Why everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

When one looks into the current state of astrobiology, one would be torn between fits of dismay and ecstatic rejoice. A case in point are two articles from "the telegraph". The first article written and posted on 23 Jan 2011, decries "Alien life deemed impossible, according to analysis of 500 exo-planets". Obviously, this pessimistic survey, attempts to assert (or rather the astronomer in question does) that "ours" is a most unique solar system; and that all "others" out there are much too inhospitable to support exo-life. This assertion was, and presumably still is made regardless of the well studied and documented "extreamefiles" found here on earth. However, if we (as in the normal public) were to fall down in veneration to all scientists who espouse institutional bias, we would have simply said, "oh, that is one more mystery we do not need to worry about" and reallocated resources to other areas of research. And, if we had been so unquestioning, as to accept what one expert had proposed as the "truth" then this article and required research would have never been done. "New Planet May Support Life" posted on 13 Sept 2011, this article in seemingly direct contradiction to the former, goes on to state:

It has been found to lie (exo planet) in the so-called "Goldilocks zone", meaning it is not too hot and not too cold for the presence of liquid water - the key for a planet to support Earth-like life. A Goldilocks planet was previously discovered in 2007.

The above example, is one of innumerable reasons that research, proposed findings and scientific "truth" should all be taken with a grain of salt.