SETI and the Drake Equation are Religion!

Wow! That's the conclusion of famed author Michael Crichton.

He basically says that the science of SETI isn't based on science at all -- but a scientific pipe dream.

And the Drake Equation is tantamount to religion. Basically, how can you say how much life is in the universe if your entire equation's variables are all hypothetical?

This is a must read for anyone who is a true skeptic.

*Sighs*

No, neither of them are a religion, there's no supernatural being, afterlife
or any of that prfessed by either Mr. Drake or the people at SETI.

The Drake equation does have it's flaw of being extremely variable,
and Mr. Drake himself has pointed that out before.

SETI is dedicatd to searching fo artificial extra-terrestrial radio signals,
and they realise, and will tell people that it's a long shot, however it's
better to look and catch something on the off chance, than not look
at all.

I read most of that diatribe and disagree with many of his points.
I won't get into global warming and his tirade against consensus,
but as for the drake equation:

His comparison with the nuclear winter formula does not hold water.
At least considering his snide comments about aliens.

Sure when you're plugging variables into a formula that you don't have a reliable way of estimating, the outcome is extremely uncertain. Sagan vastly overestimated the climate change from a nuclear war. Perhaps there was some political bias as he asserts, but that doesn't mean there won't be some climate change.

Same goes for the Drake equation. We have no way of knowing at this point in time, how many planets suitable for life actually develop. Or how many of those advanced communicating civilizations are around the same time as we are. But no matter how ridiculously low the variable, due to the incomprehensible size of the universe, there has to be more intelligently inhabited planets then just Earth. The only way that couldn't be the case is if one of the variables is 0. Which considering the shape of things, seems near impossible. In the strictest definition, it may not be considered science since you cannot test it. But it is logical. Now aliens/UFOs are a different matter but take a poll of the scientific community and I'll wager 90+% believe there is intelligent life somewhere other than Earth. Prejudiced perhaps. But less prejudiced than assuming human beings are it. Oh wait, but that's just consensus.

I think considering the vastness of the universe, it's far more religious to say humans must be alone since we have no hard physical evidence of aliens (at least not the general public) than to say in all probability, if nothing else due to the size of the universe, there must be life somewhere.

Originally posted by iori_komei

...

SETI is dedicatd to searching fo artificial extra-terrestrial radio signals,
and they realise, and will tell people that it's a long shot, however it's
better to look and catch something on the off chance, than not look
at all.

the Drake Equasion is actually counter religious, in that it supposes that modern
enlightened thinking finds it probable to have exterrestrial life.
[math & probability & modern logic =correct ~ scriptures=incorrect]
as organized religions teaching/imply......................... that 'we are unique'

as far as SETI, in my view they're a bunch of those who wish to avoid 'toiling-for-their-bread' in a competive work force.
...i do however applaud the pretense of providing a needed service & essentially B.S.ing the social order...& whisting all the way to the bank & accomplishing a life of leisure!

The Drake Equasion is pretty meaningless nearly every single variable in it at the minute isjust pure guesswork and results vary wildly the fact is we just dont have a clue and might never do.

I found this intresting although I dont quite think life is quite as unlikely as claimed here I do think life exists out there I just dont believe it will ever be capable of visiting us or vice versa.

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe.

the source and all statistics used can be found

likelyhood of ET

Although I dont totally agree with that articles use of statistics (some of them seem pretty irrelevant
to me) I do think its as valid as the Drake Equasion.

Oh please.
That statistic is clearly bogus.
It makes assumptions for life of a human, not alien lifeforms.

Also reading the last part

"Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles

That was an odd comment for a scientist. I googled Hugh Ross and apparently he is some kind of "progressive creationist". In other words, the guy's theory is to prove that God must have spontaneously created humanity because "the odds are just too great".

That figure he comes up with is wildly off the mark.
10^282 is a larger number than there are atoms in the galaxy !
Sounds like he's the one injecting religion into the question.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Schaden]

I've lost all respect for this man since his obviously politically motivated "State of Fear," where he ignores whole swaths of the science behind GW in order to make all those who are working on the subject matter look like faithful idiots(of which HE is much more guilty then any scientist I know). This "article" is no different and isn't worth the time to read for any "true" skeptics.

