevant that [Mars used to be highly habitable](https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1242777), with lakes and rivers of liquid water on its surface and a substantial atmosphere. It is reasonable to generalise from here to a truly gargantuan number of habitable environments across the galaxy, and wider universe. We also know (since we’re here) that life can get started from non-life – it happened on Earth, after all. Although the origin of the first, simple forms of life is poorly understood, there is no compelling reason to think that it requires astronomically rare conditions. And even if it does, the probability of life getting started ([abiogenesis](https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis)) is clearly non-zero. This can help us to see the 86.6% agreement in a new light. Perhaps it is not, actually, a surprisingly strong consensus. Perhaps it is a surprisingly weak consensus. Consider the numbers: [there are more than 100 billion galaxies](https://www.space.com/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe.html). And we know that habitable environments are everywhere. Let’s say there are 100 billion billion habitable worlds (planets or moons) in the universe. Suppose we are such pessimists that we think life’s chances of getting started on any given habitable world is one in a billion billion. In that case, we would still answer “agree” to the statement that it is likely that alien life exists in the universe. Thus, optimists and pessimists should all have answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to our survey, with only the most radical pessimists about the origin of life disagreeing. Bearing this in mind, we could present our data another way. Suppose we discount the 60 neutral votes we received. Perhaps these scientists felt that they would be speculating, and [didn’t want to take a stance](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313541). In which case, it makes sense to ignore their votes. This leaves 461 votes in total, of which 451 were for agree or strongly agree. Now, we have an overall agreement percentage of 97.8%. This move is not as illegitimate as it looks. Scientists know that if they choose “neutral” they can’t possibly be wrong. Thus, this is the “safe” choice. In research, [it is often called “satisficing”](https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz035). As the geophysicist Edward Bullard [wrote back in 1975](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ea.03.050175.000245) while debating whether [all continents were once joined together](https://archive.org/details/continentaldrift0001fran), instead of making a choice “it is more prudent to keep quiet, … sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data”. Not only is keeping quiet a safe choice for scientists, it means the scientist doesn’t need to think too hard – it is the easy choice. #### Getting the balance right What we probably want is balance. On one side, we have the lack of direct empirical evidence and the reluctance of responsible scientists to speculate. On the other side, we have evidence of other kinds, including the truly gargantuan number of habitable environments in the universe. We know that the probability of life getting started is non-zero. Perhaps 86.6% agreement, with 12% neutral and less than 2% disagreement, is a sensible compromise, all things considered. Perhaps – given the problem of satisficing – whenever we present such results, we should present two results for overall agreement: one with neutral votes included (86.6%), and one with neutral votes disregarded (97.8%). Neither result is the single, correct result. Each perspective speaks to different analytical needs and helps prevent oversimplification of the data. Ultimately, reporting both numbers – and being transparent about their contexts – is the most honest way to represent the true complexity of responses. *Author Bios: Peter Vickers is Professor in Philosophy of Science at Durham University, Henry Taylor is Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham and Sean McMahon is a Reader in Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh* Tags: [extraterrestrial life](https://world.edu/tag/extraterrestrial-life/) - ## About the Author [![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1e8d491a5f9b9bf3db67c9e46abbba7bb06b26b458bd5025c55e0a4b9b60ea8a?s=50&d=mm&r=g)](https://world.edu/author/kevin) ### [Kevin](https://world.edu/author/kevin) Kevin