Seti@home pointless?

[Bill Thompson]

Of course you don't know what I am getting at, when it seems your starting point is wholly and fully wrong.... Our sun is a 3rd generation (or late 2nd) Population I star. And the planets coalece separately from the sun. Both your statements are wildly innacuare to say the least.

Looks like you need to learn at least a few basics on planetary formation theories... Not to mention stellar formation...

THen the BBC special on The Planet's are wildly innacurate. Funny, they had the best and most respected scientists. They really put their name on the line. Which is more than I can say for you, LarianLeQuella, Elf Wino. You can understand if I go with what they say rather than your comment. I mean, I think your opinion is about worth as much as it cost for you to make this post. Which is nothing.

Unless my memory is wrong. But I am fairly sure I both remember and heard them correctly. I was very engrossed in the program.

What is more, a simple google search backs me up http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=where+did+the+sun+come+from&aq=0&oq=where+did+the+sun+come

And the majority of the "main stream public" also believe in creationism. This is the same "main stream public" that is unlikely to be able to identify neighboring countries on a map or do very basic math or give the name of the current U.S. Attorney General. So what? That is not the position of mainstream science, and not the position of anyone here.

You're arguing against a straw man.

What argument is that? What argument am I making that is straw man?

I don't understand. I am merely telling you what I have gathered from the people that I have talked to whose job it is to study these things.

And, as it has turned out, it is not at all what almost everyone else would like to think it is. I mean, sure there are a lot of creationists who have missed the boat. But I think that most everyone else has missed the boat too and they think the universe is teeming and pulsing with abundant life. And I mean, yes, life like we know it. And this is why SETI @ Home was so popular. Everyone seemed to be absolutely sure that we would get a radio signal from ETI in a few short years.

Actually, now that I have thought about it, I think it is you who are making and argument that is strawman. You are saying that since there are so many people who believe in creationism, then everything I have to say must be false. That is illogical. If that is not technically a strawman argument, it is clearly some sort of logical fallacy.

What science and scientists REALLY say is not what we intrepret them as saying and believing. Sure, they want the public to have hope that ET and ETI is out there, but the masses would not be as excited as finding a microbe. And, oddly enough, finding an extraterrestrial living microbe would be a HUGE deal and much more likely than finding a more evolved life form.

Here is a list of some very popular, common, and actually accepted beliefs that, if you ask any real scientist, you will find are actually myths.

The most common one is this. Myth: Because life exists in every corner on the surface of the earth. The Universe must be filled with life.

That idea is not logical. We seem to think the Universe and "the world" as being one and the same or simular. As I have shown in the Scientific American paper, The Universe is not life friendly. The Universe is, in fact life hostile. And it is life hostile to the EXTREME.

Myth: If you look at all the stars in the Universe it is absurd and ridiculous and actually somewhat arrogant and stupid to think that we could be the only planet with life on it.

The funny thing to me is that this is a simple misreading of what all those stars really mean to us.

It is the multitude of stars in the Universe that we have to thank for life existing at all. The existence of life is, at the core, a numbers game. It is all a matter of statistics. There had to be this multitude of billions of billions in order for the odds to be in favor of life coming into existence. If there were just a few hundred of stars in the galaxy and just a few hundred of galaxies, there would probably be no life in the Universe.

Mathematics, is in the core of physics and physics is in the core of everything. Probability and statistics play a role in Nature on earth. It also plays a role in the Universe. But not in the way most people think.

Here is another myth: The Drake Equation proves that there are many hundreds or even thousands of civilizations like ours in our galaxy.

