| |
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
as well fill it with lottary numbers, it makes as much since and since
the equation uses serveral variables, you'd be at it testing for about
a billion lifetimes before you even came close to a "real" answer and
unless you had some mechanism that allowed you to do a grand tour of
the galaxy, you won't FIND any answers. You would have better luck and
it would make more sense to do a Rubic's cube blindfolded.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 03:34:49
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
I've allowed my computer to process SETI data for extended periods in the
past and may do so again in the future. Seems like a logical pursuit given
the technology at our disposal. The thing that bothers me about the search
is the distinct possibility the time frame that a developing civilization
uses EMR to communicate may be relatively small thereby increasing the
difficulty of detection. Who knows, there may be a technological discovery
on our horizon that will make current methods of communication obsolete. I
just can't see UFO's communicating with one another with radio waves, at
least not through normal space/time. And of all the UFO sightings (yes, I'm
off on a tangent :), I don't recall anyone intercepting radio broadcast
emitting from a craft.
RJ
"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: 22 Aug 2006 03:54:50
From: London England
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
"Richard Jarnagin" <rjarnagin@peoplepc.com > wrote in message
news:tXuGg.7138$Sn3.2801@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I've allowed my computer to process SETI data for extended periods in the
> past and may do so again in the future. Seems like a logical pursuit
> given
> the technology at our disposal. The thing that bothers me about the
> search
> is the distinct possibility the time frame that a developing civilization
> uses EMR to communicate may be relatively small thereby increasing the
> difficulty of detection. Who knows, there may be a technological
> discovery
> on our horizon that will make current methods of communication obsolete.
> I
> just can't see UFO's communicating with one another with radio waves, at
> least not through normal space/time. And of all the UFO sightings (yes,
> I'm
> off on a tangent :), I don't recall anyone intercepting radio broadcast
> emitting from a craft.
>
> RJ
And to think that they sent a gold plated album on Voyager with an
indication of what
Spock should attempt to build with bearskins and hoolahoops.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:02:25
From: Tim Killian
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
London England wrote:
>
> And to think that they sent a gold plated album on Voyager with an
> indication of what
> Spock should attempt to build with bearskins and hoolahoops.
>
>
LOL! bravo! Even Mr. Spock would have to crack a smile at that one!
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 20:08:02
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > Anyone who has looked at the math for this knows it is a foolish waste
> > of time, given current technology. Maybe in 500 years we'll be in a
> > position to scan process at a high enough speed to "find" something.
> > Not now.
>
> The mathematics says no such thing. The mathematics is a fairly
> straightforward application of Little's Result, but with most of the
> variables having very loose bounds. Therefore, it cannot be used to
> conclude anything with much certainty, positive or negative.
>
> The notion that 500 years--or any really long period of time, in terms
> of computing generations--will be necessary for computing power to make
> real gains on this problem is equally laughable. Why not 300, or 100,
> or 30, or 10? Do you have any concrete reasoning for that, Rich, or is
> this just a conveniently large number you've selected in order to make
> SETI look bad?
>
> The fact of the matter is that the search does not proceed exhaustively
> system by star system, so it doesn't matter that there are 10^22 star
> systems (or however many) in the observable universe. We examine the
> electromagnetic spectrum for provocative signals. There's more to it
> than that, obviously, but that's it in essence. There is nothing in
> the task that inherently requires huge computing power for success, and
> any attempt to attach a precise probability of success to that endeavor,
> high *or* low, is groundless.
>
> You've made clear your distaste for SETI, exploration of Pluto, and a
> whole host of other *scientific* activities, but to use ludicrous
> arguments like the above in an attempt to establish your distaste as an
> objective position is disingenuous. You're allowed to dislike SETI,
> you know, without saying anything further about it at all. In my
> opinion, that's better than saying things that aren't true.
>
>
So assuming there is a continious signal coming from "A" source, how
long at the current rate until someone finds it, given the current
technology?
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 16:39:34
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in news:1156216082.235262.167190
@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
> Brian Tung wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>> > Anyone who has looked at the math for this knows it is a foolish waste
>> > of time, given current technology. Maybe in 500 years we'll be in a
>> > position to scan process at a high enough speed to "find" something.
>> > Not now.
>>
>> The mathematics says no such thing. The mathematics is a fairly
>> straightforward application of Little's Result, but with most of the
>> variables having very loose bounds. Therefore, it cannot be used to
>> conclude anything with much certainty, positive or negative.
