astronomy-chat.net Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main Date: 19 Aug 2006 23:25:20 From: Rich Subject: Are the SETI kooks still at it? I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish.   Date: 20 Aug 2006 13:59:35 From: Mark F. Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? I smell a TROLL. "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1156055120.359442.308300@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare > processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. > I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific > theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? > I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish. >     Date: 20 Aug 2006 12:33:35 From: Richard Adams Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Mark F. wrote: > I smell a TROLL. > > > "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1156055120.359442.308300@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >>I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare >>processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. >>I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific >>theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? >>I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish. >> I won't call it rubbish any more than I would astronomy and modern medicine. The first step to prove theory in all or part begins with a single step. Those who consider taking that first step are free to be scanned by an actual cat on their next visit to hospital.   Date: 20 Aug 2006 06:15:59 From: Al Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Rich wrote: > I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare > processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/setiathome/setiathome_20060814.html http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/   Date: 20 Aug 2006 11:39:13 From: Sam Wormley Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Rich wrote: > I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare > processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. > I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific > theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? > I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish. > I'm still processing SETI data on my computers.     Date: 20 Aug 2006 12:28:49 From: Richard Adams Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Sam Wormley wrote: > Rich wrote: > >> I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare >> processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. >> I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific >> theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? >> I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish. >> > > I'm still processing SETI data on my computers. Odd. So am I . I thought the Boinc link stopped working with some note regarding "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" about 9 months back. These new processors sure do smoke this stuff.   Date: 20 Aug 2006 18:45:13 From: Stuart Chapman Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Rich wrote: > I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare > processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. > I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific > theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? > I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish. > Yes, we are. Stupot   Date: 20 Aug 2006 23:37:40 From: London England Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1156055120.359442.308300@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare > processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. > I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific > theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? > I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish. Go watch Contact. The drake thing is actually an equation of probability isn't it? But then agian maybe not because equations of probability require known events. Our existence is totally improbable but, here we are. Why was it that apes evolved a complex cerebral cortex? Why are we favoured over all other possible paths? What happened here that can certainly happen elsewhere in a whole universe? I think the numbers are low for this galaxy and we probably will never make contact.     Date: 21 Aug 2006 00:23:58 From: Sam Wormley Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? London England wrote: > "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1156055120.359442.308300@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare >> processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. >> I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific >> theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? >> I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish. > > > Go watch Contact. The drake thing is actually an equation of probability > isn't it? > But then agian maybe not because equations of probability require known > events. > Our existence is totally improbable but, here we are. Why was it that apes > evolved a complex cerebral cortex? Why are we favoured over all other > possible paths? What happened here > that can certainly happen elsewhere in a whole universe? > > I think the numbers are low for this galaxy and we probably will never make > contact. > > Evolution of complex brains on this planet is not limited to humans, for example, some marine species have developed very complex brains that can sense and change 20 million pigment cells in less than a second to camouflage them selves to mimic the environment they are in. # opus escape responses: 1) be a chunk of sea weed or sponge, 2) Be big!, 3) Use camouflage to hide on a rock, 4) surprise the predator by blanching, 5) Inking, and 6) being really weird looking with big, dangerous eyes http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o10.gif # Squid camouflage- Note how the spots on the back change to match he background. The end of the sequence shows how well-hidden he would be to an animal with monochromatic vision. http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o08.gif       Date: 21 Aug 2006 01:11:56 From: London England Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? >> Go watch Contact. The drake thing is actually an equation of probability >> isn't it? >> But then agian maybe not because equations of probability require known >> events. >> Our existence is totally improbable but, here we are. Why was it that >> apes >> evolved a complex cerebral cortex? Why are we favoured over all other >> possible paths? What happened here >> that can certainly happen elsewhere in a whole universe? >> >> I think the numbers are low for this galaxy and we probably will never >> make contact. > > Evolution of complex brains on this planet is not limited to humans, > for example, some marine species have developed very complex brains > that can sense and change 20 million pigment cells in less than a > second to camouflage them selves to mimic the environment they are in. > > # opus escape responses: 1) be a chunk of sea weed or sponge, > 2) Be big!, 3) Use camouflage to hide on a rock, 4) surprise the > predator by blanching, 5) Inking, and 6) being really weird looking > with big, dangerous eyes > > http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o10.gif > > # Squid camouflage- Note how the spots on the back change to match > he background. The end of the sequence shows how well-hidden he > would be to an animal with monochromatic vision. > > http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o08.gif But But but...Buck Buck. They don't have self awarness. They don't build rockets to Mars etc. etc.         Date: 21 Aug 2006 16:21:19 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? "London England" <LondonE@telusplanet.net > wrote in news:wL7Gg.7824$395.2696@edtnps90: > >>> Go watch Contact. The drake thing is actually an equation of >>> probability isn't it? >>> But then agian maybe not because equations of probability require >>> known events. >>> Our existence is totally improbable but, here we are. Why was it that >>> apes >>> evolved a complex cerebral cortex? Why are we favoured over all other >>> possible paths? What happened here >>> that can certainly happen elsewhere in a whole universe? >>> >>> I think the numbers are low for this galaxy and we probably will never >>> make contact. >> >> Evolution of complex brains on this planet is not limited to humans, >> for example, some marine species have developed very complex brains >> that can sense and change 20 million pigment cells in less than a >> second to camouflage them selves to mimic the environment they are >> in. >> >> # opus escape responses: 1) be a chunk of sea weed or sponge, >> 2) Be big!, 3) Use camouflage to hide on a rock, 4) surprise the >> predator by blanching, 5) Inking, and 6) being really weird looking >> with big, dangerous eyes >> >> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o10.gif >> >> # Squid camouflage- Note how the spots on the back change to match >> he background. The end of the sequence shows how well-hidden he >> would be to an animal with monochromatic vision. >> >> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o08.gif > > > But But but...Buck Buck. They don't have self awarness. They don't > build rockets to Mars etc. etc. > > How do you know they don't have self awareness. From observation I would say they almost certainly do. A matter of degree perhaps rather than kind. BTW most humans do not have the ability to build rockets to Mars. Klazmon         Date: 21 Aug 2006 02:40:43 From: Sam Wormley Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? London England wrote: >>> Go watch Contact. The drake thing is actually an equation of probability >>> isn't it? >>> But then agian maybe not because equations of probability require known >>> events. >>> Our existence is totally improbable but, here we are. Why was it that >>> apes >>> evolved a complex cerebral cortex? Why are we favoured over all other >>> possible paths? What happened here >>> that can certainly happen elsewhere in a whole universe? >>> >>> I think the numbers are low for this galaxy and we probably will never >>> make contact. >> Evolution of complex brains on this planet is not limited to humans, >> for example, some marine species have developed very complex brains >> that can sense and change 20 million pigment cells in less than a >> second to camouflage them selves to mimic the environment they are in. >> >> # opus escape responses: 1) be a chunk of sea weed or sponge, >> 2) Be big!, 3) Use camouflage to hide on a rock, 4) surprise the >> predator by blanching, 5) Inking, and 6) being really weird looking >> with big, dangerous eyes >> >> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o10.gif >> >> # Squid camouflage- Note how the spots on the back change to match >> he background. The end of the sequence shows how well-hidden he >> would be to an animal with monochromatic vision. >> >> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o08.gif > > > But But but...Buck Buck. They don't have self awarness. They don't build > rockets to Mars etc. etc. > > They don't build rockets to Mars, but the do camouflage to their surroundings. That's an unfounded claim, "They don't have self awar[e]ness".           