is a co founder of the world. [Learn more...](https://world.edu/?author=33) - ## Archives - [April 2026](https://world.edu/2026/04/) - [March 2026](https://world.edu/2026/03/) - [February 2026](https://world.edu/2026/02/) - [January 2026](https://world.edu/2026/01/) - [December 2025](https://world.edu/2025/12/) - [November 2025](https://world.edu/2025/11/) - [October 2025](https://world.edu/2025/10/) - [September 2025](https://world.edu/2025/09/) - [August 2025](https://world.edu/2025/08/) - [July 2025](https://world.edu/2025/07/) - [June 2025](https://world.edu/2025/06/) - [May 2025](https://world.edu/2025/05/) - [April 2025](https://world.edu/2025/04/) - [March 2025](https://world.edu/2025/03/) - [February 2025](https://world.edu/2025/02/) - [January 2025](https://world.edu/2025/01/) - [December 2024](https://world.edu/2024/12/) - [November 2024](https://world.edu/2024/11/) - [October 2024](https://world.edu/2024/10/) - [September 2024](https://world.edu/2024/09/) - [August 2024](https://world.edu/2024/08/) - [July 2024](https://world.edu/2024/07/) - [June 2024](https://world.edu/2024/06/) - [May 2024](https://world.edu/2024/05/) - [April 2024](https://world.edu/2024/04/) - [March 2024](https://world.edu/2024/03/) - [February 2024](https://world.edu/2024/02/) - [January 2024](https://world.edu/2024/01/) - [December 2023](https://world.edu/2023/12/) - [November 2023](https://world.edu/2023/11/) - [October 2023](https://world.edu/2023/10/) - [September 2023](https://world.edu/2023/09/) - [August 2023](https://world.edu/2023/08/) - [July 2023](https://world.edu/2023/07/) - [June 2023](https://world.edu/2023/06/) - [May 2023](https://world.edu/2023/05/) - [April 2023](https://world.edu/2023/04/) - [March 2023](https://world.edu/2023/03/) - [February 2023](https://world.edu/2023/02/) - [January 2023](https://world.edu/2023/01/) - [December 2022](https://world.edu/2022/12/) - [November 2022](https://world.edu/2022/11/) - [October 2022](https://world.edu/2022/10/) - [September 2022](https://world.edu/2022/09/) - [August 2022](https://world.edu/2022/08/) - [July 2022](https://world.edu/2022/07/) - [June 2022](https://world.edu/2022/06/) - [May 2022](https://world.edu/2022/05/) - [April 2022](https://world.edu/2022/04/) - [March 2022](https://world.edu/2022/03/) - [February 2022](https://world.edu/2022/02/) - [January 2022](https://world.edu/2022/01/) - [December 2021](https://world.edu/2021/12/) - [November 2021](https://world.edu/2021/11/) - [October 2021](https://world.edu/2021/10/) - [September 2021](https://world.edu/2021/09/) - [August 2021](https://world.edu/2021/08/) - [July 2021](https://world.edu/2021/07/) - [June 2021](https://world.edu/2021/06/) - [May 2021](https://world.edu/2021/05/) - [April 2021](https://world.edu/2021/04/) - [March 2021](https://world.edu/2021/03/) - [February 2021](https://world.edu/2021/02/) - [January 2021](https://world.edu/2021/01/) - [December 2020](https://world.edu/2020/12/) - [November 2020](https://world.edu/2020/11/) - [October 2020](https://world.edu/2020/10/) - [September 2020](https://world.edu/2020/09/) - [August 2020](https://world.edu/2020/08/) - [July 2020](https://world.edu/2020/07/) - [June 2020](https://world.edu/2020/06/) - [May 2020](https://world.edu/2020/05/) - [April 2020](https://world.edu/2020/04/) - [March 2020](https://world.edu/2020/03/) - [February 2020](https://world.edu/2020/02/) - [January 2020](https://world.edu/2020/01/) - [December 2019](https://world.edu/2019/12/) - [November 2019](https://world.edu/2019/11/) - [October 2019](https://world.edu/2019/10/) - [September 2019](https://world.edu/2019/09/) - [August 2019](https://world.edu/2019/08/) - [July 2019](https://world.edu/2019/07/) - [June 2019](https://world.edu/2019/06/) - [May 2019](https://world.edu/2019/05/) - [April 2019](https://world.edu/2019/04/) - [March 2019](https://world.edu/2019/03/) - [February 2019](https://world.edu/2019/02/) - [January 2019](https://world.edu/2019/01/) - [December 2018](https://world.edu/2018/12/) - [November 2018](https://world.edu/2018/11/) - [October 2018](https://world.edu/2018/10/) - [September 2018](https://world.edu/2018/09/) - [August 2018](https://world.edu/2018/08/) - [July 2018](https://world.edu/2018/07/) - [June 2018](https://world.edu/2018/06/) - [May 2018](https://world.edu/2018/05/) - [April 2018](https://world.edu/2018/04/) - [March 2018](https://world.edu/2018/03/) - [February 