>>
>> The notion that 500 years--or any really long period of time, in terms
>> of computing generations--will be necessary for computing power to make
>> real gains on this problem is equally laughable. Why not 300, or 100,
>> or 30, or 10? Do you have any concrete reasoning for that, Rich, or is
>> this just a conveniently large number you've selected in order to make
>> SETI look bad?
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that the search does not proceed exhaustively
>> system by star system, so it doesn't matter that there are 10^22 star
>> systems (or however many) in the observable universe. We examine the
>> electromagnetic spectrum for provocative signals. There's more to it
>> than that, obviously, but that's it in essence. There is nothing in
>> the task that inherently requires huge computing power for success, and
>> any attempt to attach a precise probability of success to that endeavor,
>> high *or* low, is groundless.
>>
>> You've made clear your distaste for SETI, exploration of Pluto, and a
>> whole host of other *scientific* activities, but to use ludicrous
>> arguments like the above in an attempt to establish your distaste as an
>> objective position is disingenuous. You're allowed to dislike SETI,
>> you know, without saying anything further about it at all. In my
>> opinion, that's better than saying things that aren't true.
>>
>>
>
> So assuming there is a continious signal coming from "A" source, how
> long at the current rate until someone finds it, given the current
> technology?
>
>
That would depend on the strength of the signal arriving here ;-}
Klamzon.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:26:53
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Rich wrote:
> So assuming there is a continious signal coming from "A" source, how
> long at the current rate until someone finds it, given the current
> technology?
That depends on the signal. The more obvious the signal, the less time
it will take. You'll have to ask your question more specifically before
the level of current technology becomes a factor.
But that's kind of beside the point. *Time* itself is not the issue,
because the time is not being spent doing other things. It's the
computing power that's at issue, and we might reasonably ask if there
are other distributed tasks that could be done instead of or in addition
to SETI. As it happens, despite the large number of users here, I think
a very small percentage of otherwise idle PCs overall are at work on
SETI. The cancer cure distributed program is worthwhile, too, in my
opinion, and that one is also being performed by a lot of otherwise
idle PCs.
Both (and other) *computing* tasks have a well-defined objective, so
users can vote with their PCs. Or, you can leave your PC off, instead.
--
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 17:25:37
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Mij Adyaw wrote:
> 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?
>
>
Anyone who has looked at the math for this knows it is a foolish waste
of time, given current technology. Maybe in 500 years we'll be in a
position to scan process at a high enough speed to "find" something.
Not now.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 02:13:32
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
>Anyone who has looked at the math for this knows it is a foolish waste
>of time, given current technology.
So what? It's not your time that's being wasted. Go do something you =
find worthwhile.
.Florian
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 01:30:12
From: Ed Holden
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote:
> Anyone who has looked at the math for this knows it is a foolish waste
> of time, given current technology. Maybe in 500 years we'll be in a
> position to scan process at a high enough speed to "find" something.
> Not now.
Perhaps someone should have told Chris Columbus that sailing across
the ocean was a foolish waste of time, given 1490's technology, and in
500 years' time he could just fly to the Americas in 8 hours or less.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:43:45
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Rich wrote:
> Anyone who has looked at the math for this knows it is a foolish waste
> of time, given current technology. Maybe in 500 years we'll be in a
> position to scan process at a high enough speed to "find" something.
> Not now.
The mathematics says no such thing. The mathematics is a fairly
straightforward application of Little's Result, but with most of the
variables having very loose bounds. Therefore, it cannot be used to
conclude anything with much certainty, positive or negative.
The notion that 500 years--or any really long period of time, in terms
of computing generations--will be necessary for computing power to make
real gains on this problem is equally laughable. Why not 300, or 100,
or 30, or 10? Do you have any concrete reasoning for that, Rich, or is
this just a conveniently large number you've selected in order to make
SETI look bad?
The fact of the matter is that the search does not proceed exhaustively
system by star system, so it doesn't matter that there are 10^22 star
systems (or however many) in the observable universe. We examine the
electromagnetic spectrum for provocative signals. There's more to it
than that, obviously, but that's it in essence. There is nothing in
the task that inherently requires huge computing power for success, and
any attempt to attach a precise probability of success to that endeavor,
high *or* low, is groundless.
You've made clear your distaste for SETI, exploration of Pluto, and a
whole host of other *scientific* activities, but to use ludicrous
arguments like the above in an attempt to establish your distaste as an
objective position is disingenuous. You're allowed to dislike SETI,
you know, without saying anything further about it at all. In my
opinion, that's better than saying things that aren't true.
