SETI is searching for empirical evidence of aliens. Sure, advocates of the fine-tuning argument would probably love for empirical evidence to be found to support their premises, but they rarely if ever search for empirical evidence to support the premises of the fine-tuning argument.
I think you just made that up. How would you know what areas of exploration are of interest to physicists and whether certain components are deliberately left unexplored?
You would agree that what SETI is doing isn't a scientific endeavor? Or are you objecting that my description describes what SETI is doing? If the latter, you have yet to point out how what SETI is doing differs from the description.
I would agree that "looking for something for which there is no evidence for the purposes of proving an unfalsifiable hypothesis that doesn't explain any observation isn't a scientific endeavor."
Sure, I am of the opinion that SETI is doing exactly as I described. They are indeed looking for signs of extra terrestrial intelligence for which there is no compelling evidence for the purposes of proving the unfalsifiable hypothesis that intelligent aliens exist, which doesn't explain any known observations. If you disagree please quit playing semantic games and specify why you disagree, please. I'm not trying to trick you into admitting anything -- I'm trying to get you to clearly state your argument.
What do you think I've been doing? I've provided numerous examples that contradict each of your claims in order to specify why I disagree.
I'm glad you've at least agreed that the set of characteristics isn't science. That was like pulling teeth.
See, that's my point. It doesn't even occur to me that it is necessary to agree that that set of characteristics isn't Science. It's clear that it isn't. Which makes it obvious that even though you were pretending that was what you were asking, you were really asking something else - the sine qua non of "begging the question".
Now let's discuss why you feel that SETI doesn't fit the description.
That's what I was discussing all along. What did you think I was discussing?
No, it's practically unfalsifiable if not theoretically so -- it can't be proven false. There is no way to look in every nook and cranny of the galaxy for aliens in order to prove that there are none. Just as it would be impossible to search everywhere around Jupiter for teapots in order to prove that there are none. In the case of aliens, it's possible that they're hiding from us, in which case even searching every nook and cranny wouldn't prove there are none. SETI can keep searching for aliens forever and never disprove the hypothesis that aliens exist.
Really? We'd never ever change our minds about the possibility regardless of how thoroughly we'd searched or how much more information we had about the rarity of the conditions that seem to lead to intelligent life?
So you're going to address the conditions independently after you've already agreed that together the conditions are unscientific. Seems like a straw man to me.
Really? If, as you say, all these conditions should be present in order for something to be considered unscientific, then doesn't the lack of one or more of the conditions mean that the thing
isn't unscientific? Doesn't that mean that it is reasonable to address the conditions independently, since they can be excluded independently?
The scientific hypotheses that don't explain observations typically explain known observations and are falsifiable.
Can you give me an example?
That's not what's meant by "explain known observations." Most scientific hypotheses that are presented without evidence are conceived because they explain an existing set of observations, but are also falsifiable so that they can be proven false by further testing.
Can you give me an example?
Sure, there are a lot of people who are curious about things for which there is no compelling evidence -- The Abominable Snowman, Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, faeries, invisible elephants, teapots orbiting Jupiter.
Interesting. I gave a list where people were curious about things for which there was no compelling evidence that led to ground-breaking scientific discoveries. You replied with a list of things that are considered ridiculous. Now why would you do that?
Your examples concerning telescopes and observing devices is a straw man -- the hypotheses they would be tested under wouldn't be unfalsifiable. The hypothesis would be "this telescope will make large distant objects easier to view" or "this microscope will make very small objects easier to view."
Really?
And all this without any compelling evidence that there were any very small objects or any distant moons to view.
What do you mean? A scientist usually has compelling evidence that bones are likely to be found where they are about to search for them. There is no compelling evidence that aliens are likely to exist anywhere. Searching "sun-like stars" is not equivalent to searching for dinosaur bones -- there is no compelling evidence that aliens will likely be found near other sun-like stars.
What is your yield threshold for 'compelling'? Success one time in two? ten? a hundred? a thousand?
The point here is that unlike paleontologists digging up bones, SETI isn't really looking at specific planets where evidence indicates that aliens are likely to be found (they really wouldn't know where they are likely to be found since they don't know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged here).
Why wouldn't sun-like stars be more likely to have earth-like planets, etc.?
I asked what conditions or events occurred on this planet by which intelligent life emerged. Your list didn't answer the question. All of those things exist on nearly every planet,
Really? Solvents and living organisms exist on nearly every planet? Man, am I
way behind on the news.
but we know that not all planets have intelligent life. So what conditions/events led to the emergence of intelligent life on this planet?
The ones I listed. If things are as you say, we should be watching Martian TV sometime within the next century.
They are topics which have to do with our presence here, but they are not the conditions or events by which intelligent life emerged. For example, "energy source" is a pretty general topic, and you didn't specify the energy source(s) required for intelligent life to emerge, the amounts of energy, the events that would be required to produce that energy, the types of energy that would prohibit intelligent life, etc.
I didn't, but then you didn't ask for a dissertation. If that's the sort of information you are looking for, I'd suggest you use a different source.
No, it does provide explanatory power.
How so? All it seems to do is provide an explanation after the fact in the same way that yy2bggggs' slot machine example does. When all outcomes are explained, it means that there is no explanatory power.
In fact, the argument is that it provides the best explanation for the observation that the universe is fine-tuned. Certainly you can disagree with the premises of the argument as well as the conclusion, but you can't really say that the argument provides no explanatory power.
Really? What wouldn't it be able to explain?
Of course they would. An argument for aliens based on buildings on Jupiter would be that aliens provide the best explanation of the buildings (not the only possible explanation, but arguably the best explanation).
Except 'aliens' wouldn't be the best explanation for 'lakes' on Jupiter.
The fine-tuning argument argues that a god would be the best explanation of a fine-tuned universe (again, not the only possible explanation, but arguably the best explanation).
Except God would be the best explanation for seeing anything the way that we see it.
What does that have to do with whether it's reasonable to assume that a being that can set the universal constants wouldn't be limited to the natural universe?
Why didn't you draw the line for 'natural universe' at 'those things with mass'?
One of the "rules" that applies to the natural universe is that the constants can't be changed.
Why? What if I simply don't feel like agreeing with the idea of rules and instead consider the universe the set of all observable events and their influences?
So if you're able to set the constants, it makes sense that you can't be subject to the rules that apply to the natural universe.
-Bri
That would simply be one of the influences on observable events and therefore part of the universe.
Linda
universal constants at all? I see no reason why there couldn't be a set of constants which normally wouldn't ever support life or even be 'stable,' and there'd still be life in a stable universe.