There's 20 minutes I'll never see again.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by Schaden
Oh please.
That statistic is clearly bogus.
It makes assumptions for life of a human, not alien lifeforms.

Also reading the last part

"Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles

That was an odd comment for a scientist. I googled Hugh Ross and apparently he is some kind of "progressive creationist". In other words, the guy's theory is to prove that God must have spontaneously created humanity because "the odds are just too great".

That figure he comes up with is wildly off the mark.
10^282 is a larger number than there are atoms in the galaxy !
Sounds like he's the one injecting religion into the question.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Schaden]

Yeah I agree with you to a certain extent the article is clearly religion based in it's motive although it is evidence people can play with numbers to show anything they like I think the Drake equasion is exactly the same its just playing with numbers until you get whatever result you wanted.

To be blunt we just dont know and people can use maths to show whatever agenda they want. The Drake Equasion can never be valid unless we knew every variable and at that point we would how much life there was to start with.

I'm just curious as to why there are two threads about the same topic by the same Author? I tried my best to spot the differences - other than different wording, but failed to spot them...?

*** Shrug ***

I can understand attacking the growing institution of "Science is Reality". This is used as an influencer in geopolitics, and it particularly disturbs some conservatives at the moment. But it also disturbs the libertarian thinker, who understands its power as a social control mechanism.

Still, the Drake Equation is a model. Belief in a particular outcome of the model is what may be religeon, and I believe that is what Michael C is saying.

But it is not the same kind of religeous problem we are used to seeing in this world. For anwering it is simply a matter of going to the stars and looking around.

A religeon with a realistic future conclusion, in my opinion, is a breath of fresh air.

There is no difference in the threads Gemwolf.

The poster is just trying to get attention/points.

Attention, yes; points, I can care less.

Actually, if you read it, the speech straddles a couple of different topics. I thought the whole issue with SETI and Drake's Equation would be of particular interest to the UFO group, while the entire speech is focused on science in general.

So I posted on both forums because I think there is little bleedover between the two, depending on your interest.

I'm not a points slut.

Ok, well you never know with newer members, I suspect you
understand.

For future reference though, you can't post the same thing in
two different sections, you have to choose one or the other.

Originally posted by iori_komei
*Sighs*

No, neither of them are a religion, there's no supernatural being, afterlife
or any of that prfessed by either Mr. Drake or the people at SETI.

Where did you get all that from?

The Drake equation does have it's flaw of being extremely variable,
and Mr. Drake himself has pointed that out before.

With so many variable's it's pretty clear that is more than useless.....

SETI is dedicatd to searching fo artificial extra-terrestrial radio signals,
and they realise, and will tell people that it's a long shot, however it's
better to look and catch something on the off chance, than not look
at all.

Actually it's a exceedingly dumb thing to do as that would be the last choice for communication of anything i can think of. How long does radio waves take to get here from anywhere else? If the ruins on the Moon and Mars does not prove alien life then radio signals certainly never will.

Stellar

Originally posted by sardion2000
I've lost all respect for this man since his obviously politically motivated "State of Fear," where he ignores whole swaths of the science behind GW

There is no science behind global warming and the Earth has actually been in a cooling trend since 1999.

in order to make all those who are working on the subject matter look like faithful idiots(of which HE is much more guilty then any scientist I know).

They are worse than faithful idiots ( the science is so bad that no intelligent person can actually be convinced after studying the topic) since they are clearly knowingly lying about it.

This "article" is no different and isn't worth the time to read for any "true" skeptics.

It's the best article i have seen in some time exposing the criminal intent of the western science establishment.

There's 20 minutes I'll never see again.

Nothing compared to the time you have wasted to end up in your current ignorant state on this subject.

Stellar

theres just to many people with " the Correct answer " in the world today.... they dont even wanna see if there could be more answers to the same question..... in most cases their are...

Now why all this bashing on Seti? Seti is a NON-Profit Organization.. i mean for crying out loud the guys who made seti started with a HOMEMADE radio anttenna, an they get people to do their PROCESSING power on their HOME COMPUTERS! why is this money grabing or Useless?

How are you to know ETs ( which havent been proven or disproven ) are gonna commuicate with what method? ) an if you do why aren't you having at it? WHats the name of your Organization an wheres your programs to compute your Findings?

lay off the subject of Seti an stay on the subject of how recockulos it is to call a Idea
about ETs using radio waves to contact us, or a Equation a religion..........