The funny thing about astronomers is that they are often poor and unknowledgeable biologists. Astronomers like to blur and gloss over the minutia that they are unsure of and jump to some conclusions regarding biology. Every biologists I have spoken too admits that there are many mysteries in the development of life on Earth on the mocrobial level and although most of us would like to think we have worked out how live sprang from mud, there are a lot of missing steps along the way (and no, I am not talking about reptilian or mammalian evolution here). And since there seems to me a lot of hurdles that were crossed just by sheer dumb luck, we can add lots of fractions to the Drake Equation to make it work out that it is unlikely for life to EVER had evolved in the Milky Way and our very existence is the result of a set of astronomical improbabilities and unimaginably good luck.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Here is another popular myth: Nature is good and Nature loves life. This is absurd to me to the extreme! Nature is good?!?!? Since when? When has Nature been our friend? Everyone seems to buy into this. "Natural" is a selling point on boxes of breakfast food boxes and they fly off the counter at the store. How funny!! Nature is not life's friend. Nature is not mankinds friend. Nature is our enemy. We owe our existance and survival to having evolved a brain to fight Nature. We battle insects for food. We battle germs and bacteria daily. This is the very reason why there is an "evil" and a invisible "devil" in our cultures to explain why millions of us are wiped out every once in a while. Anyway this is another reason why we think there must be a lot of live out there: Because, we think, it is only "Natural". If Nature would have its way, it is not illogical to assume, there would not be much life out there.

 

[Lonewulf]

Which is more than I can say for you, LarianLeQuella, Elf Wino.

Yeah, ad hominems aren't going to get you very far here.

 

[Myriad]

The arguments in this thread are beginning to become personalized. Please do not continue in that course. Remember Rule 12 of your Membership Agreement. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Myriad

 

[LarianLeQuella]

THen the BBC special on The Planet's are wildly innacurate. Funny, they had the best and most respected scientists. They really put their name on the line. Which is more than I can say for you, LarianLeQuella, Elf Wino. You can understand if I go with what they say rather than your comment. I mean, I think your opinion is about worth as much as it cost for you to make this post. Which is nothing.

Unless my memory is wrong. But I am fairly sure I both remember and heard them correctly. I was very engrossed in the program.

What is more, a simple google search backs me up http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=where+did+the+sun+come+from&aq=0&oq=where+did+the+sun+come

Actually, the BBC program supported the idea that the planets coalese out of material that surrounds the central stellar body. I think that you may be fundamentally misunderstanding the program. I was arguing that our sun didn't make the earth. Our sun is late 2nd or 3rd generation, meaning that there is plenty of stuff aside from H and He to make stuff with. Which again all your links point to, so I am at a loss as to what you are trying to say... You really aren't making any sense. I think you have a fundamentally flawed view or understanding on how planets are formed around stars.

Your google search again supports our arguments more than yours... Unless you want to go with the creatonist link I saw in there.

My Real name is Jan Stephan Lundquist. I have a link to my personal web page if you wish to follow it (which explains my "nom de plume" even). Is being unpleasant a natural state for you? It sure seems like it.

 

[shadron]

All this talk about Mars really does not have anything directly to do with SETI and/or SETI @ Home.

OK, fine. You don't want to argue about Mars further, even though it was you who dragged Mars into the conversation back in post #52. OK, then, charge on.

And if you want to get specific it really has to do with how you define "life". I mean, I can remember when the Viking lander touched down and Carl Sagan was being interviewed along with Ray Bradbury (by the way, I met Ray Bradbury at a book signing in Santa Barbara once) and the reporter asked him how he felt about the event. He asked Ray Bradbury how he felt about having written so many books about life on Mars and how now all those stories would soon be outdated and if Bradbury was sad that we did not find life there.

Oops! Wait - I thought we were going back to the OP. What is this...one last tail lash at the opposition before abandoning the argument? Sheesh.

OK, so, you agree with what I said the scientific assessment was post-Viking. And Ray Bradbury, a science fiction writer renowned for his series featuring a civilization on Mars, The Martian Chronicals, tells you:

Here is the cool part. He said that, on the contrary, now there really IS life there and that the Viking probe is an extension of humanity. It is like our eyes and arm and feet are now extended to another world. I thought that is pretty cool.

Oh, it is. It's way cool, and in a metaphoric way of speaking, it was exactly correct. Life was now there. However, that is no excuse to simply quit thinking at that point.

That's some argument you've come up with. Viking didn't find anything, RB told me to buck up, life was there now, and you therefore decide that he's right and there is no possibility of life having ever developed on Mars. You can't see the gap in the logic there?

So it is how you view "life". It also depends on who you listen too. To get the real answer, you should go to the most educated person you can find and not just the science fiction fans.

OK, so we can go with Ray's metaphorical, let's-feel-good-about-this observation, and dismiss life on Mars as a possibility, and you classify those who feel that way as true scientists while those who want a second look, after some of the basic planetological assumptions have changed, as "science fiction fans". I hope you don't mind if I look just a bit askance at your logic.

