You mean this:
Ames would examine 1,000 Sun-like stars in a Targeted Search, capable of detecting weak or sporadic signals.
Or maybe this:
Project Phoenix concentrated efforts on that component of the NASA SETI project known as the Targeted Search. Its strategy was to carefully examine the regions around 1,000 nearby Sun-like stars.
That's hardly equivalent to paleontologists using compelling evidence to dig up bones where they are likely to be found, but interesting nonetheless.
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.
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.
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.
I'm glad you've at least agreed that the set of characteristics isn't science. That was like pulling teeth. Now let's discuss why you feel that SETI doesn't fit the description.
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.
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. The scientific hypotheses that don't explain observations typically explain known observations and are falsifiable.
Not only does SETI not explain any known observations, but "aliens exist" is unfalsifiable and they are searching for something for which there is no compelling evidence.
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.
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.
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."
Sure, people have stumbled upon bones without specifically trying to find evidence for a hypothesis, and were maybe even curious enough to continue digging in the same place for more. Sometimes weather data is collected in hopes that it will be useful later in testing hypotheses. But rarely is data collecting for the purpose of proving an unfalsifiable hypothesis that doesn't explain any observations.
That would be putting the cart ahead of the horse. Scientists don't generally make up hypotheses that don't explain any known observation and then later gather the observations that would be explained by the hypotheses. A scientist typically comes up with a falsifiable hypothesis that explains an existing set of observations, and then tests the hypothesis to determine whether it's true or false.
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.
Again with begging the question? That is NOT begging the question. I've already provided a definition of begging the question after you stated an incorrect definition.
In my opinion, SETI fits the description. If you disagree, please argue your point rather than accusing me of unrelated fallacies.
Of course. All of my hypotheses have been based on compelling prior research. Not "aliens exist" though -- there is no compelling prior research to support the existence of aliens. And I generally state how I intend to test the hypothesis, and how it might be proven false. Again, no falsifiability with "aliens exist." And I might even specify what known observations my hypothesis might explain if found to be correct. Again, "aliens exist" isn't particularly useful for explaining known observations.
I can't say for certain, but the page you cited didn't state that as a reason they were searching near those particular stars. If that's the reason, I would think that SETI might want to concentrate their resources on finding some evidence of aliens before attempting to talk to them.
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).
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, but we know that not all planets have intelligent life. So what conditions/events led to the emergence of intelligent life on this planet?
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.
No, it does provide 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.
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). 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).
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? One of the "rules" that applies to the natural universe is that the constants can't be changed. 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
Pointless to argue with you.