--
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 17:21:20
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
> 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?
It's like dealing with any other intractable problem. Wait until the
technology provides
a much better mechanism, then waste time on it. Not now.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 14:39:36
From: Arnold
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.
1. Do yourself a favour and google the "WOW! signal". It was a
'perfect' alien signal but it didn't repeat. Imagine it was real!
2. The SETI Institute is privately funded and as far as I know, US tax
dollars are not used for SETI searches.
3. There were and will be a lot of spin-off discoveries made from doing
searches for alien signals.
Seti@home data led to some unplanned discoveries related to the
distribution of hydrogen in the galaxy.
4. Do not limit your thinking to radio signals only. Projects exist
that look for optical signals like lasers.
One day we might even detect artificial alien structures using
sensitive infra-red detectors.
The point is - although the galaxy is not blaring with alien beacons or
radio stations, we should still try and detect electromagnetic emissions
of artificial origin. If we don't, we will never know the truth.
As suggested in another post, have a look at the Planetary Society's
website for more info (see link below).
I keep an open mind. Never say never.
--
25° 45' S
28° 12' E
GMT+2
Join the Planetary Society
http://www.planetary.org
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 08:53:33
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Arnold:
> The point is - although the galaxy is not blaring with alien beacons or
> radio stations, we should still try and detect electromagnetic emissions
> of artificial origin. If we don't, we will never know the truth.
The corollary is that if we /do/ , we will /surely/ know the truth. Do
you believe that?
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 17:02:19
From: Arnold
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Davoud wrote:
> Arnold:
>
>>The point is - although the galaxy is not blaring with alien beacons or
>>radio stations, we should still try and detect electromagnetic emissions
>>of artificial origin. If we don't, we will never know the truth.
>
>
> The corollary is that if we /do/ , we will /surely/ know the truth. Do
> you believe that?
My point (belief) is - if you don't try, you won't succeed.
Unless of course alien space ships just show up in orbit tomorrow and
they are visible to everyone everywhere.
PS : Belief vs faith? Now that is topic for another thread!
--
25° 45' S
28° 12' E
GMT+2
Join the Planetary Society
http://www.planetary.org
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 11:28:36
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Arnold:
> Unless of course alien space ships just show up in orbit tomorrow and
> they are visible to everyone everywhere.
Glad you mentioned that -- I am again reminded that Fermi's question
remains unanswered: "Where are they?"
> PS : Belief vs faith? Now that is topic for another thread!
Or, we could just take it as read that that is a distinction without a
difference.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 09:52:22
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Davoud wrote:
> Glad you mentioned that -- I am again reminded that Fermi's question
> remains unanswered: "Where are they?"
Of course it's been answered. There are just too many answers to choose
from.
One potential answer is, of course, that (to quote Sagan) "It's a big
cosmos." Lots of people seem to have confidence that the speed of light
is merely another barrier that humans, assuming they survive long
enough, will learn to overcome. But we have no particular reason to
think this is necessarily so. Maybe the interstellar distances really
are too great.
Another answer is that life develops fairly rapidly, but intelligence
doesn't. It took life a matter of just a few hundred million years to
develop on the Earth, but (at least from our provincial perspective)
evolution then stalled at unicellular organisms for three billion years.
If it had stalled another billion, more complex life forms might never
have evolved at all.
Yet another answer is that life is preciously rare, maybe to the point
of our being the only instance. Personally, I don't find that idea
particularly compelling, but it really doesn't matter what I find
compelling, of course!
> > PS : Belief vs faith? Now that is topic for another thread!
>
> Or, we could just take it as read that that is a distinction without a
> difference.
I think that depends an awful lot on context. Perhaps you disagree.
--
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 18:37:20
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message
news:ecfco6$mmd$1@praesepe.isi.edu...
> Davoud wrote:
> > Glad you mentioned that -- I am again reminded that Fermi's question
> > remains unanswered: "Where are they?"
>
> Of course it's been answered. There are just too many answers to choose
> from.
>
> One potential answer is, of course, that (to quote Sagan) "It's a big
> cosmos." Lots of people seem to have confidence that the speed of light
> is merely another barrier that humans, assuming they survive long
> enough, will learn to overcome. But we have no particular reason to
> think this is necessarily so. Maybe the interstellar distances really
> are too great.
>
> Another answer is that life develops fairly rapidly, but intelligence
> doesn't. It took life a matter of just a few hundred million years to
> develop on the Earth, but (at least from our provincial perspective)
> evolution then stalled at unicellular organisms for three billion years.
