SETI: Science or Pseudoscience?

[blutoski]

The think I am starting to see the difference.

But I found it funny that a series of prime number is complex but a self building machine, that designed itself thru random mistakes it made, is not complex and is natural.

I used an analogy with a friend of mine who was quite the fundie for a few years. We were in his yard, and I threw a bocci ball backward over my shoulder. I asked him what the chances were that I 'randomly' hit the ball taht was already sitting in the yard. He said "close to zero". We turned around: the balls were in contact.

As it happens, no matter how you throw the ball 'randomly', the yard was slightly concave, so all the balls thrown into the lawn end up in the same spot after rolling a bit. There was a very natural force that makes the 'impossible' actually inevitable, given certain circumstances.



That one got him to thinking, and I added another on-the-spot while we were having dinner: what if I could take a bottle with a mix of two slightly different liquids and *decree* that they should separate perfectly. One type on the right; another type on the left.

"OK," he said, "impossible." He started talking about entropy, the information gradient to sort molecules, and so on. "If we found that in nature, it would be proof of a creator."

I shook the oil and vinegar salad dressing and we watched the atoms separate. It took about 30 seconds to separate a liter of mixed chemicals into two very 'organized' groups. Proof of design? Nah. Proof that salad dressing needs to be shaken, izzall.

That's how "incredible" it is for a basic cell membrane to form spontaneously. If we didn't see this type of activity in nature... now *that* would be hard to explain.

 

[gnome]

What about the other plan--contacting aliens directly? Voyager has been on its way, I forget how many years, with its pictures of human beings, recordings of our music, and a star map showing our location.

It seems rather naive to me now, though thrilling at the time as Sagan explained it on Cosmos. Now I wonder what a denizen of some far planet will do with the recording? Eat it? Use it as a frisbee? Laugh at our primitive civilization and show the star map to its Leader? "Taking this planet will be a walkover--launch the ships with the new improbability drive!"

A relevant song: "Absent Hosts", by Cecilia Eng

Third planet, yellow star
Tell us where your children are
We have come here from afar
To answer their invitation

Long their message kept its pace
Drifting on through endless space
Seeking for another race
'Til at last it found us

Far your childrens' plea was cast
Since its launch much time has passed
Here its trail led us at last
Tell us where to find them

Can we find them far away?
Did some leave before the day
That Death came to this place to stay?
Tell us where to find them

Dead planet, yellow star
Was it just another war?
Did your children die before
We found their invitation?

From dust we come, to dust retire
Life too soon will oft expire
Poison winds and deadly fire
Are all they've left to greet us

Third planet, yellow star
Tell us where your children are
We have come here from afar
To answer their invitation

 

[woodguard]

I see my problem. I see science looking at everything in nature.
Seti works within this guideline.

ID used God for answers, which to most people is outside nature.
Intelligent Design to me was not just God but Extraterrestrial Intelligence. From a meteor or a dirty probe from an other intelligence.

I was not looking with religious blinder on, I was think outside the box.

 

[davefoc]

I see my problem. I see science looking at everything in nature.
Seti works within this guideline.

ID used God for answers, which to most people is outside nature.
Intelligent Design to me was not just God but Extraterrestrial Intelligence. From a meteor or a dirty probe from an other intelligence.

I was not looking with religious blinder on, I was think outside the box.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought that ID on a conceptual level was restricted to the idea of people trying to prove the idea that God did it.

On a practical level that is the only kind of ID research that I am aware of. I stand to be corrected here, but I don't think anybody that is pushing an ID agenda is seriously considering the possibility or is actually looking for evidence of anything other than that God did it.

On some conceptual level, it seems to me that ID could be exactly analogous to SETI and I didn't mean to disagree with that aspect of what I thought you were saying. Although I don't think as a practical matter they are analogous for the reasons I stated previously.

 

[Jimbo07]

In fact, SETI could be directly related to some sort of physical/natural ID.

If life on earth required a physical creator (dubious), then that implies the existence of a physical creator (akin to the 'complexity implies supernatural creator' idea). If, however, we search for ETI for the next billion years and don't find any, the odds that ETI started life on earth plummet. The theory has to be re-examined. Could something other than a physical creator be responsible? and back to... does life even require a physical creator? The physical evidence, so far, is taken to be independent of a physical creator.

Some new physical evidence may change all that, but it's still a remarkably different claim than supernatural ID. Also, it still leaves unanswered the question, "Why something, rather than nothing?" If you don't care, then supernatural ID is meaningless, and physical evidence/physical ID (or lack thereof) will sort itself out.

 

[drkitten]

I didn't mean to imply that I thought that ID on a conceptual level was restricted to the idea of people trying to prove the idea that God did it.

No, but is is restricted, by its own definition, to the idea of people trying to prove that the Theory of Evolution is false. (And of course, as you point out, in practical terms, all ID practitioners are specifically trying to prove that God did it.)

As soon as I set out to prove something, without regard to whether or not it's actually true, I cease to be doing science.

