| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
08 Jun 2006 01:13:15 PM |
| Object: |
The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#114948425508854101
Where is Everybody?
Good question, Enrico.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a
legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none
of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only
way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just
so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be
"informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life
choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed
guess. It's simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and
billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and
has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science
involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot
be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a
religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which
there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a
matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days
is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the
universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence
for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has
been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain
this belief. SETI is a religion. - Michael Crichton
The slow awful dawn of the death of secular religion. No ETs will save
us. There's just God and his angels. In *this* order of creation, we
are effectively alone.
Doesn't mean there's no life on other worlds. Just means that we will
never hear from it if it's there.
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 06:04:42 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> writes:
The slow awful dawn of the death of secular religion. No ETs will save
us. There's just God and his angels.
Do you have any idea how hard that made me laugh?
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 01:35:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1149790395.687979.303610@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> writes:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#114948425508854101
Where is Everybody?
Good question, Enrico.
It was, indeed.
Now show us you actually understand what you're posting, "Trumpet".
Who was "Enrico", and when and where did he pose his famous question?
You may put your answer in this space:
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a
legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none
of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just
so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice.
Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life
choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed
guess. It's simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and
billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and
has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science
involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot
be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a
religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which
there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a
matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days
is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the
universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence
for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has
been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain
this belief. SETI is a religion. - Michael Crichton
Incidentally, in almost sixty years of reading, I have thrown exactly one book
in the wastebasket half-read. It was science fiction, and I tossed it in total
disgust over the author's incredibly sloppy science. According the forward, the
author was in medical school at the time, and I remember hoping furiously that this
bozo would never become a doctor.
The author? Micahel Crichton.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 09:16:59 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1149790395.687979.303610@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> writes:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#114948425508854101
Where is Everybody?
Good question, Enrico.
It was, indeed.
Now show us you actually understand what you're posting, "Trumpet".
Who was "Enrico", and when and where did he pose his famous question?
You may put your answer in this space:
Enrico Fermi asked the question famously. What? Did you think Caruso
already?
As to Crichton, Sphere was a horrible book.
There has to be life elsewhere in the galaxy, not to mention the
universe. But, due to the distances, 40 years might not be close to
enough time to find it. Especially if the galaxy has all kinds of
killer spinning stars or whatever it is they've been spotting to wipe
out life in whole swaths of galaxies. Also, it might be rare for
technological civilizations to form because most planets would have
metal concentrated in the core. Earth, being formed/reformed by a
collision with the proto moon, had a lot of its metal available to the
surface.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jordan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 02:12:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
There has to be life elsewhere in the galaxy, not to mention the
universe.
Well, no, there doesn't. However, it would be VERY surprising if there
weren't, considering that the Earth is but one of a very large number
of worlds in the Universe. Heck, the Earth is but one of a fairly
large number of worlds (including moons and large planetoids) in the
_Solar System_, and it's possible that some of the others have some
sort of life.
But, due to the distances, 40 years might not be close to
enough time to find it.
Exactly. There are issues of separation both in space _and in time_ to
consider.
Especially if the galaxy has all kinds of
killer spinning stars or whatever it is they've been spotting to wipe
out life in whole swaths of galaxies.
Yep. There's one theory that _galaxies_ have "life zones" analogous to
those around stars -- too close to the center and you're too exposed to
supernovae and gamma-ray-bursters; too far from the center and you're
insufficiently exposed to heavy elements when your solar system first
forms. We don't know how wide the belt is; we do know that Sol is in
it.
Also, it might be rare for
technological civilizations to form because most planets would have
metal concentrated in the core. Earth, being formed/reformed by a
collision with the proto moon, had a lot of its metal available to the
surface.
Another advantage of our relatively large moon is that its tidal action
probably helped prevent our atmosphere from becoming as dense as that
of Venus. And yet _another_ advantage is that having a whole other
world fairly close to our own helps stimulate us to space travel. Luna
is a Very Good Thing, and a fairly rare thing even in our Solar System
(the closest analogue is Charon -- the five giant moons Titan, Europa,
Ganymede, Callisto and Io are _much_ smaller relative to the planets
they orbit).