I mean, if you really want to get down to specifics, there was once life on mars, but that is not the same as live evolving on mars.

And we know from the greatest and most educated and most intelligently gifted man who ever lived that there was life on Mars -- I mean biological life -- back in the 1840's. All you have to do is ask The Church for some of his recordings on the matter. But L. Ron Hubbard said that the outpost of the Golorkians was abandoned and since then, there has been little interest in Mars and Earth, for that matter.

Oh, jesus. Spoon off into the cosmos much? So, we're back in the realm of metaphor again, and this time life is defined as "The Church"'s view or that of L. Ron Hubbard. Get a grip, man. Lots of people manned Mars with beings to make an interesting story; that doesn't mean that that must therefore be the only life ever possible on the planet.

And who is this "The Church" who I have to go ask for recordings from?

So it is basically how you define life. I mean, we are basically apes if it weren't for our thetans placed there by Lord Xenu.

In the first place, your logic is full of holes and your conclusion doesn't follow. Your attempt to smear people who feel different from you as noobs and ignoramuses, or possibly as heretics, is noted.

Ok, let's see if anyone has anything to say before they read this disclaimer. I am joking in the last 4 paragraphs here.

Well, you sure did take me in. I expected you to argue, not to flop on the floor and expose your belly, giggling. You decided that you can joke your way out of being wrong about the possibility of life on Mars, or that you can kill the argument because it's not going well? What sort of skeptic are you?

You started it, you finish it. You're acting like a troll.

 

[shadron]

Here is a list of some very popular, common, and actually accepted beliefs that, if you ask any real scientist, you will find are actually myths.

The most common one is this. Myth: Because life exists in every corner on the surface of the earth. The Universe must be filled with life.

That idea is not logical. We seem to think the Universe and "the world" as being one and the same or simular. As I have shown in the Scientific American paper, The Universe is not life friendly. The Universe is, in fact life hostile. And it is life hostile to the EXTREME.

Myth: If you look at all the stars in the Universe it is absurd and ridiculous and actually somewhat arrogant and stupid to think that we could be the only planet with life on it.

The funny thing to me is that this is a simple misreading of what all those stars really mean to us.

It is the multitude of stars in the Universe that we have to thank for life existing at all. The existence of life is, at the core, a numbers game. It is all a matter of statistics. There had to be this multitude of billions of billions in order for the odds to be in favor of life coming into existence. If there were just a few hundred of stars in the galaxy and just a few hundred of galaxies, there would probably be no life in the Universe.

Mathematics, is in the core of physics and physics is in the core of everything. Probability and statistics play a role in Nature on earth. It also plays a role in the Universe. But not in the way most people think.

Here is another myth: The Drake Equation proves that there are many hundreds or even thousands of civilizations like ours in our galaxy.

The funny thing about astronomers is that they are often poor and unknowledgeable biologists. Astronomers like to blur and gloss over the minutia that they are unsure of and jump to some conclusions regarding biology. Every biologists I have spoken too admits that there are many mysteries in the development of life on Earth on the mocrobial level and although most of us would like to think we have worked out how live sprang from mud, there are a lot of missing steps along the way (and no, I am not talking about reptilian or mammalian evolution here). And since there seems to me a lot of hurdles that were crossed just by sheer dumb luck, we can add lots of fractions to the Drake Equation to make it work out that it is unlikely for life to EVER had evolved in the Milky Way and our very existence is the result of a set of astronomical improbabilities and unimaginably good luck.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Here is another popular myth: Nature is good and Nature loves life. This is absurd to me to the extreme! Nature is good?!?!? Since when? When has Nature been our friend? Everyone seems to buy into this. "Natural" is a selling point on boxes of breakfast food boxes and they fly off the counter at the store. How funny!! Nature is not life's friend. Nature is not mankinds friend. Nature is our enemy. We owe our existance and survival to having evolved a brain to fight Nature. We battle insects for food. We battle germs and bacteria daily. This is the very reason why there is an "evil" and a invisible "devil" in our cultures to explain why millions of us are wiped out every once in a while. Anyway this is another reason why we think there must be a lot of live out there: Because, we think, it is only "Natural". If Nature would have its way, it is not illogical to assume, there would not be much life out there.