 

[JayT]

10 Big Fat Slimy Demerits!

I'm surprised I'm the only "pseudoscience" voter. SETI is rather firmly mired in the "hopes and dreams" category of science; it's about as scientific as a multimillion dollar search for Bigfoot or a unicorn. It may be conducted in a scientific manner, but the underlying reason is wishful thinking at best - and quite possibly just plain nonsense.

SETI is pseudo-science?

Shame on you!
slap-spit-punch-kick-bite!


I would vote science.

SETI may be the stuff of "hopes and dreams", but so were curing deadly diseases and travelling across space to the moon and other planets at one time. Hopes and dreams are one of the most important driving forces of science and in no way invalidates it, no matter how lofty its hopes and dreams might be.

The speculations of SETI are valid scientific speculations and it is most improper to compare the SETI project with the search for Bigfoot or unicorns.

I can't say that I believe that life exists elsewhere, since there is no solid evidence yet to justify such belief. However, when one considers the vast scale of the universe, it is not unreasonable to think that there is a significant probability that there may be other life forms on some other worlds out there.

Probabilistically, it's a reasonable assumption.

I do have doubts about the methods of SETI being likely to achieve their goal, but I fully understand their ideals.

SETI can in no way detect life that isn't advanced enough to be transmitting signals into space. Most likely, if alien life exists, most of it is likely to be too primitive. Notice that of all the legions of life forms on this planet, only one is 'intelligent' enough to be travelling and sending signals in space. Countless billions of potential life forms could easily escape detection even if the universe was teeming with life. Only a physical search by space travel could find them.

Statistically speaking, I suspect that most alien life out there would be very primitive by our standards and undetectable by the methods of SETI, since their method can only detect signals emitted by an electronically advanced culture. So, I won't hold my breath waiting for success any time soon.

But pseudo-science it definitely is NOT.

 

[wisemo]

I'm going to have to agree with JayT on that one.

Scribble; it seems like, to me, you're a little confused. What you really mean is that you think SETI is a waste of time and resources. That is acceptable and can be strongly defended. But to say that it is unscientific isn't true.

Mo

 

[T'ai Chi]

A question is, after how many years of not finding anything would you shut it down?

 

[coalesce]

A question is, after how many years of not finding anything would you shut it down?

I would keep it going as long as there is funding because of all the other information it gathers. It may not yet show signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life, but that doesn't mean that the other information in automatically invalid.

And yes, I am a SETI home user, as is my mother.

Michael

 

[T'ai Chi]

Same thing with paranormal studies. You know, you might get a lot of information about random number generators, psychology, etc., even if no paranormal stuff really exists.

A great argument for continued study.

 

[drkitten]

Same thing with paranormal studies. You know, you might get a lot of information about random number generators, psychology, etc., even if no paranormal stuff really exists.

.... if the studies were done competently.

Actually, even having the studies done incompetently would be a step forward from much of the current state of affairs, where the studies are actively fraudulent.

But the single biggest problem with paranormal studies are the paranormalists themselves. There's nothing wrong, for example, with the idea of studying random number generators -- in fact, I know a number of specialists who do exactly that for a living, and who have a publication list that extends from approximately here to... well, to a hell of a long way from here.

But the people I refer to who are doing this tend to be statisticians, probabilistics, cryptographers,... mathematical specialists who actually know what they're doing. I haven't seen that level of statistical sophistication from many paranormalists. I know some very good psychologists who are doing some very good work in psychological research.

But I also know a few very good mathematicians who are very very bad psychologists indeed, and their work in that area isn't worth the PDF file it's printed on.

 

[ma1ic3]

I don't know what the probability of intelligent lifeforms evolving somewhere else is. But if I had to bet my life on it, I would definitely vote YES that it has evolved somewhere else in the universe.

 

[Notrump]

Don't Worry

I highly doubt there are other technological civilizations in the galaxy. Obviously, some other folks believe (hope, wish) there are. If they want to spend their own money on a fairly scientific research program, so be it. At least my tax dollars are no longer being spent (they once were), and I do benefit from learning about their negative results. On the remote chance that they are right, I would certainly learn something. It’s true that our collective resources could be invested more wisely, but that could be said about a great many things in a free society. I don’t know that pseudoscience is quite the appropriate term, but I’m in sympathy with the direction the original poster seemed to be heading.

When I was eleven I attended a planetarium lecture on the origin, age and future of the universe. At the bus stop going home I got to thinking that even if I lived to be a hundred, the chance of the current moment in the history of the universe also being a moment in my life was pitifully small. While the odds of my being alive at that moment were weak, nevertheless I knew I could only consider the problem during my lifetime. Logic trumps probability. Matter and energy may have had to jump through countless high and tiny hoops to produce mankind. But despite the odds, they obviously succeeded at least once. Although that it no way proves it happened twice or was even likely to have occurred elsewhere.

We are a result of a process of biological evolution. Genes protect their own kind and destroy those that directly threaten them or compete for resources. The fittest survive. Our own species has engaged in war and genocide right up to the modern era, not to mention what we do to other species. We likely disposed of the Neanderthals and other humanoids. Yet we are more closely related to a blade of grass, than to any extraterrestrial, no matter how intelligent it might be.