Indeed, Luna isn't really a "moon" in the normal sense. It is more
strongly pulled by the Sun than by the Earth, and thus technically
could be considered the second component of a binary planetary system
-- the _only_ one in the Solar System.
So this kind of situation appears to be quite rare.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 12:35:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1149819419.817657.116190@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1149790395.687979.303610@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> writes:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#114948425508854101
Where is Everybody?
Good question, Enrico.
It was, indeed.
Now show us you actually understand what you're posting, "Trumpet".
Who was "Enrico", and when and where did he pose his famous question?
You may put your answer in this space:
Enrico Fermi asked the question famously. What? Did you think Caruso
already?
Oh, not me. (particularly as I just read, and then bought for girlfriend,
Stephen Webb's "If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens... Where Is Everybody?
Fifty Solutions to Fermi's Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life")
I was just trying to prove that "Strumpet of Doom" is a paste-only
poster, who has no actual understanding of what it cuts-and-pastes.
As to Crichton, Sphere was a horrible book.
The one I tossed (hit the wastebasket on the first try) was "The Andromeda
Strain" -- the "science" in it was awful.
Some time later I came across the movie on TV. It appears to
have been faithfully awful to the book.
There has to be life elsewhere in the galaxy, not to mention the
universe. But, due to the distances, 40 years might not be close to
enough time to find it. Especially if the galaxy has all kinds of
killer spinning stars or whatever it is they've been spotting to wipe
out life in whole swaths of galaxies. Also, it might be rare for
technological civilizations to form because most planets would have
metal concentrated in the core. Earth, being formed/reformed by a
collision with the proto moon, had a lot of its metal available to the
surface.
If you're interested, I do recommed the book I mentioned above. Fifty
different scenarios are suggested and examined in fascinating detail.
It's one of those books that makes you wonder how any one person
could have gathered so much information from so many different fields.
And it's as addictive as peanuts; you always want to read just one more.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Penn" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 09:42:17 PM |
|
|
SETI not science?!? Its a simple, unsophisticated search for an
artificial pattern in some bands of the EM spectrum. Its akin to
sifting all of the sand of a beach to get the shells out in search of
the mutant mollusks. Counting all plants in a forested area so as to
compile statistics on forest ecology is science, so is SETI's efforts.
How it could be construed as religion is beyond me.
You're wacko man, and not the first to post on rec.arts.sf.written. In
fact you're posting your crap simultaneously on 5 groups, which is
spaming.
jwragusa@aol.com wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1149790395.687979.303610@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> writes:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#114948425508854101
Where is Everybody?
Good question, Enrico.
It was, indeed.
Now show us you actually understand what you're posting, "Trumpet".
Who was "Enrico", and when and where did he pose his famous question?
You may put your answer in this space:
Enrico Fermi asked the question famously. What? Did you think Caruso
already?
As to Crichton, Sphere was a horrible book.
There has to be life elsewhere in the galaxy, not to mention the
universe. But, due to the distances, 40 years might not be close to
enough time to find it. Especially if the galaxy has all kinds of
killer spinning stars or whatever it is they've been spotting to wipe
out life in whole swaths of galaxies. Also, it might be rare for
technological civilizations to form because most planets would have
metal concentrated in the core. Earth, being formed/reformed by a
collision with the proto moon, had a lot of its metal available to the
surface.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 12:37:29 PM |
|
|
In article <1149820937.457000.318960@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> "Penn" <pennarin@gmail.com> writes:
[top posting corrected]
jwragusa@aol.com wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1149790395.687979.303610@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> writes:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#114948425508854101
Where is Everybody?
Good question, Enrico.
It was, indeed.
Now show us you actually understand what you're posting, "Trumpet".
Who was "Enrico", and when and where did he pose his famous question?
You may put your answer in this space:
Enrico Fermi asked the question famously. What? Did you think Caruso
already?
As to Crichton, Sphere was a horrible book.
There has to be life elsewhere in the galaxy, not to mention the
universe. But, due to the distances, 40 years might not be close to
enough time to find it. Especially if the galaxy has all kinds of
killer spinning stars or whatever it is they've been spotting to wipe
out life in whole swaths of galaxies. Also, it might be rare for
technological civilizations to form because most planets would have
metal concentrated in the core. Earth, being formed/reformed by a
collision with the proto moon, had a lot of its metal available to the
surface.