Date: 21 Aug 2006 16:44:16 From: London England Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? >>> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o10.gif >>> >>> # Squid camouflage- Note how the spots on the back change to match >>> he background. The end of the sequence shows how well-hidden he >>> would be to an animal with monochromatic vision. >>> >>> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o08.gif >> >> >> But But but...Buck Buck. They don't have self awarness. They don't build >> rockets to Mars etc. etc. > > They don't build rockets to Mars, but the do camouflage to their > surroundings. That's an unfounded claim, "They don't have self > awar[e]ness". Oh come on! and they can't build radio transmitters and receivers either to listen for other squids in the galaxy! As for being self aware? Highly unlikely but not impossible. They do protect "themselves" etc. but I don't think they are aware that they will die if they don't. That's the difference right there. We are aware of our mortality.             Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:51:12 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? "London England" <LondonE@telusplanet.net > wrote in news:AplGg.12686$Ch.8330@clgrps13: > > >>>> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o10.gi >>>> f >>>> >>>> # Squid camouflage- Note how the spots on the back change to >>>> match he background. The end of the sequence shows how >>>> well-hidden he would be to an animal with monochromatic vision. >>>> >>>> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Animal%20Behavior/Cephalopods/o08.gi >>>> f >>> >>> >>> But But but...Buck Buck. They don't have self awarness. They don't >>> build rockets to Mars etc. etc. >> >> They don't build rockets to Mars, but the do camouflage to their >> surroundings. That's an unfounded claim, "They don't have self >> awar[e]ness". > > > Oh come on! and they can't build radio transmitters and receivers > either to listen for > other squids in the galaxy! As for being self aware? Highly unlikely > but not impossible. > They do protect "themselves" etc. but I don't think they are aware that > they will die if they don't. > That's the difference right there. We are aware of our mortality. > That is probably right. Humans are aware of their mortality in the abstract sense, not just fear of injury or harm etc. The capability of abstraction along with language are most important human traits. There are indications though, that chimps do have some limited abstraction ability, not sure about cephalopods ;-). Klazmon. >   Date: 20 Aug 2006 11:39:02 From: Mij Adyaw Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Rich, How do you think that we are going to find and communicate with ET if we don't analyze the signals that could be coming from other civilizations? "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1156055120.359442.308300@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare > processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. > I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific > theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? > I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish. >     Date: 20 Aug 2006 21:13:38 From: Paul Schlyter Subject: Re: 2006 IAU 12 planets resolution petition In article <cb949$44e86c92$4212a5f6$19211@TULAROSA.NET >, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote: > Paul Schlyter wrote: >> If so, is this guy worth the effort of even responding to him, and >> waste bandwith on Usenet? > > Now YOU are yanking my chain. Why? What business is it of yours? You posted it publicly, didn't you? I stumbled across your post, got a little curious about your arguments and perhaps hoped to get a summary -- but no..... (no, I don't want to bother having look through all your posts -- sorry!) > Please stop and please get back on topic. > > For the record, *I* am not the topic here, sir. Now, YOU are wasting MY time !!!! *** PLONK *** > -- > Greg Crinklaw > Astronomical Software Developer > Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) > > SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html > Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html > Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html > > To reply take out your eye -- ------ Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/       Date: 20 Aug 2006 16:45:34 From: Greg Crinklaw Subject: Re: 2006 IAU 12 planets resolution petition Paul Schlyter wrote: > In article <cb949$44e86c92$4212a5f6$19211@TULAROSA.NET>, > Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Paul Schlyter wrote: >>> If so, is this guy worth the effort of even responding to him, and >>> waste bandwith on Usenet? >> Now YOU are yanking my chain. Why? What business is it of yours? > > You posted it publicly, didn't you? I stumbled across your post, got > a little curious about your arguments and perhaps hoped to get a > summary -- but no..... (no, I don't want to bother having look > through all your posts -- sorry!) > >> Please stop and please get back on topic. >> >> For the record, *I* am not the topic here, sir. > > Now, YOU are wasting MY time !!!! > > *** PLONK *** Let me get this straight. Rather than add something to the debate you choose to come along and criticize who I chose to respond to and how. And when I point out that my posting habits are none of your business and not really germane to the conversation you give *me* the PLONK? Geeze, grow up! -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html To reply take out your eye         Date: 20 Aug 2006 19:22:00 From: Thomas Lee Elifritz Subject: Re: 2006 IAU 12 planets resolution petition Greg Crinklaw wrote: > Let me get this straight. Rather than add something to the debate you > choose to come along and criticize who I chose to respond to and how. > And when I point out that my posting habits are none of your business > and not really germane to the conversation you give *me* the PLONK? When you post on the usenet Crink, it's everyone's business. Nobody more richly deserves it than you. http://cosmic.lifeform.org   Date: 20 Aug 2006 10:34:55 From: RMOLLISE Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Rich wrote: > Mark F. wrote: > > I smell a TROLL. > > > > > > Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a > science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a > possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with > absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of > success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable. SETI is testable. But it may take a while. ;-) I don't believe there is anything that would theoretically rule out the possibility of communicating alien life? Are you saying there is? I will say that peoples' expectations about how easy SETI will be have been much too high, along with most estimates about _possible_ numbers of communicating civilizations. Peace, Rod Mollise Author of: Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope and The Urban Astronomer's Guide <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland > The Annual SCT User Imaging Contest is Underway! <http://www.rothritter.com/contest/2006/ >     Date: 20 Aug 2006 21:05:21 From: Ioannis Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1156095295.292363.184240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... [snip] > SETI is testable. But it may take a while. ;-) > > I don't believe there is anything that would theoretically rule out the > possibility of communicating alien life? Are you saying there is? > > I will say that peoples' expectations about how easy SETI will be have > been much too high, along with most estimates about _possible_ numbers > of communicating civilizations. Who was it that said: "The surest sign that there's intelligent life out there is that it HASN'T tried to contact us". Seriously, even if one temporarily accepts for the sake of the argument that there exists intelligent life out there, them inviting us over there or us inviting them over here, is looking for troule. The place called Earth is a shithole. Anyone intelligent will try at life's cost to avoid it. I would, if I were located somewhere else. Things in nature work by analogy. If our civilization is shit, chances are those other civilizations are shit, too. Heck, if any benign ET beings ever came here, we would probably try to sell them their own planet back, claiming that they don't have the proper ownership papers... Sorry to disagree, but I believe that this SETI thing is nonsense, either way you look at it. > Peace, > Rod Mollise -- Ioannis       Date: 20 Aug 2006 11:42:15 From: Brian Tung Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Ioannis wrote: > Who was it that said: "The surest sign that there's intelligent life > out there is that it HASN'T tried to contact us". Don't know if it's original with him, but I read it in Watterston, via Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes. -- Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu > The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html   Date: 20 Aug 2006 10:18:17 From: Rich Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Mark F. wrote: > I smell a TROLL. > > Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable.     Date: 20 Aug 2006 23:22:42 From: London England Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? . At least most other scientific endevours are testable. > Which makes you detestable.     