both ceded the point that their assumptions were intimately tied to the way they approached the problem.
Hence the frame that I refered to Big J.

Sorry, my college statistics knowledge is rusty. I don't use it at work and I don't have a solid enough memory to continue the argument from that perspective. I meant we have a sample of n = 1. 1 planet with life in a N = unknown population (total planets with intelligent life). If I remember correctly, we need a sample of at least two in order to come to any conclusions about N.

If you were to attempt to come to a conclusion based on available data, then of course one would conclude that there is no extraterrestrial life. Is there a definite answer? Not with the information we have available. I will concede that.

But are the positions equally logical as a theory? Becasue really that is what it boils down to: two opposing theories.

Theory (a): There is intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Theory (b): There is not.

Which theory is more logical and why?