I disagree entirely about the base premise here. Science is all about discovering what is actually there, by eliminating the flaws and biases inherent with our position as conscious observers. The entire premise assume that something IS there that awaits discovery. Newton didn't invent gravity, he just discovered an equation that governed the way it works, and created the name.

If the statements are empirical, (based in fact, fact being credible data, data being information gained by direct observation) and scientific (based on logic which can be experimented on repeatedly with predictable outcome) then it absolutely may be verified. The best context for this depends on your intention.

Science deals with the act of falsifying, however it also accepts things which have not, or are not easily falsified, as building blocks.

We know Einsteins theory of time dilation based on speed to be true, because we tried GPS without it and it failed drastically within seconds. Once we plugged in the equation, we got GPS.

I disagree. Truth exists, but it get complicated when we add levels of consciousness and conceptual purity to the mix. If objective reality exists, then so does truth.

Hmmm, we use the razor to eliminate false ideas quickly. It doesnt actually assist in selection so much as it narrows down criteria that we might otherwise spend time verifying. Like all ideas, this has advantages and disadvantages. The Razor is not always true, some things are naturally complex and oversimplification can cause problems.

Truth has to do with alignment, specifically being aligned with actuality: what is actually there, and not just an idea. The complexity of that alignment isnt really a factor in the truth, but it is certainly a matter of how we relate the truth.

Then doesnt that mean it is simply a more effective guide towards truth?

I thought that was the whole point behind a Razor.

Might be? How about almost certainly is.

Not that it matters, most of you with children in public school use Google Classroom. They have way more information than these toys ever have.

It should scare you how much info Google has on you and your children.

Damn. I was hoping you werent going to say that. That was the major limitation I saw: these distinctions are just too hard to detect.

Nonetheless: Thank you for the response! Very cool!

Well, less that we are looking for the wrong things, and more that I think we arent looking for all the right things. I see a focus on habitable zones and liquid water for instance, and those certainly seem like critical components for life to exist. But that is not by far the only anomaly in our solar system.

I'll try to be as clear as possible because people here actually work in the science. Some of what I say might be easily debunked by something in the community Im unaware of. Im actually excited about the prospect. But also, people here might actually see value in what Im saying, and possess the tools necessary to implement it.

It seems to me that almost just as important as liquid water would be the presence of a magnetosphere. Without one, the planet cannot protect against cosmic rays which shred DNA before life can proliferate. But in our solar system there are two planets with magnetospheres: Earth and Jupiter. I hypothesize that the existence of a large gas giant with a magnetosphere on the outer part of a system would be much more likely exist in a system that can sustain life. Or at least another terrestrial planet with an iron core. The problem here is I dont think magnetics are easy to detect at these distances. At the same time: gas giants are easier to detect than small terrestrial worlds.

We also know that Iron is a critical component to life, and that iron is formed in certain stages of star development and death. Our solar system exists in a "stellar nursery" where older stars have died leaving iron to be plentiful in the local matter. We should look primarily in similar places if we want to find life

I dont think the presence of the asteroid belt is incidental. It's possible that this is evidence of some event which malformed a planet, planetary destruction, or a result of Jupiter's magnetic influence, (or any of dozens of possibilities). Anything which could cause it could also be integral to life developing.

Tldr: I know science is about eliminating as many variables as possible, but I think we should be looking for more than just planets with water in the habitable zone. We should be looking for whole systems which resemble our own.

Very cool. I think we are looking for some of the wrong things, but it is amazing to see the techniques and equipment developing when they get cool info like this. Good work!