Interesting series of stuff you have there, Bill. Unfortunately, it's not relevant, not because the logic you display while discussing them is flawed, but rather because I (and Larian and Joe, AFAIK) have not invoked them as arguments against your thesis. Rather, your profound lack of logic, fallacies of appeal to your "Real Scientist", and assumption of your own idenification of yourself as he suffices quite nicely.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Yeah, ad hominems aren't going to get you very far here.

No, that is his alias here. Check your facts. Under his alias he has "Elf Wino". You are amusing, "Lone Wolf". My point is simply this. Going with what a known scientists who does his work for a living and uses his real name is more logical than going with a contrary idea on a web forum where people are free to posts wims under aliases and are not held accountable.

But, besides...

OK, Jan Stephan Lundquist, I will reexamine this one part of the many many many things that point to the conculsion that it seems we are pretty lonely on the Universe.

Moving on to another idea...

It is interesting that Creationism has found its way into this discussion thread.

it is also interesting I am getting messages on a social network web site from a woman with a lot of religious faith.

My response applies here.

About believing in SETI: If you "believe" something is true just because you desperately want to believe it is true and will ignore any idea or evidence contrary to your belief; and if you "know" something is true just because you "know in your heart" it is true, then you are no different than a Creationist and you need to stop and have a lot of soul searching and personal examination.

I was a huge supporter of SETI@Home before I learned of Enrico Fermi's observation and found that he really made sense. I mean, I am with you, in thinking that it would be very cool if ETI was near by. But I think you need to force yourself to reconsider that, given all the evidence, it is much more likely that the nearest ETI like us is too far away.

Let me suggest this to shadron. If I was to say that you merely want to take apart what I have to say only because you want to doubt it, would I be lying? I made a post where I was clearly joking and at the end I said I was joking. My idea was this: I wanted to know something. Would you be motivate only to attack my post without reading it first? Clearly the answer is "yes".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was a huge supporter of SETI@Home before I learned of Enrico Fermi's observation and found that he really made sense. I mean, I am with you, in thinking that it would be very cool if ETI was near by. But I think you need to force yourself to reconsider that, given all the evidence, it is much more likely that the nearest ETI like us is too far away.

You're all over the place now. I thought you were arguing some form of the Rare Earth Hypothesis. Now, it sounds like you've changed to the position that ETIs are just not likely to be very close together. As pointed out, Arecibo could receive a targeted, narrow signal from as much as a thousand or so light years' distance. Surely SETI (using radio telescopy) is a much more efficient option than any other method we have to detect ETIs.
ETA: Though I caution against carrying any conclusions beyond the limited scope of SETI. That we haven't found anything doesn't prove much of anything.

And Fermi's Paradox doesn't support this position. According to that argument, if an ETI existed, it would necessarily be much older than us (for some reason) and it would necessarily have sent out self-replicating probes that would now be ubiquitous in the galaxy. Since they're not here, they don't exist. (That is, the approach of Fermi's Paradox makes the distances inconsequential.)

At any rate, I gave a pretty thorough debunking of that approach on the other thread on a similar topic. My arguments are numbered for your convenience. Any one of these is sufficient to debunk the "if they're not here, they don't exist" argument.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4412527#post4412527

 

[Lonewulf]

No, that is his alias here. Check your facts. Under his alias he has "Elf Wino". You are amusing, "Lone Wolf". My point is simply this. Going with what a known scientists who does his work for a living and uses his real name is more logical than going with a contrary idea on a web forum where people are free to posts wims under aliases and are not held accountable.

You'll notice that I said "ad hominem", and not insult. The two are not necessarily the same. Perhaps you should work to check your own facts.

And yes, that's what he goes by. Why did you repeat his name, if it wasn't there for all to see?

 

[AWPrime]

As pointed out, Arecibo could receive a targeted, narrow signal from as much as a thousand or so light years' distance.

Only if it is extremely powerful. And it assumes much.

 

[shadron]

Let me suggest this to shadron. If I was to say that you merely want to take apart what I have to say only because you want to doubt it, would I be lying? I made a post where I was clearly joking and at the end I said I was joking. My idea was this: I wanted to know something. Would you be motivate only to attack my post without reading it first? Clearly the answer is "yes".