> If it had stalled another billion, more complex life forms might never
> have evolved at all.
>
> Yet another answer is that life is preciously rare, maybe to the point
> of our being the only instance. Personally, I don't find that idea
> particularly compelling, but it really doesn't matter what I find
> compelling, of course!
There's at least one other answer... they're already here. Given the
credibility of some of the multiple witness accounts (police officers,
military and commercial aviation pilots, etc., etc.), I wouldn't rule this
one out. I'm well aware that eye witness accounts are considered by
"professionals" to be the least reliable of all evidence when it comes to
events like these, but some of the close up sightings by credible witnesses
are hard for me to discount. And I know some of the sightings could be top
secret military projects, but some, by the sheer magnitude of the
technology, appear to have come from some other place and/or time.
Why don't they just land on the lawn of the White House? There's another
question with multiple possible answers, though I must admit, I do find it
odd that there are many different kinds of crafts reported, but NONE of them
have chosen to make open contact. Of course, I can see where you have a
mass of primitives (that'd be us), you might only want to deal with the
leadership in private, if you wanted to make contact at all.
RJ
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 23:57:11
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> There's at least one other answer... they're already here. Given the
> credibility of some of the multiple witness accounts (police officers,
> military and commercial aviation pilots, etc., etc.), I wouldn't rule this
> one out.
Your entire argument rests on a false premise -- an urban legend, if
you will -- and that false premise is that police officers and military
and commercial pilots are somehow more credible witnesses than the
average person. They have no claim to be such. On the contrary, a
person, regardless of occupation or experience, who claims to have seen
an alien spacecraft is /ipso/ /facto/ not a reliable witness.
> Why don't they just land on the lawn of the White House? There's
> another question with multiple possible answers, though I must
> admit, I do find it odd that there are many different kinds of
> crafts reported, but NONE of them have chosen to make open contact.
Do you, now? Find that odd, I mean?
Here's what profoundly amazes me about the aliens that come to earth.
Space travel, we have learned, places incredible demands, both physical
and mental, on astronauts. We pick our brightest and most fit pilots,
engineers, and scientists to be astronauts. Putting people into space
-- just a couple of hundred miles from home -- is enormously expensive.
The cost of sending a manned spacecraft over countless light years to
find and visit an alien civilization is incalculable; the risk of
failure must be near enough to 100 percent as makes no difference.
Now, the alien races who send their astronauts to earth -- over light
years at incalculable cost -- do they choose their ablest pilots,
engineers, and scientists, creatures with an unquenchable thirst for
exploring the cosmos? No. They send sex perverts whose sole mission
appears to be to abduct and abuse semi-literate white people who live
in trailer parks in the western United States. It hardly seems to be
worth the trouble.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 05:21:00
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Davoud <star@sky.net > wrote in news:220820062357118923%star@sky.net:
> exploring the cosmos? No. They send sex perverts whose sole mission
> appears to be to abduct and abuse semi-literate white people who live
> in trailer parks in the western United States. It hardly seems to be
> worth the trouble.
Maybe that is the way they punish their sex offenders? ;-)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:27:10
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Davoud:
> > Now, the alien races who send their astronauts to earth -- over light
> > years at incalculable cost -- do they choose their ablest pilots,
> > engineers, and scientists, creatures with an unquenchable thirst for
> > exploring the cosmos? No. They send sex perverts whose sole mission
> > appears to be to abduct and abuse semi-literate white people who live
> > in trailer parks in the western United States. It hardly seems to be
> > worth the trouble.
Pierre Vandevenne:
> Maybe that is the way they punish their sex offenders? ;-)
Or reward them?
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 02:36:51
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davoud" <star@sky.net >
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> > There's at least one other answer... they're already here. Given
the
> > credibility of some of the multiple witness accounts (police officers,
> > military and commercial aviation pilots, etc., etc.), I wouldn't rule
this
> > one out.
>
> Your entire argument rests on a false premise -- an urban legend, if
> you will -- and that false premise is that police officers and military
> and commercial pilots are somehow more credible witnesses than the
> average person.
That's no false premise, my close-minded friend, that's a fact. Military
and commercial pilots spend thousands of hours in the air, and they are very
familiar with the night sky and all types of aircraft. This alone makes
them FAR more credible witnesses than the average person who has little
experience with either. Furthermore, it has to be something pretty
spectacular before most military and commercial pilots would even consider
reporting it. I have heard them go on the record stating they were
apprehensive of the negative consequences to their career of reporting a UFO
sighting. But when you're looking at a large craft making "impossible"
maneuvers, up-close, it's difficult to just ignore it. As a result, several
have come forward over the years, and in some cases, entire flight crews
witnessed the event.
