That 2nd video I linked is from the Columbia University Dept of Astronomy youtube channel. In it, the jailhouse thought experiment gives excellent perspective. It begins here:
All I'm saying is that we don't have the data needed to make an assumption one way or the other.
LOL how do you know its not your bias talking?
Until then we can only guess, as have the authors. :)
We cannot assume that given even the 'right' conditions abiogenesis is inevitable, or likely, or even a one out of a trillion chance. You are correct, we don't have the necessary data needed to lean one way or the other. So what is my bias? Whatever it is, you seem to have it too. :)
My argument with this research paper is that the authors admit their assumptions are based on a sample size of one.
I could write dozens of research papers based on a sample size of one, but that is not good science, and it makes for ridiculous dumbing-down clickbait.
The study Marshal posted about proposes a model equally as likely to be a good representation of reality as does the ones your videos talk about, as far as we now know. My point is that you seem to believe more the hypothesis in your videos and seemingly dismiss the hypothesis put forth in the new study with no real data to back up your obvious position.
My position is that we don't have enough information to select the most likely hypothesis yet. The test to see if I'm biased or not comes in the future when im presented with evidence favoring one hypothesis over the other. If I can accept it after some modest scrutiny and change my view according to better data I will have passed the test. :)
The hypotheses put forward in the videos I linked? They boil down to this, simply; we don't have enough data to know.
So if being intellectually honest about the question is what you call bias, then fine call me biased on the side of evidence.
I get the feeling you are forming your opinion about 'my bias' based on the titles of those videos, not the content of those videos and not what I have stated here on this thread.
It's not unusual or wrong to think "there must be intelligent life out there because there are so many stars and planets and time is so vast" but these videos attempt to show that statistically that is not necessarily so.
The research paper linked by the OP admits it bases its conclusions on only our planet's present circumstance; assuming it fits with the Copernican principles of mediocrity. I find it incredible that the authors of the paper seemingly ignore the observations made over time that indicate conditions leading to present day earth are rare and our home star the Sun also is by any measure, quite rare.
The paper states that it is that the closest CETI (communicating extraterrestrial intelligence) civilizations would most likely be found on a class M star but that seems rather preposterous to me. Class M stars are much smaller and less massive and far less luminous than our Sun, a class G star.
Class M stars make up about 77% of all the stars in the universe, yet are too dim for any to be seen from earth with the naked eye. The smaller mass and lessened luminosity of a class M star would bring the habitable zone much closer, perhaps 20x closer, to the star. Class M stars also flare more than our Sun, and with the habitable zone so close that means there would be frequent threats to any emerging life on the hypothetical planet of a class M star. And because of the close proximity, the planet would quite likely be tidally locked so that one side of the planet always faces the sun, and any atmosphere would likely be torn away by frequent flaring of the star.
Those are just a few reasons I have a problem with the link Marshal posted. IMO the authors of that research paper are biased to an extreme.
Oh here's another one, a big one - by assigning upper and lower limits to the Copernican ToM, the authors are arrogantly filling in some blanks on the Drake equation.
We don't have the data for dat!