Date: 20 Aug 2006 19:56:39 From: Sam Wormley Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Rich wrote: > Mark F. wrote: >> I smell a TROLL. >> >> > > Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a > science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a > possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with > absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of > success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable. > Even a null result has scientific merit.       Date: 20 Aug 2006 22:31:11 From: starburst Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? >> >> Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a >> science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a >> possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with >> absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of >> success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable. >> > > Even a null result has scientific merit. Well, then you might as well fund prayer as an experiment and claim that the inconclusive results have scientific merit. Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. Loaded with hope, little to no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. And the premise ("there just has to be somebody else out there") is logically identical to the premise of western religion. I have no problem with either of these activities - people can pursue whatever innocuous activity that pleases them. But it is annoying when I read otherwise sane and rational scientists who refuse to acknowledge the similarities between them. Chris         Date: 21 Aug 2006 16:16:00 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? starburst <nope@nospam.net > wrote in news:ecb5tc$k1s$1 @geraldo.cc.utexas.edu: > >>> >>> Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a >>> science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a >>> possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with >>> absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of >>> success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable. >>> >> >> Even a null result has scientific merit. > > Well, then you might as well fund prayer as an experiment and claim that > the inconclusive results have scientific merit. It's already been done. > > Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. Looking for evidence is the exact opposite of faith. You superstitionists realise deep down that faith is a perjorative term and therefore attempt to use it to tar the science you hate. It's kind of bizzare, since religions consider faith to be a desirable thing. The problem is that with faith all sorts of kookiness is of equal merit. Science distinguishes between the kooky and the real with evidence. There's that word evidence again that you superstitionists fear more than any other. Klazmon. <SNIP >           Date: 21 Aug 2006 20:00:44 From: starburst Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: > >>Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. > > > Looking for evidence is the exact opposite of faith. You superstitionists > realise deep down that faith is a perjorative term and therefore attempt to > use it to tar the science you hate. It's kind of bizzare, since religions > consider faith to be a desirable thing. The problem is that with faith all > sorts of kookiness is of equal merit. Science distinguishes between the > kooky and the real with evidence. There's that word evidence again that you > superstitionists fear more than any other. *US* superstitionists? Sorry pal, but you have no idea what my personal feelings are on this. I have no reason to believe in one or the other - I simply point out that what you consider scientific looks superficially like faith, and have good reason for doing so, and you instantly marginalize my opinion by claiming that I'm a heretic "superstitionist?" With this sort of attitude you would have done well as a religious extremist in any number of historical venues. Yours is the position of faith, not mine. And by the way, there have been many, many attempts to prove the existence of God by both observation of evidence and logic. So again, do you consider these attempts scientific?             Date: 22 Aug 2006 12:49:40 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? starburst <nope@nospam.net > wrote in news:ecdhf8$jl9$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu: > Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: >> >>>Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. >> >> >> Looking for evidence is the exact opposite of faith. You >> superstitionists realise deep down that faith is a perjorative term and >> therefore attempt to use it to tar the science you hate. It's kind of >> bizzare, since religions consider faith to be a desirable thing. The >> problem is that with faith all sorts of kookiness is of equal merit. >> Science distinguishes between the kooky and the real with evidence. >> There's that word evidence again that you superstitionists fear more >> than any other. > > *US* superstitionists? Sorry pal, but you have no idea what my personal > feelings are on this. I have no reason to believe in one or the other - > I simply point out that what you consider scientific looks superficially > like faith, faith = accepting a proposition without evidence. Get it. Looking for evidence of something implies that you do not have faith. Klazmon. <SNIP >               Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:58:58 From: Davoud Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Llanzlan Klazmon: > faith = accepting a proposition without evidence. Get it. Looking for > evidence of something implies that you do not have faith. Your definition is faulty. You might as well get used to this: /everyone/ has faith. A scientist looking for evidence of something has faith that it /may/ be findable. She has /faith/ in her instruments/technique/mental abilities. She even has faith in her unproven theory; otherwise she wouldn't be seeking evidence to support it. Likewise, anyone who expects to live to see tomorrow has faith. There is no evidence that any one of us will see tomorrow, though there may be evidence to the contrary for certain individuals -- the very ill and the very old, for example. Davoud -- usenet *at* davidillig dawt com                 Date: 22 Aug 2006 15:53:28 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Davoud <star@sky.net > wrote in news:210820062258585379%star@sky.net: > Llanzlan Klazmon: >> faith = accepting a proposition without evidence. Get it. Looking for >> evidence of something implies that you do not have faith. > > Your definition is faulty. You might as well get used to this: > /everyone/ has faith. A scientist looking for evidence of something has > faith that it /may/ be findable. She has /faith/ in her Look up equivocation fallacy. You are using a different meaning of the word faith. Stepping out to cross the road after looking and listening to check that no vehicles are approaching can be called an act of faith. But it based on past experience, observation and the expectation that the world works in a consistant way. This has nothing to do with the term faith as used in the religious sense. Klazmon. <SNIP >                   Date: 22 Aug 2006 02:26:57 From: Davoud Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Llanzlan Klazmon: > >> faith = accepting a proposition without evidence. Get it. Looking for > >> evidence of something implies that you do not have faith. Davoud: > > Your definition is faulty. You might as well get used to this: > > /everyone/ has faith. A scientist looking for evidence of something has > > faith that it /may/ be findable. She has /faith/ in her > > instruments/technique/mental abilities. She even has faith in her > > unproven theory; otherwise she wouldn't be seeking evidence to support > > it. > > Likewise, anyone who expects to live to see tomorrow has faith. There > > is no evidence that any one of us will see tomorrow, though there may > > be evidence to the contrary for certain individuals -- the very ill and > > the very old, for example. Llanzlan Klazmon: > Look up equivocation fallacy. You are using a different meaning of the word > faith. Stepping out to cross the road after looking and listening to check > that no vehicles are approaching can be called an act of faith. But it > based on past experience, observation and the expectation that the world > works in a consistant way. This has nothing to do with the term faith as > used in the religious sense. This is a matter of opinion, not of fact. You can put as fine a point on the definition as you wish, but it's all faith. I don't think that religious faith -- believing in the unproven and possibly unprovable -- is in any way distinct from the examples I gave. And it certainly isn't different from faith that there are other intelligences in the universe, which is unproven and possibly unprovable. Speaking of which, I have no problem with privately funded SETI, but I'm with the majority on this one -- I don't want my tax dollars funding SETI; there is much more important science to be funded. I have very little /faith/ in the chance of success. As for the idea that there /could/ be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, as far as I know this is true. SETI is a perfect racket for the /SETI/ /faithful/ , because they can justly claim that there is hope until every place in the universe that could support intelligent life has been inspected. Davoud -- usenet *at* davidillig dawt com                     Date: 23 Aug 2006 10:28:02 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Davoud <star@sky.net > wrote in news:220820060226574152%star@sky.net: > Llanzlan Klazmon: >> >> faith = accepting a proposition without evidence. Get it. Looking >> >> for evidence of something implies that you do not have faith. > > Davoud: >> > Your definition is faulty. You might as well get used to this: >> > /everyone/ has faith. A scientist looking for evidence of something >> > has faith that it /may/ be findable. She has /faith/ in her >> > instruments/technique/mental abilities. She even has faith in her >> > unproven theory; otherwise she wouldn't be seeking evidence to >> > support it. > >> > Likewise, anyone who expects to live to see tomorrow has faith. There >> > is no evidence that any one of us will see tomorrow, though there may >> > be evidence to the contrary for certain individuals -- the very ill >> > and the very old, for example. > > Llanzlan Klazmon: >> Look up equivocation fallacy. You are using a different meaning of the >> word faith. Stepping out to cross the road after looking and listening >> to check that no vehicles are approaching can be called