SETI not science?!? Its a simple, unsophisticated search for an
artificial pattern in some bands of the EM spectrum. Its akin to
sifting all of the sand of a beach to get the shells out in search of
the mutant mollusks. Counting all plants in a forested area so as to
compile statistics on forest ecology is science, so is SETI's efforts.
How it could be construed as religion is beyond me.
You're wacko man, and not the first to post on rec.arts.sf.written. In
fact you're posting your crap simultaneously on 5 groups, which is
spaming.
I assume that this was directed at the original poster, and not
either at my reply or `jwargusa's subsequent response?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "lal_truckee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 11:12:27 AM |
|
|
Penn wrote:
You're wacko man, and not the first to post on rec.arts.sf.written. In
fact you're posting your crap simultaneously on 5 groups, which is
spaming.
And you're responding to the wacko; in 5 groups, which is also spamming,
which I am also doing, which is circular spamming, which is never
ending, which, which, which...
I quit. The first guy is wacko, and requires no response, so disregard
this post also.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 04:09:04 PM |
|
|
Mark Shea, the hypocrite's hypocrite, wrote to tell us that SETI is a
waste of time because it is religion. Mr. Shea then goes on to say:
No ETs will save
us. There's just God and his angels.
Definitely the hypocrite's hypocrite.
Regards,
Josef
The difficult part in an argument is not to defend one's opinion, but
rather to know it.
-- André Maurois
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 12:29:46 AM |
|
|
On 8 Jun 2006 11:13:15 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> wrote:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#114948425508854101
The rapid death of Strumpet's brain.
Where is Everybody?
Good question, Enrico.
Who the ***** is Enrico?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jordan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 02:19:22 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
Who the ***** is Enrico?
Enrico Fermi formulated the Fermi Equation, the statement of the rate
of occurrence of sapient civilized life in the Galaxy (well, Universe
really but he was being modest), which implies that such life could be
fairly common; and the Fermi Paradox, which reasons that if sapient
civilized life in the Galaxy were at all common they would already have
gotten here to colonize -- so where are they? Fermi's _other_ main
claim to fame -- his key role in the development of the atomic bomb --
suggests a grim possibility.
The Equation and Paradox are at the heart of the question of whether or
not we are ever likely to make contact with extraterrestrial sapience,
and if so how long it is likely to take.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
.
|
|
|
| User: "lal_truckee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 11:09:04 AM |
|
|
Jordan wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Who the ***** is Enrico?
Enrico Fermi formulated the Fermi Equation, the statement of the rate
of occurrence of sapient civilized life in the Galaxy ...
Bzzzzt!
Try Drake. Or are you making a funny?
Fermi has a whole class of sub-atomic particles named after him
(Fermions; the other class is Bosons) and a whole class of particle
statistics named after him (Fermi-Dirac; the other class is Bose-Einstein.)
IIRC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jordan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 11:15:02 AM |
|
|
lal_truckee wrote:
Jordan wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Who the ***** is Enrico?
Enrico Fermi formulated the Fermi Equation, the statement of the rate
of occurrence of sapient civilized life in the Galaxy ...
Bzzzzt!
Try Drake. Or are you making a funny?
Oh, you're right. Drake Equation, Fermi Paradox. My bad.
- Jordan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 05:06:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:13:15 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#114948425508854101
Where is Everybody?
Good question, Enrico.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate
intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms
can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the
Wrong, fuckwit. Every term in the Drake equation can be known. We
currently lack the resources and technology to measure some of them, but
that does not render the equation meaningless, nor does it make SETI a
religion.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 05:17:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:06:10 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate
intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms
can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the
Wrong, fuckwit. Every term in the Drake equation can be known. We
currently lack the resources and technology to measure some of them, but
that does not render the equation meaningless, nor does it make SETI a
religion.
Only by working backwards.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 03:39:48 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1149790395.687979.303610@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Where is Everybody?
Hiding from you.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brion K. Lienhart" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 03:27:27 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and
billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
Surely you mean "billions and billions" to ONE. We know at least one
planet currently supporting intelligent life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 01:50:23 AM |
|
|
"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote
in message
news:Q_CdnUuTusWtFRXZnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com.