>They have no claim to be such. On the contrary, a
> person, regardless of occupation or experience, who claims to have seen
> an alien spacecraft is /ipso/ /facto/ not a reliable witness.
Well, there's no convincing someone with that attitude. I get this image of
a huge alien craft coming down on top of you, and all the while you are
chanting "It's just the planet Venus, it's just the planet Venus, it's just
the planet Venus..." sqqiiisssshhhhhhh!!! whoops. So much for extrat
errestrial relationships. Seriously, try to be a little more open-minded.
>
> > Why don't they just land on the lawn of the White House? There's
> > another question with multiple possible answers, though I must
> > admit, I do find it odd that there are many different kinds of
> > crafts reported, but NONE of them have chosen to make open contact.
>
> Do you, now? Find that odd, I mean?
>
> Here's what profoundly amazes me about the aliens that come to earth.
> Space travel, we have learned, places incredible demands, both physical
> and mental, on astronauts. We pick our brightest and most fit pilots,
> engineers, and scientists to be astronauts. Putting people into space
> -- just a couple of hundred miles from home -- is enormously expensive.
> The cost of sending a manned spacecraft over countless light years to
> find and visit an alien civilization is incalculable; the risk of
> failure must be near enough to 100 percent as makes no difference.
>
> Now, the alien races who send their astronauts to earth -- over light
> years at incalculable cost
You make the assumption that "aliens" with much more advanced technology
than our own are sending craft out into the Universe under the same
conditions that would apply to us. THAT is a false premise, and a
ridiculous one too, if you think about it. It may be the equivalent of a
transoceanic flight for all we know.
-- do they choose their ablest pilots,
> engineers, and scientists, creatures with an unquenchable thirst for
> exploring the cosmos? No. They send sex perverts whose sole mission
> appears to be to abduct and abuse semi-literate white people who live
> in trailer parks in the western United States. It hardly seems to be
> worth the trouble.
LOL, if that were their mission, I would have to agree. But I suspect, like
the rest of your argument, you have a flawed analysis of the situation.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 03:18:32
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
>You make the assumption that "aliens" with much more advanced =
technology
>than our own are sending craft out into the Universe under the same
>conditions that would apply to us. THAT is a false premise, and a
>ridiculous one too, if you think about it.
Okay, so describe under what sort of different conditions an alien would =
be sending craft out into the universe.
.Florian
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 00:26:01
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
>There's at least one other answer... they're already here. Given =
the
>credibility of some of the multiple witness accounts (police officers,
>military and commercial aviation pilots, etc., etc.)
Any astronomers on that list?
.Florian
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 01:23:13
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
"Florian" <star6@TheDesertSon.com > wrote in message
news:tgNGg.16264$YC3.9048@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>There's at least one other answer... they're already here. Given the
>credibility of some of the multiple witness accounts (police officers,
>military and commercial aviation pilots, etc., etc.)
Any astronomers on that list?
.Florian
To be honest, I don't know, but the military and commercial pilots are
better trained in distinguishing between astronomical objects and unknown
craft anyway. Frankly, I'm ashamed to be associated with some of the
astronomers that I've seen interviewed, and the STUPID things that come out
of their mouths in television interviews. It's as if the whole herd lined
up behind Sagan like sheep to the slaughter. Now mind you, I majored in
astronomy in college and finished at the top of my class with honors. But I
cringe every time I hear another close up sighting explained away as the
planet Venus by the "local astronomer". Anyway, I'm not going off on a
rant. I understand their position and the scientific method. I also
understand what many of them have at risk. There are a few brave souls out
there, not many.
RJ
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 02:28:36
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
>To be honest, I don't know, but the military and commercial pilots are
>better trained in distinguishing between astronomical objects and =
unknown
>craft anyway.
I doubt that.
.Florian
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 02:41:48
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
"Florian" <star6@TheDesertSon.com > wrote in message
news:o3PGg.2281$Cs3.992@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>To be honest, I don't know, but the military and commercial pilots are
>better trained in distinguishing between astronomical objects and unknown
>craft anyway.
I doubt that.
.Florian
I'm not surprised. Think about it some more.
