| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:14 am Post subject: SETI is not science? |
 |
|
From the wiki page on SETI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI#Criticism_of_SETI
| Quote: |
| SETI has occasionally been the target of criticism by those who suggest that it is a form of pseudoscience. In particular, critics allege that no observed phenomena suggest the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and furthermore that the assertion of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence has no good Popperian criteria for falsifiability [18]. Science fiction writer Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, stated that "The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." [19]. |
Crichton makes a pretty big jump:
| Quote: |
| The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. |
It seems to me the Drake equation is just a back of the envelope calculation and holding it up to be the scientific under pinning of what is simply a search is bogus.
Exploration is the start of science but not science, sure. But one can use science to inform the search. To look for space aliens flying out of a hole in the south pole is unscientific. Based on the science we know, it lacks scientific plausibility. To look for space aliens around the 50 billion stars much like our own is perfectly scientific. SETI is, of course, ultimately falsifiable.
If you go out and search for a fossil that's a link between dinosaur and bird and you find a fossil, you then make a claim that this represents the link. That claim can be proven (within limits) or falsified ("dating puts the fossil after birds where known to exist").
By the same token, if SETI finds a signal, that's when the real science begins and the real falsification: If there's evidence the signal was produced by a known source, the claim is falsified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I've been hashing numbers for SETI on my home computer for 4 years now. I'm a believer. Intelligent life is out there. The math makes it true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Crichton has been slamming a lot of what he calls Pseudo science for a while now. The Drake equation is speculative not even predictive.
He gives a good analogy pseudo science phenomenon in his book "State of Fear". Particularly the rise of the pseudo science known as "Eugenics".
Dear OP,
Is this topic restricted to SETI or is it open to "pseudo science" discussion a much broader topic I would think.
Certainly we can refrain from discussing "Global Warming".
Maybe people could list other opinions related pseudo sciences.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
| I've been hashing numbers for SETI on my home computer for 4 years now. I'm a believer. Intelligent life is out there. The math makes it true. |
I was listening to a debate between the SETI head Shostak and the author of a book called "Rare Earth" that argues quite strongly against the idea there are many planets in the galaxy that can support intelligent life. Curiously the author of the anti-SETI book himself runs SETI@home on his own computer and is a fan of SETI.
And that's one of the great things about science and the way science is done. "I love the idea of space aliens but here's exactly why that hunt is approaching impossible. You sure you still want to do it?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Crichton has been slamming a lot of what he calls Pseudo science for a while now. The Drake equation is speculative not even predictive.
He gives a good analogy pseudo science phenomenon in his book "State of Fear". Particularly the rise of the pseudo science known as "Eugenics".
Dear OP,
Is this topic restricted to SETI or is it open to "pseudo science" discussion a much broader topic I would think.
Certainly we can refrain from discussing "Global Warming".
Maybe people could list other opinions related pseudo sciences.
cbc |
Since he's the one who gave us 'Jurrasic Park', I find this totally ironic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Technically he's right. You can't test something you have no evidence for.
But given the sheer size of the universe, the odds of some sort of life being out there seems more likely than Invisible Daddy In the Sky Who Made Everything |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Technically he's right. You can't test something you have no evidence for. |
The key is SETI is a two phase process. First, there's the search. Whether you're searching for a dinosaur fossil, a new virus, or an alien signal, you need to conduct a search. Second, if you turn up a "hit", that's when you test. Therein is the science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| SETI is not science? |
Anything that disagrees with the current mindset of the establishment is deemed "not science" and summarily disposed of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| SETI is not science? |
Anything that disagrees with the current mindset of the establishment is deemed "not science" and summarily disposed of. |
A silly over simplification. What I think you mean to say is if you have a hypothesis that runs contrary to established theory supported by multiple lines of evidence, you need good evidence. Your new theory has to be able to explain all the observations explained by the old theory and make new predictions. If you're not offering that, but a stack of bible tracts, yeah, you'll be summarily disposed of. People don't have enough time in their day. Sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