...
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
As a result, the Drake equation can have any
value from "billions and
billions" to zero. An expression that can mean
anything means nothing.
Surely you mean "billions and billions" to ONE.
We know at least one
planet currently supporting intelligent life.
Well, at least the life _claims_ to be intelligent
<g>.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
It is so stupid of modern civilisation to have
given up believing in the
Devil, when he is its only explanation.
Ronald Knox.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Eney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 10:50:51 AM |
|
|
In article <Q_CdnUuTusWtFRXZnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brion K. Lienhart <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and
billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
Surely you mean "billions and billions" to ONE. We know at least one
planet currently supporting intelligent life.
Haven't read any newspapers lately, have you?
-- ***** Eney
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 03:40:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:27:27 -0700, "Brion K. Lienhart"
<brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and
billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
Surely you mean "billions and billions" to ONE. We know at least one
planet currently supporting intelligent life.
We also know that one point it didn't and at a future point it won't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 04:58:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:27:27 -0700, "Brion K. Lienhart"
<brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and
billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
Surely you mean "billions and billions" to ONE. We know at least one
planet currently supporting intelligent life.
So don't leave us in suspense.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jordan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 02:04:16 AM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#114948425508854101
Where is Everybody?
Good question, Enrico.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a
legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none
of the terms can be known,
That's not true. First of all, one day we may explore the Galaxy in
sufficient detail to have a very good census of _all_ the terms.
Secondly, until that day, as our knowledge of astronomy and planetology
increase, we have increasingly refined approximations of the earlier
ones. You seem to have missed much of the planetological news of the
last decade!
and most cannot even be estimated. The only
way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just
so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be
"informed guesses."
That's also untrue. For instance, number of inhabitable planets per
solar system can be increasingly "informed" as we gain detailed data on
the planets in our own solar system and on the sorts of planets that we
are detecting in other solar systems (neither, by the way, known to
Enrico Fermi at the time that he formulated the Equation that bears his
name).
We now know, for instance, that the Solar System definitely holds 1
life-bearing world (Earth), 1 world which has _probably_ had or still
has life (Mars), 1 world which definitely has some of the preconditions
for life (Europa), and 1 world which _may_ have some of the
preconditions for life (Ganymede). That's 1 definite and 3 possibles
in a _single_ Solar System (2 of the possibles in a single lunar
system!). We can add to this the important discovery that the life
zone of a star is far wider than we imagined back around 1950.
We now know that there are at _least_ over a hundred planets orbiting
stars fairly near our own. We know that some of them are within the
life zones of their stars. We also know that our current observational
techniques are too limited to detect Earth-sized planets in the life
zones of their stars -- and that we will within 25 or so years attain
this capability. When Enrico Fermi formulated his Equation, nobody
knew for sure that there were ANY planets orbiting any stars other than
our Sun.
We know that the Sun has more than 9 planets. Instead, it has 4 large
planets, 4 small planets, and _dozens_ of major planetoids. Based on
the Europan example, we have strong reason to suspect that some of the
planetoids may be able to support subterranean life of at least _some_
possible biochemistry.
If you need to state how many planets with life
choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed
guess. It's simply prejudice.
Ok ... _that_ one is largely undeterminable _at present_. Of course,
you seem to be assuming that our knowledge _at present_ is all that we
will ever have of other planets -- and the history of the last
half-century would rather strongly contradict that theory.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and
billions" to zero.
Actually, it can't -- unless you're choosing to regard yourself as
unliving and nonsapient, that is. Can you figure out why it has to
have an answer greater than or equal to 1?
An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
Then it's a good thing that it can't mean "anything." By the way, your
statement is also mathematical nonsense, because there are different
kinds of infinities.
Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and
has nothing to do with science.
If your false premises were true, you'd be correct. I'm glad they're
not.
I take the hard view that science
involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot
be tested
That's quite untrue. Parts of it _can_ be tested, and are being do so
right now.
and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a
religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which
there is no proof.
But SETI scientists do not "firmly believe" in the _existence_ of
extraterrestrial intelligence. They firmly believe in its
_possibility_, which is indeed mandated by the Principle of Mediocrity.