2018](https://world.edu/2018/02/) - [January 2018](https://world.edu/2018/01/) - [December 2017](https://world.edu/2017/12/) - [November 2017](https://world.edu/2017/11/) - [October 2017](https://world.edu/2017/10/) - [September 2017](https://world.edu/2017/09/) - [August 2017](https://world.edu/2017/08/) - [July 2017](https://world.edu/2017/07/) - [June 2017](https://world.edu/2017/06/) - [May 2017](https://world.edu/2017/05/) - [April 2017](https://world.edu/2017/04/) - [March 2017](https://world.edu/2017/03/) - [February 2017](https://world.edu/2017/02/) - [January 2017](https://world.edu/2017/01/) © world[.](https://world.edu/wp-link)edu 2012 [Skip to toolbar](https://world.edu/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think/#wp-toolbar) - [World.edu](https://world.edu/) - [Home](https://world.edu/) - [News](http://news.world.edu/) - [Blogs](http://blogs.world.edu/) - [Courses](http://courses.world.edu/) - [Jobs](http://jobs.world.edu/) - [Log In](https://world.edu/wp-login.php) ![](https://d5nxst8fruw4z.cloudfront.net/atrk.gif?account=EGv9f1a8Mu00M0)
Readable Markdown	![](https://world.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/aliens.png) News stories about the likely existence of extraterrestrial life, and our chances of detecting it, tend to be positive. We are often told that we might discover it any time now. Finding life beyond Earth is [“only a matter of time”](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66950930), we were told in September 2023. “[We are close](https://www.space.com/seti-nathalie-cabrol-the-secret-life-of-the-universe)” was a headline from September 2024. It’s easy to see why. Headlines such as “We’re probably not close” or “Nobody knows” aren’t very clickable. But what does the relevant community of experts actually think when considered as a whole? Are optimistic predictions common or rare? Is there even a consensus? In our new paper, [published in Nature Astronomy](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02451-0), we’ve found out. During February to June 2024, we carried out four surveys regarding the likely existence of basic, complex and intelligent extraterrestrial life. We sent emails to astrobiologists (scientists who study extraterrestrial life), as well as to scientists in other areas, including biologists and physicists. In total, 521 astrobiologists responded, and we received 534 non-astrobiologist responses. The results reveal that 86.6% of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” that it’s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe. Less than 2% disagreed, with 12% staying neutral. So, based on this, we might say that there’s a solid consensus that extraterrestrial life, of some form, exists somewhere out there. Scientists who weren’t astrobiologists essentially concurred, with an overall agreement score of 88.4%. In other words, one cannot say that astrobiologists are biased toward believing in extraterrestrial life, compared with other scientists. When we turn to “complex” extraterrestrial life or “intelligent” aliens, our results were 67.4% agreement, and 58.2% agreement, respectively for astrobiologists and other scientists. So, scientists tend to think that alien life exists, even in more advanced forms. These results are made even more significant by the fact that disagreement for all categories was low. For example, only 10.2% of astrobiologists disagreed with the claim that intelligent aliens likely exist. #### Optimists and pessimists Are scientists merely speculating? Usually, we should only take notice of a scientific consensus when it is based on evidence (and lots of it). As there is no proper evidence, scientists may be guessing. However, scientists did have the option of voting “neutral”, an option that was chosen by some scientists who felt that they would be speculating. Only 12% chose this option. There is actually a lot of “indirect” or “theoretical” evidence that alien life exists. For example, we do now know that habitable environments are very common in the universe. We have several in our own solar system, including the sub-surface oceans of the moons [Europa](https://theconversation.com/the-four-most-promising-worlds-for-alien-life-in-the-solar-system-146358) and [Enceladus](https://theconversation.com/if-life-exists-on-jupiters-moon-europa-scientists-might-soon-be-able-to-detect-it-226656), and arguably also the environment