an act of >> faith. But it based on past experience, observation and the expectation >> that the world works in a consistant way. This has nothing to do with >> the term faith as used in the religious sense. > > This is a matter of opinion, not of fact. It is certainly a fact. Look at the definition of faith in any dictionary. The ones I looked at list one or more religious definitions along with a non religious one. The non religious definitions I saw were along the lines of meaning "confidence" or "complete trust" > You can put as fine a point > on the definition as you wish, but it's all faith. Again, even by saying that, you are immediately repeating the logical fallacy of equivocation. The real reason that the funnymentalists and cretinists say "it's all faith etc" is a lame attempt to bolster their religious beliefs by equating them to science. In other words, science envy. > I don't think that > religious faith -- believing in the unproven and possibly unprovable -- > is in any way distinct from the examples I gave. And it certainly isn't > different from faith that there are other intelligences in the > universe, which is unproven and possibly unprovable. Strawman fallacy. The whole point is that SETI reseachers DFO NOT have faith that other intelligence exists in the universe. That is why they are attempting to test that proposition. You don't need to test what you know to be true or are confident about. All propositions or theories of science, even those that are well supported by evidence are only provisionally held. Nature always has the last say. All you are doing is displaying your ignorance of how science works. > > Speaking of which, I have no problem with privately funded SETI, but > I'm with the majority on this one -- I don't want my tax dollars > funding SETI; there is much more important science to be funded. I have > very little /faith/ in the chance of success. As for the idea that > there /could/ be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, as far as > I know this is true. SETI is a perfect racket for the /SETI/ /faithful/ > , because they can justly claim that there is hope until every place in > the universe that could support intelligent life has been inspected. I believe that is called "straining at a gnat". If you are so concerned about your government's spending of your taxes then there might well be one or two things higher up the list to trouble you. Klazmon > > Davoud >                 Date: 22 Aug 2006 03:36:11 From: Florian Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? >Your definition is faulty. You might as well get used to this: >/everyone/ has faith. A scientist looking for evidence of something has >faith that it /may/ be findable. She has /faith/ in her >instruments/technique/mental abilities. Your definition is too broad and not useful for anything. By that = definition my moving the index finger on my left hand to type this T is = a matter of faith because my keyboard might not exist in the fraction of = a second it takes my finger to reach the key. That's just plain silly. I = have testable evidence my keyboard exists. Evidence that it will be = there in the next second or the next year as it has been for the past 5 = years. Faith is meaningless. .Florian                   Date: 22 Aug 2006 02:07:52 From: Davoud Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Florian wrote: > >Your definition is faulty. You might as well get used to this: > >/everyone/ has faith. A scientist looking for evidence of something has > >faith that it /may/ be findable. She has /faith/ in her > >instruments/technique/mental abilities. > Your definition is too broad and not useful for anything. By that definition > my moving the index finger on my left hand to type this T is a matter of > faith because my keyboard might not exist in the fraction of a second it > takes my finger to reach the key. That's just plain silly. It is, indeed. That's why I didn't cite any extreme examples. Davoud -- usenet *at* davidillig dawt com             Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:27:42 From: Brian Tung Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? starburst wrote: > *US* superstitionists? Sorry pal, but you have no idea what my personal > feelings are on this. I have no reason to believe in one or the other - > I simply point out that what you consider scientific looks superficially > like faith, and have good reason for doing so, and you instantly > marginalize my opinion by claiming that I'm a heretic "superstitionist?" > With this sort of attitude you would have done well as a religious > extremist in any number of historical venues. Yours is the position of > faith, not mine. > > And by the way, there have been many, many attempts to prove the > existence of God by both observation of evidence and logic. So again, do > you consider these attempts scientific? Without attempting to cast aspersions one way or the other, I'd say these are rather different cases. SETI is scientific because it sets fairly objective criteria for success. There are definitely outcomes that would unambiguously identify the existence of extraterrestrial civilization. These criteria are sufficiently stringent that most people agree they haven't once been met. If they were being met all the time, or if there were continual disagreement on the matter, *then* I'd be concerned that we had a non-science. So, in my opinion, it is undisputable that SETI is a scientific activity. What *is* debatable is whether it's a worthwhile activity, and that is not really a philosophical one, but an economic one, based on cost-benefit concerns. I think it's interesting that people in this thread haven't raised this issue nearly as much as they have contended that the activity is inherently unscientific. Personally, I think that the costs of such activities are sufficiently low that some monitoring is worthwhile, but I can see honest disagreement on that account. In the case of establishing the existence of a god, however--and by that I mean some agent that created the universe and set the thing rolling, so to speak--I'm not aware that there are generally agreed upon criteria for success. One problem is that it's far from clear that the question even falls under scientific purview, which is really (in my opinion) about natural explanations for natural phenomena. To the extent that a god is a natural phenomenon, as opposed to a supernatural one, I guess it could be investigated scientifically. But as soon as one attaches any kind of mystery to a god (and I think that most believers *want* to do so), the attraction of special pleading becomes too irresistible, and you can't address the question objectively anymore. I think that what *strikes* some people as faith is sometimes a matter of projection. They cannot see anyone investigating something in which they have no vested interest, or that doesn't "have something going for it." Since there's virtually no concrete data about extraterrestrial life (at least, not in the positive), the apparent conclusion is that the activity must be either non-scientific or for personal gain. But the motivation for conducting an activity, although it has relevance to whether it's worthwhile, does not bear directly on whether it's *scientific*. It's scientific as long as anyone can play, and anyone can tell whether or not it has succeeded, provided that they have put in the time and study to really understand the criteria. -- Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu > The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html               Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:18:27 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote in news:ecdj1u$ecc$1@praesepe.isi.edu: > starburst wrote: >> *US* superstitionists? Sorry pal, but you have no idea what my personal >> feelings are on this. I have no reason to believe in one or the other - >> I simply point out that what you consider scientific looks superficially >> like faith, and have good reason for doing so, and you instantly >> marginalize my opinion by claiming that I'm a heretic "superstitionist?" >> With this sort of attitude you would have done well as a religious >> extremist in any number of historical venues. Yours is the position of >> faith, not mine. >> >> And by the way, there have been many, many attempts to prove the >> existence of God by both observation of evidence and logic. So again, do >> you consider these attempts scientific? > > Without attempting to cast aspersions one way or the other, I'd say > these are rather different cases. SETI is scientific because it sets > fairly objective criteria for success. There are definitely outcomes > that would unambiguously identify the existence of extraterrestrial > civilization. These criteria are sufficiently stringent that most > people agree they haven't once been met. If they were being met all the > time, or if there were continual disagreement on the matter, *then* I'd > be concerned that we had a non-science. Agreed. There is a huge difference in looking for evidence of something similar to what we already know exists, i.e a lifeform that can develop certain technology versus gods. > > So, in my opinion, it is undisputable that SETI is a scientific > activity. What *is* debatable is whether it's a worthwhile activity, > and that is not really a philosophical one, but an economic one, based > on cost-benefit concerns. I think it's interesting that people in this > thread haven't raised this issue nearly as much as they have contended > that the activity is inherently unscientific. Personally, I think that > the costs of such activities are sufficiently low that some monitoring > is worthwhile, but I can see honest disagreement on that account. The money put into SETI research is tiny and as another poster pointed out, there is also the chance of making serendipitous discovery unrelated to SETI itself. In terms of the SETI at home project it was a good proof of concept for the idea of cooperative computing projects, which would be of definite use in many other fields particularly medical research. > > In the case of establishing the existence of a god, however--and by that > I mean some agent that created the universe and set the thing rolling, > so to speak--I'm not aware that there are generally agreed upon criteria > for success. One problem is that it's far from clear that the question > even falls under scientific purview, which is really (in my opinion) > about natural explanations for natural phenomena. To the extent that > a god is a natural phenomenon, as opposed to a supernatural one, I guess > it could be investigated scientifically. But as soon as one attaches > any kind of mystery to a god (and I think that most believers *want* to > do so), the attraction of special pleading becomes too irresistible, and > you can't address the question objectively anymore. > > I think that what *strikes* some people as faith is sometimes a matter > of projection. They cannot see anyone investigating something in which > they have no vested interest, or that doesn't "have something going for > it." Since there's virtually no concrete data about extraterrestrial > life (at least, not in the positive), the apparent conclusion is that > the activity must be either non-scientific or for personal gain. In some cases they also fear a successful outcome as it would destroy much of the dogma of the major religions. > > But the motivation for conducting an activity, although it has relevance > to whether it's worthwhile, does not bear directly on whether it's > *scientific*. It's scientific as long as anyone can play, and anyone > can tell whether or not it has succeeded, provided that they have put in > the time and study to really understand the criteria. > A well thought out and well written post. Klazmon.         