Im sorry but this is Planet earth, We are Humans, An thinking an brainstorming is what we do, comming to ideas an then exicuting them is how we fucntion... might wanna try it besides just BASHIN some idea you didnt even come up with yourself...
Live life, think, become something more then a hate caller or petty argument....

Kool Aid anyone?






[edit on 7-10-2006 by Tranceopticalinclined]

Originally posted by Schaden
I read most of that diatribe and disagree with many of his points.

Then you are very badly informed.

I won't get into global warming and his tirade against consensus,
but as for the drake equation:

You really should....

His comparison with the nuclear winter formula does not hold water.
At least considering his snide comments about aliens.

It floats pretty well.

Sure when you're plugging variables into a formula that you don't have a reliable way of estimating, the outcome is extremely uncertain. Sagan vastly overestimated the climate change from a nuclear war. Perhaps there was some political bias as he asserts, but that doesn't mean there won't be some climate change.

If it's based on bias and speculation what's the point of it? Why propose that there still might be some truth to it if there really is no evidence?

Same goes for the Drake equation. We have no way of knowing at this point in time, how many planets suitable for life actually develop.

We detected life on Mars so that certainly increased the odds no end...

Or how many of those advanced communicating civilizations are around the same time as we are. But no matter how ridiculously low the variable, due to the incomprehensible size of the universe, there has to be more intelligently inhabited planets then just Earth.

Why? I happen to agree that life is not rare but why do you think the size of the universe plays a part in that?

The only way that couldn't be the case is if one of the variables is 0. Which considering the shape of things, seems near impossible. In the strictest definition, it may not be considered science since you cannot test it.

Actually one may believe something before you can properly test it yet still be right in the end as it so evident from scientific history. It just so happens that it's not very useful when trying to convince others...

But it is logical.

Is it?

Now aliens/UFOs are a different matter but take a poll of the scientific community and I'll wager 90+% believe there is intelligent life somewhere other than Earth. Prejudiced perhaps. But less prejudiced than assuming human beings are it. Oh wait, but that's just consensus.

I doubt that many scientist thinks that or that the consensus points to a universe teaming with life.

I think considering the vastness of the universe, it's far more religious to say humans must be alone since we have no hard physical evidence of aliens (at least not the general public) than to say in all probability, if nothing else due to the size of the universe, there must be life somewhere.

Well i guess humans could have built all those structures on the Moon and Mars but how sure are we of that?

Stellar

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
theres just to many people with " the Correct answer " in the world today.... they dont even wanna see if there could be more answers to the same question..... in most cases their are...

Well i welcome solutions to our problems as long as they do not demand ( as they almost always does) that we give up ever more freedoms and lower our expectations. When someone tells you should live with less be VERY suspicious.

Now why all this bashing on Seti? Seti is a NON-Profit Organization.. i mean for crying out loud the guys who made seti started with a HOMEMADE radio anttenna, an they get people to do their PROCESSING power on their HOME COMPUTERS! why is this money grabing or Useless?

It's one massive distraction form useful and interesting research into the topic of life on other planes which could be better spent looking at pictures of Mars which in my opinion would reveal the answer to that question within hours...

How are you to know ETs ( which havent been proven or disproven ) are gonna commuicate with what method? ) an if you do why aren't you having at it? WHats the name of your Organization an wheres your programs to compute your Findings?

I look at actual scientific data returned from the instruments sent to other planets in this solar system. No one at SETI can even begin to claim the same level of objectivity.

lay off the subject of Seti an stay on the subject of how recockulos it is to call a Idea
about ETs using radio waves to contact us, or a Equation a religion..........

It's in my opinion just distraction when any scientist suggest that interstellar communication happens by radio waves and not by capsule sent at a few hundred times the speed of light.

Im sorry but this is Planet earth, We are Humans, An thinking an brainstorming is what we do, comming to ideas an then exicuting them is how we fucntion...

Your letting someone else establish the parameters of what you may think about for you and while your allowing that your not going to get any worthwhile thinking done.

might wanna try it besides just BASHIN some idea you didnt even come up with yourself...