a few kilometres [below the surface of Mars](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv8pzdnq). It also seems relevant that [Mars used to be highly habitable](https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1242777), with lakes and rivers of liquid water on its surface and a substantial atmosphere. It is reasonable to generalise from here to a truly gargantuan number of habitable environments across the galaxy, and wider universe. We also know (since we’re here) that life can get started from non-life – it happened on Earth, after all. Although the origin of the first, simple forms of life is poorly understood, there is no compelling reason to think that it requires astronomically rare conditions. And even if it does, the probability of life getting started ([abiogenesis](https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis)) is clearly non-zero. This can help us to see the 86.6% agreement in a new light. Perhaps it is not, actually, a surprisingly strong consensus. Perhaps it is a surprisingly weak consensus. Consider the numbers: [there are more than 100 billion galaxies](https://www.space.com/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe.html). And we know that habitable environments are everywhere. Let’s say there are 100 billion billion habitable worlds (planets or moons) in the universe. Suppose we are such pessimists that we think life’s chances of getting started on any given habitable world is one in a billion billion. In that case, we would still answer “agree” to the statement that it is likely that alien life exists in the universe. Thus, optimists and pessimists should all have answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to our survey, with only the most radical pessimists about the origin of life disagreeing. Bearing this in mind, we could present our data another way. Suppose we discount the 60 neutral votes we received. Perhaps these scientists felt that they would be speculating, and [didn’t want to take a stance](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313541). In which case, it makes sense to ignore their votes. This leaves 461 votes in total, of which 451 were for agree or strongly agree. Now, we have an overall agreement percentage of 97.8%. This move is not as illegitimate as it looks. Scientists know that if they choose “neutral” they can’t possibly be wrong. Thus, this is the “safe” choice. In research, [it is often called “satisficing”](https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz035). As the geophysicist Edward Bullard [wrote back in 1975](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ea.03.050175.000245) while debating whether [all continents were once joined together](https://archive.org/details/continentaldrift0001fran), instead of making a choice “it is more prudent to keep quiet, … sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data”. Not only is keeping quiet a safe choice for scientists, it means the scientist doesn’t need to think too hard – it is the easy choice. #### Getting the balance right What we probably want is balance. On one side, we have the lack of direct empirical evidence and the reluctance of responsible scientists to speculate. On the other side, we have evidence of other kinds, including the truly gargantuan number of habitable environments in the universe. We know that the probability of life getting started is non-zero. Perhaps 86.6% agreement, with 12% neutral and less than 2% disagreement, is a sensible compromise, all things considered. Perhaps – given the problem of satisficing – whenever we present such results, we should present two results for overall agreement: one with neutral votes included (86.6%), and one with neutral votes disregarded (97.8%). Neither result is the single, correct result. Each perspective speaks to different analytical needs and helps prevent oversimplification of the data. Ultimately, reporting both numbers – and being transparent about their contexts – is the most honest way to represent the true complexity of responses. *Author Bios: Peter Vickers is Professor in Philosophy of Science at Durham University, Henry Taylor is Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham and Sean McMahon is a Reader in Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh*
Shard	154 (laksa)
Root Hash	14849112325556234154
Unparsed URL	edu,world!/do-aliens-exist-we-studied-what-scientists-really-think/ s443