RJ
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 05:45:44
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:23:13 GMT, "Richard Jarnagin"
<rjarnagin@peoplepc.com > wrote:
>To be honest, I don't know, but the military and commercial pilots are
>better trained in distinguishing between astronomical objects and unknown
>craft anyway...
I can tell you that by far the least accurate meteor reports I get are
from airline pilots. Police aren't much better. (I'm in occasional
contact with a sheriff deputy who regularly sees UFOs- presumed alien-
in the San Luis Valley, Colorado).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 02:45:48
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:amqne2hu100k7155i7lpf1tch1jkhji2vv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:23:13 GMT, "Richard Jarnagin"
> <rjarnagin@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> >To be honest, I don't know, but the military and commercial pilots are
> >better trained in distinguishing between astronomical objects and unknown
> >craft anyway...
>
> I can tell you that by far the least accurate meteor reports I get are
> from airline pilots. Police aren't much better. (I'm in occasional
> contact with a sheriff deputy who regularly sees UFOs- presumed alien-
> in the San Luis Valley, Colorado).
I'm not sure there's a correlation between the accuracy of a meteor report
and being able to distinguish between a known aircraft, an astronomical
object, and a UFO. I would be interested in details, though, just for the
sake of my own personal knowledge. Thanks.
RJ
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 04:15:12
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:45:48 GMT, "Richard Jarnagin"
<rjarnagin@peoplepc.com > wrote:
>I'm not sure there's a correlation between the accuracy of a meteor report
>and being able to distinguish between a known aircraft, an astronomical
>object, and a UFO. I would be interested in details, though, just for the
>sake of my own personal knowledge. Thanks.
Pilots in the air at night are usually unable to locate meteors- their
perception is that the meteors are below the plane, which is never the
case. Pilots who witness meteors from the ground are surprisingly poor
judges of altitude. There is a long history of pilots seeing Venus or
other astronomical objects as pacing aircraft. There is a whole section
of the USAF flight surgeon manual devoted to this effect.
I only point this out because of the initial implied assumption that
pilots and policemen were somehow more reputable witnesses of lights in
the sky (for lack of another term). I don't believe this is the case.
And as I mentioned, I know at least one cop who believes UFOs are alien
spacecraft, so being a cop doesn't mean you can't be nuts.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 04:47:51
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:tk9qe2pni9ihnovlc5ka3on8pjupuqrj1r@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:45:48 GMT, "Richard Jarnagin"
> <rjarnagin@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure there's a correlation between the accuracy of a meteor
report
> >and being able to distinguish between a known aircraft, an astronomical
> >object, and a UFO. I would be interested in details, though, just for
the
> >sake of my own personal knowledge. Thanks.
>
> Pilots in the air at night are usually unable to locate meteors- their
> perception is that the meteors are below the plane, which is never the
> case. Pilots who witness meteors from the ground are surprisingly poor
> judges of altitude. There is a long history of pilots seeing Venus or
> other astronomical objects as pacing aircraft. There is a whole section
> of the USAF flight surgeon manual devoted to this effect.
>
> I only point this out because of the initial implied assumption that
> pilots and policemen were somehow more reputable witnesses of lights in
> the sky (for lack of another term). I don't believe this is the case.
Interesting material, and point well taken, but I wasn't referring to
"lights in the sky". If you will notice, the term "close-up" appears
repeatedly in my posts. It was mainly in regard to the sightings of
extended objects at relatively close range to which I refer.
>
> And as I mentioned, I know at least one cop who believes UFOs are alien
> spacecraft, so being a cop doesn't mean you can't be nuts.
Nor does one nutty cop represent the vast majority of reliable police
officers, some of whom have made close-up detailed observations of massive
unknown craft, verified by other officers and civilians at different
locations as the craft moved silently along at low altitude, only to
accelerate at incredible speed and disappear out of sight in a matter of
seconds. I remember the account of one officer describing a craft hovering
low above the ground in a rain shower. He said the rain bounced off an
invisible barrier a foot or so from the craft's surface while the surface
itself remained dry. Too many sci-fi movies? Maybe, but I don't think so.
Most of these officers are rock solid, many of them didn't even believe in
UFO's until they experienced one themselves. Many hope they never see one
again. Too much trouble for them, for a variety of reasons.
RJ
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 02:52:42
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > Pilots in the air at night are usually unable to locate meteors- their
> > perception is that the meteors are below the plane, which is never the
> > case. Pilots who witness meteors from the ground are surprisingly poor
> > judges of altitude. There is a long history of pilots seeing Venus or
> > other astronomical objects as pacing aircraft. There is a whole section
> > of the USAF flight surgeon manual devoted to this effect...