Does it make any difference too your argument what my personal point of view is? Why should you care? I don't claim that my point of view is neutral, but that has no bearing on this argument. You post on a skeptical forum and then wonder why you get argued with?

I will add that you may have seen your wording as clearly joking, but it certainly was not evident to me until I got to your declaration. I saw it as not a bit out of line with the thrust of your arguments right up to the end. When I saw that it was a red herring, I decided to let what I wrote stand. So, you're right - I didn't read it until I got there in my own writing. And that disqualifies what I wrote how?

You say you only want to know something, but that's not true, is it? You made pontifical assertions all through your postings, and then seem surprised when anyone disagrees with you. Then, you respond to none of my arguments (this has been the first reference you've made to me since the "Read you should" quip) which show that your assertions are merely that.

I think that quite thoroughly qualifies you for the role of troll.

 

[shadron]

Only if it is extremely powerful. And it assumes much.

Sure it does, but we're faced with the problem every man has when wanting to win that $150 million Powerball lottery. Sure, buying a ticket only gives him a very slim chance of winning, but not buying a ticket gives a zero chance, and there is an infinity of difference between those two numbers. Unlike buying a Powerball ticket, running SETI does have side benefits in means and methods that may be of use in other fields.

 

[AWPrime]

Sure it does, but we're faced with the problem every man has when wanting to win that $150 million Powerball lottery. Sure, buying a ticket only gives him a very slim chance of winning, but not buying a ticket gives a zero chance, and there is an infinity of difference between those two numbers. Unlike buying a Powerball ticket, running SETI does have side benefits in means and methods that may be of use in other fields.

You must always weight the odds against the costs. And any aliens will do so as well.

The power requirements make the notion of constantly sweeping the universe with a 'Here I am' signal downright decadent. And the distances involved would make communication nearly impossible and downright impractical.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Only if it is extremely powerful. And it assumes much.

See my ETA on that one. Not finding a signal from SETI tells us almost nothing, since it only rules out someone sending a strong signal right at us at the appropriate time to be arriving here exactly when we look in that direction.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I made a post where I was clearly joking and at the end I said I was joking.

I didn't buy that "just joking" bit for a second myself. It wasn't funny, so as a "joke" it was a complete failure. I think it was a way for you to make some points with impunity. As if by saying "just joking" you can say whatever you want and not have to answer for it.

If you didn't mean any of that, it would have been better not to make that post. I just treated it as if that were the case.

As far as what people believe is the case, I do think Carl Sagan's remarks that I quoted earlier are an accurate expression of current scientific consensus. We actually don't know, but it would be foolish and absurd to think that the Earth is special or unique somehow.

 

[Lonewulf]

Hey, you know, the Earth IS unique. I mean, the sun revolves it because it's just that awesome.

 

[AWPrime]

See my ETA on that one. Not finding a signal from SETI tells us almost nothing, since it only rules out someone sending a strong signal right at us at the appropriate time to be arriving here exactly when we look in that direction.

Isn't that reverse logic?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't that reverse logic?

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm saying that SETI is cheap, and a positive result, though very unlikely, would be awesome. The lack of a hit doesn't say much about the prevalence of ETIs in the galaxy.

SETI data do not support the conclusion that the Earth is unique or even rare.

 

[AWPrime]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm saying that SETI is cheap, and a positive result, though very unlikely, would be awesome.

Have you even considered this from the alien perspective? Even a directed signal would have to be enormously powerful. That costs money. And what kind of retarded species would keep sending this signal for hundreds of thousands of years just hoping to get a return signal back?

SETI data do not support the conclusion that the Earth is unique or even rare.

I actually don't care about that as my argument is independent of that.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Have you even considered this from the alien perspective?

Actually, that is one thing that I have harped on a great deal. However, since we are earthlings, our perspective will ALWAYS be biased, only because we lack any real information. Who the heck knows what they will or will not do? Who the heck has any idea as to what type of technology they will develop. WE JUST CAN'T SAY.

As I said earlier, I think the whole effort is an extreme longshot, but overall I think it's worthwhile just on the longshot (not to mention some of the side benefots that have been borne from the effort). So, just because we don't think we'll find something, we should just not search or do anything? Seems like the lazy approach to me.