Date: 21 Aug 2006 03:15:12 From: Sam Wormley Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? starburst wrote: > >>> >>> Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a >>> science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a >>> possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with >>> absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of >>> success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable. >>> >> >> Even a null result has scientific merit. > > Well, then you might as well fund prayer as an experiment and claim that > the inconclusive results have scientific merit. > > Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. Loaded with > hope, little to no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. And the premise > ("there just has to be somebody else out there") is logically identical > to the premise of western religion. I have no problem with either of > these activities - people can pursue whatever innocuous activity that > pleases them. But it is annoying when I read otherwise sane and rational > scientists who refuse to acknowledge the similarities between them. > > Chris Of Faith and Facts: Is SETI Religion? http://www.seti.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=194993&ct=2518387 Worth reading!           Date: 21 Aug 2006 20:34:14 From: starburst Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Sam Wormley wrote: > starburst wrote: > >> >>>> >>>> Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a >>>> science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a >>>> possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with >>>> absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of >>>> success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable. >>>> >>> >>> Even a null result has scientific merit. >> >> >> Well, then you might as well fund prayer as an experiment and claim >> that the inconclusive results have scientific merit. >> >> Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. Loaded >> with hope, little to no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. And the >> premise ("there just has to be somebody else out there") is logically >> identical to the premise of western religion. I have no problem with >> either of these activities - people can pursue whatever innocuous >> activity that pleases them. But it is annoying when I read otherwise >> sane and rational scientists who refuse to acknowledge the >> similarities between them. >> >> Chris > > > Of Faith and Facts: Is SETI Religion? > > http://www.seti.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=194993&ct=2518387 > > > Worth reading! Thanks for pointing this out, Sam. I'm unmoved, though. First, of course his position is that SETI is not religion. He takes pride in this and would be professionally embarrassed if it were shown to him that his science (and by this I mean specifically SETI research in the absence of any empirical evidence of life outside of this planet) was akin to the faith he derides as foolish. I honestly don't think he could ever be brought to see any other position, because a very great deal of his self-worth is tied to professionally spurning traditional religion. He makes some really bone-headed comments on the nature of intelligence on this planet. "As I pointed out on the show there are dolphins and great apes." They're wonderful creatures, and smart, but to qualify their intelligence as in any way comparable to ours is ludicrous. When apes and whales begin demonstrating in any way the capacity for any but the simplest abstraction in thought, we can talk about their intelligence from the standpoint of reason, but until then, lets stick to the facts. The snide little comment that he throws in in the next sentence is equally unscientific - "And you might even throw Homo sapiens into that mix on the rare occasions when we live up to our self-proclaimed species name." He's preaching to the choir, but preaching nonetheless. His definition of religion is sloppy and self-serving. "Religions are characterized by two factors: worship - in other words, some system of devotion directed toward one or more omniscient and supranatural beings - and faith in the absence of material evidence." The first of these criteria would seem to ignore the majority of religious devotees on this planet, who happen to live in Asia and who do not necessarily take as important the idea of devotion toward "supranatural" (sic) beings. The second is also not strictly true. Indeed, it seems rather like what SETI is, all his protestations aside. He repeats his argument that we are evidence for intelligence elsewhere, but there is equally strong, inductive evidence, after forty years of SETI, that we are nothing more than a cosmic accident. His comparison of SETI to the search for extrasolar planets is specious. We have enormous amounts of empirical observations that indicate the pattern in the cosmos of bodies orbiting each other - double stars, galaxies...etc. I don't remember many reputable scientists who doubted that there were other planetary systems before the first extrasolar planets were discovered. Where is the comparable pattern in the cosmos that suggests life off of this planet, let alone life that happens to exist within range of our capacity to listen at precisely the right point in time that we could hear them? I'd remind you that on this planet, the capacity to broadcast is little more than a century old, against a geologic time scale of 4.5 billion years. Those are some pretty long odds. I read Darling's epistle as precisely that - an epistle to the faithful. I see little reason in his position, and a great deal of faith and hope. Chris         Date: 21 Aug 2006 04:57:15 From: Sjouke Burry Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? starburst wrote: > >>> >>> Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a >>> science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a >>> possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with >>> absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of >>> success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable. >>> >> >> Even a null result has scientific merit. > > > Well, then you might as well fund prayer as an experiment and claim that > the inconclusive results have scientific merit. > > Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. Loaded with > hope, little to no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. And the premise > ("there just has to be somebody else out there") is logically identical > to the premise of western religion. I have no problem with either of > these activities - people can pursue whatever innocuous activity that > pleases them. But it is annoying when I read otherwise sane and rational > scientists who refuse to acknowledge the similarities between them. > > Chris So you suggest to plug our ears and cover our eyes, because it would be unscientific to listen and look for something we know happened at least once?? Wow, now that is an interesting way to conduct science......     Date: 20 Aug 2006 13:52:06 From: Tim Killian Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Rich wrote: > Mark F. wrote: > >>I smell a TROLL. >> >> > > > Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a > science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a > possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with > absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of > success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable. > Like too many elements of modern "science", SETI is a faith-based endeavor hidden behind a thin curtain of technology and acronyms. The logic goes along the lines of: We exist, therefore some other beings similar to us must also exist somewhere because Star Trek is such a cool TV show. To date there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life even within our solar system. We don't understand the origin of carbon-based life on this planet, but why should that stop us from assuming it exists elsewhere? And didn't someone speculate about silicon-based life back in the '60s? Why that must double the odds! Yep, real science at work, and if you still have doubts (insert label: troll, bible-thumper, Luddite, etc.), just look at all the money they've spent on SETI projects. That should be proof positive that eventually they'll succeed (if they can get more funding). Now leave them alone and let them play with their toys.       Date: 21 Aug 2006 10:15:27 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote in news:CY2dnWbl9rHsIHXZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@bresnan.com: > Rich wrote: >> Mark F. wrote: >> >>>I smell a TROLL. >>> >>> >> >> >> Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a >> science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a >> possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with >> absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of >> success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable. >> > > > Like too many elements of modern "science", SETI is a faith-based > endeavor hidden behind a thin curtain of technology and acronyms. Since when is looking for evidence faith based. Faith based is not requiring evidence. Klazmon. <SNIP >       Date: 20 Aug 2006 21:06:16 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:52:06 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote: >Like too many elements of modern "science", SETI is a faith-based >endeavor... What a load of bull puckey! SETI is entirely scientific. It begins with the simple observation that life exists in one place (here). There are no other assumptions or theories involved. SETI is a program of observation, and the logic is compelling: we have no way of estimating the probability of finding ETI, so all we can do is observe; if we don't observe, we'll never know, so observation is good. There is no "faith" involved, anymore than in any other program of observation. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com         Date: 20 Aug 2006 19:41:51 From: Tim Killian Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:52:06 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> > wrote: > > >>Like too many elements of modern "science", SETI is a faith-based >>endeavor... > > > What a load of bull puckey! > > SETI is entirely scientific. It begins with the simple observation that > life exists in one place (here). There are no other assumptions or > theories involved. SETI is a program of observation, and the logic is > compelling: we have no way of estimating the probability of finding ETI, > so all we can do is observe; if we don't observe, we'll never know, so > observation is good. There is no "faith" involved, anymore than in any > other program of observation. > > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com A line drawn through a single data point can go in any direction. I have nothing against random observation (most on s.a.a. are guilty), but I do have a problem when it's portrayed as a serious scientific pursuit. SETI doesn't even rise to the level of a theory because it cannot be falsified. It's an activity that provides gainful employment for scientists and engineers (good) but it also opens the doors to rife speculation and political machinations (bad). I disagree about there being no element of faith in SETI. SETI has returned no results and the assumption is always that more capable equipment ($$$) and more observations ($$$) will overcome this lack of results. Where is the reasoned science that supports these assumptions? Isn't it the Philosopher's stone all dressed up in 21th century clothing? Of course even Isaac Newton was guilty of looking for that transmutation trick, so who are we to complain if some people spend their time and treasure listening for distant messages that never arrive?           Date: 21 Aug 2006 03:32:22 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:41:51 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote: >A line drawn through a single data point can go in any direction. I have >nothing against random observation (most on s.a.a. are guilty), but I do >have a problem when it's portrayed as a serious scientific pursuit. SETI >doesn't even rise to the level of a theory because it cannot be >falsified. "Rise to the level of a theory"? Do you even think about what you are saying? SETI isn't a theory, and it doesn't try to be. It is extremely simple: we have an example of one, and wonder whether that implies more. We only have one way of determining that- by observation. If we see one star with an unexpected spectrum, we look for others. Is that foolish? Is that "unscientific"? >I disagree about there being no element of faith in SETI... You would. You've amply demonstrated in past posts where you put your faith, and it has nothing to do with reason. That explains why you don't really understand the behavior of those who _are_ rational. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com             Date: 21 Aug 2006 00:17:11 From: Tim Killian Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:41:51 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> > wrote: > > >>A line drawn through a single data point can go in any direction. I have >>nothing against random observation (most on s.a.a. are guilty), but I do >>have a problem when it's portrayed as a serious scientific pursuit. SETI >>doesn't even rise to the level of a theory because it cannot be >>falsified. > > > "Rise to the level of a theory"? Do you even think about what you are > saying? SETI isn't a theory, and it doesn't try to be. It is extremely > simple: we have an example of one, and wonder whether that implies more. > We only have one way of determining that- by observation. If we see one > star with an unexpected spectrum, we look for others. Is that foolish? > Is that "unscientific"? > > > >>I disagree about there being no element of faith in SETI... > > > You would. You've amply demonstrated in past posts where you put your > faith, and it has nothing to do with reason. That explains why you don't > really understand the behavior of those who _are_ rational. > > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com "It is extremely simple" -- indeed, childishly so. In many ways SETI reminds me of Daniel Barringer and his 25 year quest based on an "extremely simple" notion. He believed a large iron meteor had formed the crater in Arizona and by golly, that iron was buried at the bottom of the hole. Any fool could see that and all he had to do was dig down to pay dirt. He used the most advanced mining technology available at the time and spent a fortune looking for that slug of iron, but he never found it. Ironically (oh I'm bad), the iron was there all around him, just not in the form his "simple" theory predicted. The only thing that could allow a man (and others that participated) to persevere under those conditions for 25 years is faith. Nothing else can possibly explain his actions in the face of continual, repeated failure, and the alternate explanations he chose to ignore. Like Barringer, SETI researchers also dismiss alternate explanations for their lack of success, and insist that they just need more channels, more antennas, and bigger computers to hit "pay dirt". IMO it is very much a faith-based exercise.               Date: 21 Aug 2006 07:46:08 From: Pat O'Connell Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Tim Killian wrote: > Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:41:51 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>A line drawn through a single data point can go in any direction. I have >>>nothing against random observation (most on s.a.a. are guilty), but I do >>>have a problem when it's portrayed as a serious scientific pursuit. SETI >>>doesn't even rise to the level of a theory because it cannot be >>>falsified. >> >> >> "Rise to the level of a theory"? Do you even think about what you are >> saying? SETI isn't a theory, and it doesn't try to be. It is extremely >> simple: we have an example of one, and wonder whether that implies more. >> We only have one way of determining that- by observation. If we see one >> star with an unexpected spectrum, we look for others. Is that foolish? >> Is that "unscientific"? >> >> >> >>>I disagree about there being no element of faith in SETI... >> >> >> You would. You've amply demonstrated in past posts where you put your >> faith, and it has nothing to do with reason. That explains why you don't >> really understand the behavior of those who _are_ rational. >> >> _________________________________________________ >> >> Chris L Peterson >> Cloudbait Observatory >> http://www.cloudbait.com > > > "It is extremely simple" -- indeed, childishly so. In many ways SETI > reminds me of Daniel Barringer and his 25 year quest based on an > "extremely simple" notion. He believed a large iron meteor had formed > the crater in Arizona and by golly, that iron was buried at the bottom > of the hole. Any fool could see that and all he had to do was dig down > to pay dirt. He used the most advanced mining technology available at > the time and spent a fortune looking for that slug of iron, but he never > found it. Ironically (oh I'm bad), the iron was there all around him, > just not in the form his "simple" theory predicted. Your terminology is wrong. Barringer had a hypothesis. > The only thing that could allow a man (and others that participated) to > persevere under those conditions for 25 years is faith. Nothing else can He had a hypothesis he was trying to find evidence for, and it's a big crater. He didn't realize that the iron had vaporized and re-condensed as small pellets, so was looking for the wrong form for the meteorite. Faith had almost nothing to do with it. SETI is looking for signals that they know how to detect. They have found what appeared to be signals several times, and eliminated every one of them so far by more careful analysis of each signal, and what might be making that signal (satellite, natural radio source, aircraft, etc.). That's not the earmark of "faith," it's skepticism, which is the mark of science. Faith is the reason many religions attribute "holy books" to deities instead of the people who are the true authors of those books. -- Pat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals...                 Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:04:25 From: Tim Killian Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Pat O'Connell wrote: > Tim Killian wrote: > >> Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:41:51 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> A line drawn through a single data point can go in any direction. I >>>> have nothing against random observation (most on s.a.a. are guilty), >>>> but I do have a problem when it's portrayed as a serious scientific >>>> pursuit. SETI doesn't even rise to the level of a theory because it >>>> cannot be falsified. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Rise to the level of a theory"? Do you even think about what you are >>> saying? SETI isn't a theory, and it doesn't try to be. It is extremely >>> simple: we have an example of one, and wonder whether that implies more. >>> We only have one way of determining that- by observation. If we see one >>> star with an unexpected spectrum, we look for others. Is that foolish? >>> Is that "unscientific"? >>> >>> >>> >>>> I disagree about there being no element of faith in SETI... >>> >>> >>> >>> You would. You've amply demonstrated in past posts where you put your >>> faith, and it has nothing to do with reason. That explains why you don't >>> really understand the behavior of those who _are_ rational. >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> >>> Chris L Peterson >>> Cloudbait Observatory >>> http://www.cloudbait.com >> >> >> >> "It is extremely simple" -- indeed, childishly so. In many ways SETI >> reminds me of Daniel Barringer and his 25 year quest based on an >> "extremely simple" notion. He believed a large iron meteor had formed >> the crater in Arizona and by golly, that iron was buried at the bottom >> of the hole. Any fool could see that and all he had to do was dig down >> to pay dirt. He used the most advanced mining technology available at >> the time and spent a fortune looking for that slug of iron, but he >> never found it. Ironically (oh I'm bad), the iron was there all around >> him, just not in the form his "simple" theory predicted. > > > Your terminology is wrong. Barringer had a hypothesis. > >> The only thing that could allow a man (and others that participated) >> to persevere under those conditions for 25 years is faith. Nothing >> else can > > > He had a hypothesis he was trying to find evidence for, and it's a big > crater. He didn't realize that the iron had vaporized and re-condensed > as small pellets, so was looking for the wrong form for the meteorite. > Faith had almost nothing to do with it. > Barringer's theory was the meteor buried itself at the bottom of the hole. That theory was disputed by scientists who 1) said the crater was volcanic, or 2) said the meteor hit with enough energy to vaporize itself. Barringer dismissed both alternatives and continued on until his death. > SETI is looking for signals that they know how to detect. They have > found what appeared to be signals several times, and eliminated every > one of them so far by more careful analysis of each signal, and what > might be making that signal (satellite, natural radio source, aircraft, > etc.). That's not the earmark of "faith," it's skepticism, which is the > mark of science. > > Faith is the reason many religions attribute "holy books" to deities > instead of the people who are the true authors of those books. The Drake equation is just a starting point. There are many other events that can reduce the emergence of intelligent life to a vanishingly small probability, and make SETI a fool's errand. We now know that GRBs and supernovae periodically "sterilize" huge volumes of space. Planets within 20 LY of these events would not have surviving intelligent life. It's possible that the universe is simply too hostile on short time scales for the development of intelligent life, except for rare occurances like Earth. If only ten such planets are scattered across an entire galaxy, we will never hear from them. SETI researchers choose to ignore this possibility and instead assume that life arises wherever similar conditions exist and that sentient life is a likely outcome because that is what happened here on Earth. They have no experimental basis for these assumptions, and I'm not aware of any mathematical models that predict them either. So why, as scientists, do they feel justified in going ahead anyway? F-A-I-T-H?                   Date: 21 Aug 2006 15:38:50 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:04:25 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote: >Barringer's theory was the meteor buried itself at the bottom of the >hole. That theory was disputed by scientists who 1) said the crater was >volcanic, or 2) said the meteor hit with enough energy to vaporize >itself. Barringer dismissed both alternatives and continued on until his >death. As has been pointed out, this was not a theory, but a hypothesis. It wasn't a particularly unreasonable one, especially when first proposed. >The Drake equation is just a starting point. There are many other events >that can reduce the emergence of intelligent life to a vanishingly small >probability, and make SETI a fool's errand. Nonsense. We have absolutely no way of estimating whether life (let alone intelligent life) is exceedingly rare or very common. For those to whom this is an interesting question, actually looking for it is a completely reasonable exercise. >It's possible that the universe is simply too hostile on short time >scales for the development of intelligent life, except for rare >occurances like Earth. If only ten such planets are scattered across an >entire galaxy, we will never hear from them. > >SETI researchers choose to ignore this possibility and instead assume >that life arises wherever similar conditions exist and that sentient >life is a likely outcome because that is what happened here on Earth. >They have no experimental basis for these assumptions, and I'm not aware >of any mathematical models that predict them either. So why, as >scientists, do they feel justified in going ahead anyway? F-A-I-T-H? More nonsense. I haven't heard of any SETI researcher who doesn't seriously consider the possibility that intelligent life is rare. All accept that the likelihood of detecting it anytime soon is small. But there is no more basis for believing it is rare than for believing it isn't. Researchers continue with the search because it is the only rational way to investigate the question. Sure they have faith- faith in the scientific method and in the value of careful observation. But I don't think that's the kind of faith you're talking about. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com                   Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:07:44 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote in news:YpadnQOjjeXhVnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@bresnan.com: <SNIP > > > SETI researchers choose to ignore this possibility and instead assume > that life arises wherever similar conditions exist and that sentient > life is a likely outcome because that is what happened here on Earth. They don't assume it, they consider it as a hypothesis. > They have no experimental basis for these assumptions, and I'm not aware > of any mathematical models that predict them either. So why, as > scientists, do they feel justified in going ahead anyway? F-A-I-T-H? > Faith in the religious sense means accepting a proposition as true without supporting evidence. Looking for evidence supporting a proposition is L-A- C-K of F-A-I-T-H. The real reason you hate the idea of SETI is the fear that it would actually succeed. Your entire superstitionist paradigm would be destroyed by such a discovery. Klazmon.                     Date: 21 Aug 2006 21:57:49 From: Tim Killian Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: > Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> wrote in > news:YpadnQOjjeXhVnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@bresnan.com: > > <SNIP> > >>SETI researchers choose to ignore this possibility and instead assume >>that life arises wherever similar conditions exist and that sentient >>life is a likely outcome because that is what happened here on Earth. > > > They don't assume it, they consider it as a hypothesis. > > >>They have no experimental basis for these assumptions, and I'm not aware >>of any mathematical models that predict them either. So why, as >>scientists, do they feel justified in going ahead anyway? F-A-I-T-H? >> > > > Faith in the religious sense means accepting a proposition as true without > supporting evidence. Looking for evidence supporting a proposition is L-A- > C-K of F-A-I-T-H. The real reason you hate the idea of SETI is the fear > that it would actually succeed. Your entire superstitionist paradigm would > be destroyed by such a discovery. > > Klazmon. > Faith in the general sense (no religious overtones needed) is a presumption of truth in knowledge, and the belief that efforts of the faithful will be rewarded in a broader revelation of that truth. Saying that SETI is a faith-based exercise does not imply that SETI researchers are in any way religious or spiritual, but most people will agree that some strong presumptions are involved, generally a no-no in science. It's humorous to me that many here on saa vehemently deny the element of faith that is plainly obvious in the SETI work. Why the anger and denial? I think we can all agree that SETI is a harmless diversion, science's version of Wiccans dancing nude in a meadow.                       Date: 22 Aug 2006 16:22:52 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote in news:V9qdnZHhMsldHXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@bresnan.com: > Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: >> Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> wrote in >> news:YpadnQOjjeXhVnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@bresnan.com: >> >> <SNIP> >> >>>SETI researchers choose to ignore this possibility and instead assume >>>that life arises wherever similar conditions exist and that sentient >>>life is a likely outcome because that is what happened here on Earth. >> >> >> They don't assume it, they consider it as a hypothesis. >> >> >>>They have no experimental basis for these assumptions, and I'm not >>>aware of any mathematical models that predict them either. So why, as >>>scientists, do they feel justified in going ahead anyway? F-A-I-T-H? >>> >> >> >> Faith in the religious sense means accepting a proposition as true >> without supporting evidence. Looking for evidence supporting a >> proposition is L-A- C-K of F-A-I-T-H. The real reason you hate the idea >> of SETI is the fear that it would actually succeed. Your entire >> superstitionist paradigm would be destroyed by such a discovery. >> >> Klazmon. >> > > > Faith in the general sense (no religious overtones needed) is a > presumption of truth in knowledge, and the belief that efforts of the > faithful will be rewarded in a broader revelation of that truth. Saying > that SETI is a faith-based exercise does not imply that SETI researchers > are in any way religious or spiritual, You are outright lying here. It is well understood that the term "faith- based" explicitly refers the the religious meaning of the word faith and you know it. > but most people will agree that > some strong presumptions are involved, generally a no-no in science. Presumptions such as we can detect radio signals? > > It's humorous to me that many here on saa vehemently deny the element of > faith that is plainly obvious in the SETI work. You equivocation fallacy is showing again. > Why the anger and > denial? I think we can all agree that SETI is a harmless diversion, > science's version of Wiccans dancing nude in a meadow. You are being disingenuous here. Klazmon.                         Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:55:52 From: Tim Killian Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: > Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> wrote in > news:V9qdnZHhMsldHXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@bresnan.com: > > >>Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: >> >>>Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> wrote in >>>news:YpadnQOjjeXhVnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@bresnan.com: >>> >>><SNIP> >>> >>>>SETI researchers choose to ignore this possibility and instead assume >>>>that life arises wherever similar conditions exist and that sentient >>>>life is a likely outcome because that is what happened here on Earth. >>> >>> >>>They don't assume it, they consider it as a hypothesis. >>> >>> >>> >>>>They have no experimental basis for these assumptions, and I'm not >>>>aware of any mathematical models that predict them either. So why, as >>>>scientists, do they feel justified in going ahead anyway? F-A-I-T-H? >>>> >>> >>> >>>Faith in the religious sense means accepting a proposition as true >>>without supporting evidence. Looking for evidence supporting a >>>proposition is L-A- C-K of F-A-I-T-H. The real reason you hate the idea >>>of SETI is the fear that it would actually succeed. Your entire >>>superstitionist paradigm would be destroyed by such a discovery. >>> >>>Klazmon. >>> >> >> >>Faith in the general sense (no religious overtones needed) is a >>presumption of truth in knowledge, and the belief that efforts of the >>faithful will be rewarded in a broader revelation of that truth. Saying >>that SETI is a faith-based exercise does not imply that SETI researchers >>are in any way religious or spiritual, > > > You are outright lying here. It is well understood that the term "faith- > based" explicitly refers the the religious meaning of the word faith and > you know it. > > >>but most people will agree that >>some strong presumptions are involved, generally a no-no in science. > > > Presumptions such as we can detect radio signals? > > >>It's humorous to me that many here on saa vehemently deny the element of >>faith that is plainly obvious in the SETI work. > > > You equivocation fallacy is showing again. > > >>Why the anger and >>denial? I think we can all agree that SETI is a harmless diversion, >>science's version of Wiccans dancing nude in a meadow. > > > You are being disingenuous here. > > Klazmon. And you obviously have powers of perception far beyond my limited set. Without any conversation or context, you are able to read my mind and judge my intent. What a rare talent! For anyone interested, here is a link to a thoughtful essay on the kinds of behavior we're seeing in microcosm on saa: http://tinyurl.com/kmdn5                           Date: 22 Aug 2006 17:11:45 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote in news:yLCdnecxnazHE3fZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@bresnan.com: > Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: >> Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> wrote in >> news:V9qdnZHhMsldHXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@bresnan.com: >> >> >>>Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: >>> >>>>Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> wrote in >>>>news:YpadnQOjjeXhVnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@bresnan.com: >>>> >>>><SNIP> >>>> >>>>>SETI researchers choose to ignore this possibility and instead assume >>>>>that life arises wherever similar conditions exist and that sentient >>>>>life is a likely outcome because that is what happened here on Earth. >>>> >>>> >>>>They don't assume it, they consider it as a hypothesis. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>They have no experimental basis for these assumptions, and I'm not >>>>>aware of any mathematical models that predict them either. So why, as >>>>>scientists, do they feel justified in going ahead anyway? F-A-I-T-H? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Faith in the religious sense means accepting a proposition as true >>>>without supporting evidence. Looking for evidence supporting a >>>>proposition is L-A- C-K of F-A-I-T-H. The real reason you hate the idea >>>>of SETI is the fear that it would actually succeed. Your entire >>>>superstitionist paradigm would be destroyed by such a discovery. >>>> >>>>Klazmon. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Faith in the general sense (no religious overtones needed) is a >>>presumption of truth in knowledge, and the belief that efforts of the >>>faithful will be rewarded in a broader revelation of that truth. Saying >>>that SETI is a faith-based exercise does not imply that SETI researchers >>>are in any way religious or spiritual, >> >> >> You are outright lying here. It is well understood that the term "faith- >> based" explicitly refers the the religious meaning of the word faith and >> you know it. >> >> >>>but most people will agree that >>>some strong presumptions are involved, generally a no-no in science. >> >> >> Presumptions such as we can detect radio signals? >> >> >>>It's humorous to me that many here on saa vehemently deny the element of >>>faith that is plainly obvious in the SETI work. >> >> >> You equivocation fallacy is showing again. >> >> >>>Why the anger and >>>denial? I think we can all agree that SETI is a harmless diversion, >>>science's version of Wiccans dancing nude in a meadow. >> >> >> You are being disingenuous here. >> >> Klazmon. > > And you obviously have powers of perception far beyond my limited set. > Without any conversation or context, you are able to read my mind and > judge my intent. What a rare talent! Aw shucks. It wasn't that difficult ya know. Apply a bit of reason and you might be able to do it too. Klazmon. <SNIP >                       Date: 22 Aug 2006 04:03:28 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:57:49 -0600, Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote: >It's humorous to me that many here on saa vehemently deny the element of >faith that is plainly obvious in the SETI work. Why the anger and >denial? It's because we know what faith means to _you_, and many of us consider that an insult! _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com                   Date: 21 Aug 2006 23:54:10 From: Pierre Vandevenne Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote in news:YpadnQOjjeXhVnTZnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@bresnan.com: > vanishingly small probability, and make SETI a fool's errand. We now > know that GRBs and supernovae periodically "sterilize" huge volumes of Seems the latest GRB research points to the "directional jet" models and therefore makes them much less energetic and even less deadly. SN sterilize but also seed. One may argue that they kill as much as one can say we wouldn't be there without them...           Date: 21 Aug 2006 02:00:31 From: Florian Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? >I disagree about there being no element of faith in SETI. SETI has=20 >returned no results and the assumption is always that more capable=20 >equipment ($$$) and more observations ($$$) will overcome this lack of=20 >results. So? You're not paying for it. And no faith is involved. SETI is just = listening/looking. They might never see/hear anything. If no one = looks/listens we'll never know. But i'm glad that someone is listening. .Florian       Date: 20 Aug 2006 20:33:11 From: Pierre Vandevennne Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Tim Killian <TJK@notmyrealemail.com > wrote in news:CY2dnWbl9rHsIHXZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@bresnan.com: > within our solar system. We don't understand the origin of carbon-based > life on this planet, but why should that stop us from assuming it exists > elsewhere? Pasteur killed the "spontaneous generation" hypothesis. That was a negative result if there ever was one... and both science and medicine benefited greatly from it. BTW, he didn't know a thing about DNA, or even viruses then. The problem, imho, isn't that we worry about those things, or that we make an hypothesis. The problem lies more in the tests that can run forever (it is usually hard to prove a negative) and in the methods... At any given time, we seem to be assuming ETs will be using the technology that trendy here. From the 60s to the early 90s it seemed "obvious", for example, that ETs would be emitting large amounts of radio waves, such as TV shows. Today, we can't be certain we'll still be doing that 50 years from now... And if some ET shone a laser in our face in the 50's, I am afraid we missed it :-)   Date: From: Martin Brown Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?     Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:54:04 From: Brian Tung Subject: first pulsar, was Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Martin Brown wrote: > We would never have discovered pulsars without the advent of large > phase switched aerial arrays. A signal trace of regular pulses from the > Crab nebula pulsar that was initially labelled LGM after it was shown > to be keeping sidereal time ..... BTW, the pulsar Bell discovered was in Vulpecula, not Taurus. -- Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu > The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html   Date: 21 Aug 2006 02:25:59 From: Hobo Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? More trollism from _ who else! Must be a frosty winter up north! You know I am an even larger skeptic than youbut at least aneducated one willing to be fair in this matter. Your depiction of the Drake equation is pure _bunk. In fairness to Frank I had to say that. In fairness to yourself, rent an iceberg that befits your warped ego and go fishing - Rich wrote: > I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare > processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life. > I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific > theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable? > I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish.   Date: 21 Aug 2006 20:51:49 From: Rich Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it? Hobo wrote: > More trollism from _ who else! Must be a frosty winter up north! > > You know I am an even larger skeptic than youbut at least aneducated one > willing to be fair in this matter. Your depiction of the Drake equation is > pure > _bunk. TRY filling in ONE of the variables. Go ahead, specify one. Where are you going to get ANY data that will support your choice? You might