That places the burden of proof on you -- you need to prove or at
least suggest some good reason why extraterrestrial intelligence is
_impossible_, since the existence of _terrestrial_ intelligence
strongly suggests that it _is_ possible.
The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a
matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days
is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the
universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence
for any other life forms,
Again, your knowledge of planetology seems to be severely out of date.
We have already discovered evidence for ancient Marslife. We simply
have not yet discovered _proof_ of ancient Marslife. (Hint:
"evidence" and "proof" are not the same thing!).
This hypothesis is, by the way, quite testable. If there is or was
Marslife, it has probably left fossil evidence (even if soft-bodied it
would have left evidence of its biochemical action). As we continue to
explore Mars, we will either find such evidence or fail to find such
evidence. After a decent amount of effort searching, we will come to
some conclusion regarding the existence of Marslife.
It is possible that we will discover that it never existed, that it
once existed, or that it still exists. It is also possible that we may
decide that it never existed and then later find proof that it did or
does exist, or decide that it once existed but is now extinct, and then
later find proof that it still exists. The nature of good science is
that we must be open-minded regarding further evidence.
and in forty years of searching, none has
been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain
this belief. SETI is a religion. - Michael Crichton
Wow. So, I guess if Michael Crichton said it that it _must_ be true.
The slow awful dawn of the death of secular religion. No ETs will save us.
"Save us?" Sorry, were you under the delusion that if extraterrestrial
life or intelligence exist that we're somehow "saved?" Why?
There's just God and his angels.
.... regarding whose existence there is far less evidence than the
existence of, say, fossil Marslife. We've actually _found_ a meteorite
that may contain fossil Marslife; the same cannot be said for gods or
angels.
Incidentally, wouldn't gods and angels _be_ "extraterrestrial
intelligences?"
In *this* order of creation, we are effectively alone.
Wow, God sure was a waster. I mean, that whole Universe, for just
_one_ intelligent race? Why?
Doesn't mean there's no life on other worlds.
You've just contradicted yourself.
Just means that we will never hear from it if it's there.
Sorry, how exactly can you logically conclude that the fact that we
haven't found extraterrestrial life in around half a century of
searching, in a Universe literally tens of billions of light-years
across, means that we will _never_ find such life, no matter how long
we search? 50 years is an eyeblink compared to the existence of our
_species_, let alone on an astronomical scale.
I suggest you actually study the nature of the Universe. You seem to
think you're living in a Ptolemaic orrery.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 04:14:42 PM |
|
|
The difference between SETI and religion is testablity. SETI says, "We think
there are aliens out there; let's go look for evidence." Religion says "We
know God is out there; we don't need evidence." One is a testable
hypothesis; the other is a matter of faith.
--
Carl Henderson
jch@carlhenderson.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Grosberg" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
09 Jun 2006 02:24:03 AM |
|
|
Carl Henderson wrote:
The difference between SETI and religion is testablity. SETI says, "We think
there are aliens out there; let's go look for evidence." Religion says "We
know God is out there; we don't need evidence." One is a testable
hypothesis; the other is a matter of faith.
--
Carl Henderson
jch@carlhenderson.net
It's not even that: what Seti's saying is more like "We don't know if
there are aliens but it's worth a shot looking for them". It's not
science, it's more like gambling - investing a small sum with an
unlikely but very high return on your investment. If the sum is small
enough and the return high enough, it would be stupid to ignore the
chance, as unlikely as it is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Slow Death Of Secular Faith In Space Aliens |
08 Jun 2006 04:22:28 PM |
|
|
On 08 Jun 2006 21:14:42 GMT, Carl Henderson <jch@carlhenderson.net>
wrote:
The difference between SETI and religion is testablity. SETI says, "We think
there are aliens out there; let's go look for evidence." Religion says "We
know God is out there; we don't need evidence." One is a testable
hypothesis; the other is a matter of faith.
More to the point - we know of one planet that sustains life. Ours. We
know of other planetary systems. Life on other planets is a reasonable
hypothesis.
Whether it is intelligent life is another matter, but again,we know of
an intelligent species. Ourself.
If only there were similar reasons to hypothesise deity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