I would be concerned about the designs of a race of technological extraterrestrials that became aware of our existence. Those who assume (hope, wish) that evolution will eventually lead to harmony and brotherhood among all intelligent creatures are probably kidding themselves. Survival is what matters, and its means may not be what some Polyanna thinks it should be. Yet I submit that it is Polyanna who is searching for extraterrestrial intelligence. She is relatively harmless as long as she only attempts to receive signals and not send them.

To some the notion that intelligent extraterrestrials would come to guide us, gives them almost religious comfort even if they have abandoned traditional religions. Yet this is a motivation for many SETI people. But would we really want to become like Eloi and have no need to think or provide for ourselves? Would we prefer to have learned the laws of mechanics from ET rather than Galileo and Newton? If ET really came to “serve man”, would we really be better off? Would life be worth living?

The universe has existed for 13.7 billion years. One percent of one percent of that is 1.37 million years. I suspect it is rather unlikely that two intelligent species reached our technological level together in the galaxy within a time span less than that. We are probably either well ahead of whichever species (if any) is in second place, or well behind any other that might be in first place. And if there are tens of thousands of such species, as some SETI promoters suggest, at least one of them at one time in its history could easily have had a leader who led a campaign of galactic cleansing. It only had to be done once for our species to be exterminated. I submit that if any species became technological before us, they would have wiped out our ancestors as vermin long ago, and we would not be holding this discussion.

So I would be worried and not pleased if SETI were successful. Yet since our ancestors were not destroyed by extraterrestrials long ago, that sets asides my fears and leads me to the happy conclusion that technological ETs never have existed. We are the ones for the rest of the galaxy to fear. It seems we are in first place and will be the ones to colonize the galaxy before any ET species (if any) leaves its caves. Of course, after its beginning, this colonization would not be directed from Earth. Each new colony after a few thousand years may feel the need to expand to even more planets. Eventually speciation would take place among our descendents. It there are any future star wars, they may be among our own unfamiliar appearing posterity.

 

[gnome]

The outcome of differing races exploring the galaxy, as I see it, depends on the pace.

One might presume that as exploration begins, a race's sphere of influence cannot expand faster than the speed of light, and that in fact it's likely to expand far more slowly. However, expansion is feasible with sleeper-ships and generation ships as described in Sci-Fi.

The question is one of probable timing. Easy to assume that races will not evolve at the same time on a historical scale... likely to be astronomical differences between when each one becomes exploratory. If expansion covers the galaxy on a timescale significantly smaller than the likely time difference between emergence of intelligent life, then the first to evolve will likely cover the galaxy before another has a chance.

However, if expansion is similar or slower, my speculation is something more interesting happens... yes... in general there is likely to be vast differences in technology between older and newer races... but as they begin to intersect... consider the leading edge of the expansion-- a typical "frontier" as it expands may consist of mainly the same technology that began the expansion. yes, the core worlds left behind have since become more advanced... but does the technology reach the frontier as fast as the expansion occurs? If not, one can suppose that at an intersection of expanding races, the leading edges may have similar levels of technology... no matter how different the core worlds might be.

A lot of speculation I know.

 

[Schneibster]

I highly doubt there are other technological civilizations in the galaxy. Obviously, some other folks believe (hope, wish) there are. If they want to spend their own money on a fairly scientific research program, so be it. At least my tax dollars are no longer being spent (they once were), and I do benefit from learning about their negative results.

Your thesis is, they're more likely hostile; in that case, this is intelligence gathering. And that means that it is indeed worth your tax money.

Personally, I'd give it about one chance in five.

 

[temporalillusion]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but an interesting link on the subject (sorry if it's already been posted):
hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_last_theorem

A question is, after how many years of not finding anything would you shut it down?

I don't know if you can ever shut it down; just because we scanned a star 100 years ago doesn't mean that something may have just reached the stage we could detect them however many millions of years ago and their signals are just now reaching us.

 

[Schneibster]

A question is, after how many years of not finding anything would you shut it down?

Ummm, after the cretinists decide they really don't want to know and cut the funding because they think it might make people stop believing in the book by the neolithic sheep herders?

 

[andyandy]

. There's nothing wrong, for example, with the idea of studying random number generators -- in fact, I know a number of specialists who do exactly that for a living, and who have a publication list that extends from approximately here to... well, to a hell of a long way from here.

But the people I refer to who are doing this tend to be statisticians, probabilistics, cryptographers,... mathematical specialists who actually know what they're doing.

When you say "study random number generators" what do you mean? Looking for patterns within randomly generated numbers, or studying how to create a truly random number generator?
.....i seem to remember that no generator we use is truly random...although i don't quite see why not....
If a program is set so that 0-9 each can be chosen with prob 0.1, and then that program is iterated n times to create an n long number....why is that not random?

[bit of a derail....i can start a new thread if there's a lot to discuss....it seems like an interesting topic ]

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm not sure if this has been covered or not but Battlestar Galactica is real.

That is all.