Richard Jarnagin replied:
> Interesting material, and point well taken, but I wasn't referring to
> "lights in the sky". If you will notice, the term "close-up" appears
> repeatedly in my posts. It was mainly in regard to the sightings of
> extended objects at relatively close range to which I refer.
What "extended objects" have been seen "close-up?"
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 03:20:48
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
I've said it before but i do like these UFO/alien threads since they =
always expose the loonies.=20
;-)
.Florian
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 04:03:13
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Florian wrote:
> I've said it before but i do like these UFO/alien threads since they always expose the loonies.
>
> ;-)
>
> .Florian
>
>
>
Yup!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 03:41:09
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
"Florian" <star6@TheDesertSon.com > wrote in message
news:kW8Hg.1841$S_5.680@tornado.socal.rr.com...
I've said it before but i do like these UFO/alien threads since they always
expose the loonies.
;-)
.Florian
Yeah, that's me, a loonie... now go sleep securely in your
self-inflicted ignorant bliss. You're still top life form in your
neighborhood of the Universe and all is well. And they all lived happily
ever after. The End.
RJ
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 07:47:41
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Davoud wrote:
> Arnold:
> > The point is - although the galaxy is not blaring with alien beacons or
> > radio stations, we should still try and detect electromagnetic emissions
> > of artificial origin. If we don't, we will never know the truth.
>
> The corollary is that if we /do/ , we will /surely/ know the truth. Do
> you believe that?
No. If we do, we may one day know the truth. There is always a chance
we'll never know the truth. That's the corollary, and I think any
rational SETI proponent would acknowledge that.
Or did you mean to write a strictly stronger statement? If so, I for
one can't divine your intent in doing so.
--
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: 23 Aug 2006 00:24:03
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Arnold 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.
>
> 1. Do yourself a favour and google the "WOW! signal". It was a
> 'perfect' alien signal but it didn't repeat. Imagine it was real!
>
> 2. The SETI Institute is privately funded and as far as I know, US tax
> dollars are not used for SETI searches.
>
> 3. There were and will be a lot of spin-off discoveries made from doing
> searches for alien signals.
> Seti@home data led to some unplanned discoveries related to the
> distribution of hydrogen in the galaxy.
>
> 4. Do not limit your thinking to radio signals only. Projects exist
> that look for optical signals like lasers.
> One day we might even detect artificial alien structures using
> sensitive infra-red detectors.
>
> The point is - although the galaxy is not blaring with alien beacons or
> radio stations, we should still try and detect electromagnetic emissions
> of artificial origin. If we don't, we will never know the truth.
Most good discoveries come by accident. Maybe not searching is the key
to discovery?
We are our own first instance of extra terrestrial life?
>
>
> As suggested in another post, have a look at the Planetary Society's
> website for more info (see link below).
>
> I keep an open mind. Never say never.
>
> --
> 25° 45' S
> 28° 12' E
> GMT+2
>
> Join the Planetary Society
> http://www.planetary.org
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 08:32:47
From: starburst
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Martin Brown wrote:
> Tim Killian wrote:
>
>>Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
Ridiculous, and betrays a serious lack of knowledge regarding the
history of either philosophy or religion.
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.
>
>
> And there in lies the problem. The book burners of the US religious
> right theocracy seek to destroy all science that might challenge the
> "omnipotence" of their insecure and jjealous God (the one who faked the
> universe to look much older than it's 6000 years).
And another voice jumps in to scream "heresy!" This debate has so little
to do with religion that I wonder if you don't have some sort of a minor
psychosis that forces you to see theists under every bed, like
communists in a bygone era. I haven't heard *any* religious folks
condemning SETI as anti-scriptural. That's not to say that they're not
out there - it's just that they're not driving this question. I'm not a
fundamentalist or a bible thumper of any variety. I just think that the
odds of SETI's success are so long as to make it a virtual waste of
time. I also notice an almost religious determination to continue the
program among people who oughtta know better.
And by the way - your pronouncements of the dangerous religious state on
this side of the Atlantic are frankly annoying at times. We have a very
nice constitution (which y'all lack in the UK, by the way) that prevents
the religious nuts here from doing too much damage. The overwhelming
majority of religious people in the US pay their taxes and don't steal
from each other. Big deal. The impact of their theology on our political
structure is an unfocused concern over morality. That's not a problem
unless you're a weirdo.