And that is why i am ' bashing' them! They are silly ideas only people who have done no research , or are trying their hand at disinformation, would come up with.

Live life, think, become something more then a hate caller or petty argument....

Kool Aid anyone?

Thanks for the advice, dude.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Then you are very badly informed.

Elaborate ? Telling me I'm misinformed because I don't agree with him or you without any explanation is bad form.

Originally posted by StellarX
It floats pretty well.

It is a flawed analogy. Sagan wrote a paper attempting to calculate the effects of a full blown nuclear exchange with extremely variable data.
It turns out he wildly overestimated the impact. But there is still some impact.
Crighton says because the results from Sagan's study were so far off the mark, that Drake's equation is void and thus believing in aliens is a falsehood ?
No. Whatever the values of the variables in the Drake equation, so long as none are zero, there are other intelligent lifeforms in the universe.

That's the usefulness of the equation. I wouldn't count on it to accurately predict how many other lifeforms are out there, but it asks an important question. I said the Drake equation is not scientific because you cannot test it. Not everything needs empirical validiation for a truth to be recognized. Philosophy has enlightened, giving understanding, long before the scientific method.

Originally posted by StellarX
We detected life on Mars so that certainly increased the odds no end...

No we didn't ? If you're referring to that meteorite found in Antarctica, there is a plethora of studies and peer reviewed papers submitted explaining natural non-organic causes for all of the phenemenon that the original scientists theorized were caused from microbial lifeforms. The original scientists still believe it is evidence of fossilized bacterial traces, but the majority of scientists who've looked at the matter do not. At best, it's a debatable question. Stating we've detected life on Mars as a fact is incorrect.

Originally posted by Schaden
Or how many of those advanced communicating civilizations are around the same time as we are. But no matter how ridiculously low the variable, due to the incomprehensible size of the universe, there has to be more intelligently inhabited planets then just Earth.

Originally posted by StellarX
Why? I happen to agree that life is not rare but why do you think the size of the universe plays a part in that?

You're misreading my statement. I have no idea whether or not life is rare or what the specific density of life is within the universe. But the size of the universe does suggest that no matter how rare it is, there are other lifeforms out there. We are here after all. And yes, that is logical.

Now aliens/UFOs are a different matter but take a poll of the scientific community and I'll wager 90+% believe there is intelligent life somewhere other than Earth. Prejudiced perhaps. But less prejudiced than assuming human beings are it. Oh wait, but that's just consensus.

Originally posted by StellarX
I doubt that many scientist thinks that or that the consensus points to a universe teaming with life.

I didn't say teaming with life. I said take a poll and 90% of scientists believe there is some other intelligent life out there beyond Earth.
Incidentally when asked this question, much like acceptance in the theory of evolution, a positive answer coorelates directly with the education level of the individual asked.

I think considering the vastness of the universe, it's far more religious to say humans must be alone since we have no hard physical evidence of aliens (at least not the general public) than to say in all probability, if nothing else due to the size of the universe, there must be life somewhere.

Originally posted by StellarXWell i guess humans could have built all those structures on the Moon and Mars but how sure are we of that?

"All of those structures on the Moon and Mars"
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're referring to the threads I've seen on this forum, Richard Hoagland's and John Lear's arguments, they don't sufficiently convince me.
Let's leave it at that ?

Look, I don't think that Crichton gives a hoot about whether or not SETI continues as an endeavor. What he is pointing out is that sometimes and increasingly so, public policy is based on bad science, which is not really science at all. As an example, he cites the Drake equation, which frankly is pure bunkum. I've always thought so myself and I'm glad to hear someone else say it.

SETI, nuclear winter, global warming, second-hand smoke all represent policy based on questionable data and while the ill effects of SETI might be minimal, as long as it is privately funded, the long term effects of science that heeds the beck and call of politicians is very bad indeed.

Based on these observations, Crichton proposes a solution:

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.

/epsws

He finishes with this admonition:

The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science. Thank you very much.

/epsws

SETI can continue for a million years. I believe that there is at least another race of intelligent beings out there and that they might be sending signals into space, but my belief in that has nothing to do with Drake's equation or the "wow" signal.

And the fact remains that we don't need expensive and onerous public policy based on quackery and that is Crichton's point and a very well stated one at that.