>>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.
>
>
> You are terrified that they might succeed. That is why you protest so
> much.
>
Oh, bull. Killian's metaphor is uncomfortably apropos.
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: first pulsar, was Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 00:39:12
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: first pulsar, was Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Martin Brown wrote:
> > BTW, the pulsar Bell discovered was in Vulpecula, not Taurus.
>
> Ooops! Yes - so it was.
I made the same exact mistake in one of my essays, so I remember it
now. :)
--
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 12:44:34
From: Ernie Dunbar
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Tim Killian wrote:
> 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.
Here's a better, more logical explanation.
We exist. This we know to be true. How did it come about that we exist?
Or for that matter, how did it come about that the tiniest primordial
life came to exist on this planet so many billions of years ago?
One theory says that a random set of chemicals came together in just
the right way to form proteins and DNA and all that good stuff. If this
theory is true, then there is a chance, however small, that this
happens in the universe. It happened here, after all, therefore the
chance exists. Now, take that small chance, and keep trying a billion
billion times over. Even if it's only one chance in a billion billion,
then it's guaranteed to happen again somewhere. Maybe right next to us,
maybe in another part of the galaxy. Maybe in another galaxy
altogether. Randomness is like that.
Another theory is that life didn't start on this planet at all, and
came from somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else? How many
somewhere elses are there?
Another theory still is that God came down and touched the water and
made those chemicals interact in just the right way. In that case, the
question just changes to "who is God, where does he come from, and what
is he?" Clearly, this God person is from somewhere else, if he created
life here. Did he create life elsewhere? And if not, why not? Why make
a universe filled with billions of stars like ours, filling billions of
galaxies like ours, over astoundingly unimaginable tracts of space if
you're only going to populate one planet orbiting one star? If you need
all the chemicals you have here on earth to create life, then you'd
need a couple of supernovae, but that can be arranged on a much smaller
scale with much less matter and energy involved. At most, you would
need an entire galaxy. But not billions of them.
Really, no matter how you look at it, it's just silly to assume that
our planet has the only life in the whole of the universe. Much more
silly than pointing a radio antenna at the sky to see if anyone else
has anything to say.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 18:10:56
From:
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Davoud wrote:
> [...]
> Now, the alien races who send their astronauts to earth -- over light
> years at incalculable cost -- do they choose their ablest pilots,
> engineers, and scientists, creatures with an unquenchable thirst for
> exploring the cosmos? No. They send sex perverts whose sole mission
> appears to be to abduct and abuse semi-literate white people who live
> in trailer parks in the western United States. It hardly seems to be
> worth the trouble.
But maybe that's why they're here; as you wrote, they're sex perverts.
:-)
BTW, of the "Betty and Barney Hill" event (the first such), one is
black.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 18:01:51
From:
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Florian wrote:
> >There's at least one other answer... they're already here. Given the
> >credibility of some of the multiple witness accounts (police officers,
> >military and commercial aviation pilots, etc., etc.)
>
>
> Any astronomers on that list?
Jacques Vallee. Possibly (not sure) also J. Allen Hynek.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:34:12
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
>Jacques Vallee. Possibly (not sure) also J. Allen Hynek.
Hynek seems to have changed his mind...=20
"I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are 'nuts and =
bolts' spacecrafts from other worlds. There are just too many things =
going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super =
intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid =
things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. I =
think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look =
closer to home"
Quote found on Wikipedia.
.Florian
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 08:06:58
From:
Subject: Re: Are the SETI kooks still at it?
|
Florian wrote:
> >Jacques Vallee. Possibly (not sure) also J. Allen Hynek.
>
>
> Hynek seems to have changed his mind...
>
> "I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are 'nuts and bolts' spacecrafts from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. I think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home"
>
> Quote found on Wikipedia.
A bio of Jacques and an excellent interview and a few other cites; he
has some
very interesting thoughts about the matter:
BIO:
<http://www.jacquesvallee.net/ >
Interviews:
<http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc839.htm >
In this one (the above) he cites what he saw while tracking satellites:
an
object at magnitude 1 in retrograde orbit (around the Earth) at a time
when
no country had rockets powerful enough to place such an object in such
an orbit, and that's what piqued his interest in the subject. Many
other
interesting observations and comments expressed in that interview which
is a fascinating read.
<http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc608.htm >
Other miscellaneous re: Vallee:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vallee >
<http://guymalone.com/ufological.htm >
A Google search will find 4,270,000 hits on him ("Jacques Vallee").
|
|
