Are the SETI kooks still at it?

London England wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
ups.com...
I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare
processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life.
I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific
theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable?
I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish.


Go watch Contact. The drake thing is actually an equation of probability
isn't it?
But then agian maybe not because equations of probability require known
events.
Our existence is totally improbable but, here we are. Why was it that apes
evolved a complex cerebral cortex? Why are we favoured over all other
possible paths? What happened here
that can certainly happen elsewhere in a whole universe?

I think the numbers are low for this galaxy and we probably will never make
contact.



Evolution of complex brains on this planet is not limited to humans,
for example, some marine species have developed very complex brains
that can sense and change 20 million pigment cells in less than a
second to camouflage them selves to mimic the environment they are in.

# Octopus escape responses: 1) be a chunk of sea weed or sponge,
2) Be big!, 3) Use camouflage to hide on a rock, 4) surprise the
predator by blanching, 5) Inking, and 6) being really weird looking
with big, dangerous eyes
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/An...lopods/o10.gif

# Squid camouflage- Note how the spots on the back change to match
he background. The end of the sequence shows how well-hidden he
would be to an animal with monochromatic vision.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/An...lopods/o08.gif

Go watch Contact. The drake thing is actually an equation of probability
isn't it?
But then agian maybe not because equations of probability require known
events.
Our existence is totally improbable but, here we are. Why was it that
apes
evolved a complex cerebral cortex? Why are we favoured over all other
possible paths? What happened here
that can certainly happen elsewhere in a whole universe?

I think the numbers are low for this galaxy and we probably will never
make contact.

Evolution of complex brains on this planet is not limited to humans,
for example, some marine species have developed very complex brains
that can sense and change 20 million pigment cells in less than a
second to camouflage them selves to mimic the environment they are in.

# Octopus escape responses: 1) be a chunk of sea weed or sponge,
2) Be big!, 3) Use camouflage to hide on a rock, 4) surprise the
predator by blanching, 5) Inking, and 6) being really weird looking
with big, dangerous eyes

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/An...lopods/o10.gif

# Squid camouflage- Note how the spots on the back change to match
he background. The end of the sequence shows how well-hidden he
would be to an animal with monochromatic vision.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/An...lopods/o08.gif


But But but...Buck Buck. They don't have self awarness. They don't build
rockets to Mars etc. etc.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:52:06 -0600, Tim Killian
wrote:


Like too many elements of modern "science", SETI is a faith-based
endeavor...


What a load of bull puckey!

SETI is entirely scientific. It begins with the simple observation that
life exists in one place (here). There are no other assumptions or
theories involved. SETI is a program of observation, and the logic is
compelling: we have no way of estimating the probability of finding ETI,
so all we can do is observe; if we don't observe, we'll never know, so
observation is good. There is no "faith" involved, anymore than in any
other program of observation.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


A line drawn through a single data point can go in any direction. I have
nothing against random observation (most on s.a.a. are guilty), but I do
have a problem when it's portrayed as a serious scientific pursuit. SETI
doesn't even rise to the level of a theory because it cannot be
falsified. It's an activity that provides gainful employment for
scientists and engineers (good) but it also opens the doors to rife
speculation and political machinations (bad).

I disagree about there being no element of faith in SETI. SETI has
returned no results and the assumption is always that more capable
equipment ($$$) and more observations ($$$) will overcome this lack of
results. Where is the reasoned science that supports these assumptions?
Isn't it the Philosopher's stone all dressed up in 21th century
clothing? Of course even Isaac Newton was guilty of looking for that
transmutation trick, so who are we to complain if some people spend
their time and treasure listening for distant messages that never arrive?

I disagree about there being no element of faith in SETI. SETI has
returned no results and the assumption is always that more capable
equipment ($$$) and more observations ($$$) will overcome this lack of
results.


So? You're not paying for it. And no faith is involved. SETI is just listening/looking. They might never see/hear anything. If no one looks/listens we'll never know. But i'm glad that someone is listening.


..Florian

Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a
science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a
possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with
absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of
success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable.


Even a null result has scientific merit.

Well, then you might as well fund prayer as an experiment and claim that
the inconclusive results have scientific merit.

Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. Loaded with
hope, little to no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. And the premise
("there just has to be somebody else out there") is logically identical
to the premise of western religion. I have no problem with either of
these activities - people can pursue whatever innocuous activity that
pleases them. But it is annoying when I read otherwise sane and rational
scientists who refuse to acknowledge the similarities between them.

Chris

London England wrote:
Go watch Contact. The drake thing is actually an equation of probability
isn't it?
But then agian maybe not because equations of probability require known
events.
Our existence is totally improbable but, here we are. Why was it that
apes
evolved a complex cerebral cortex? Why are we favoured over all other
possible paths? What happened here
that can certainly happen elsewhere in a whole universe?

I think the numbers are low for this galaxy and we probably will never
make contact.
Evolution of complex brains on this planet is not limited to humans,
for example, some marine species have developed very complex brains
that can sense and change 20 million pigment cells in less than a
second to camouflage them selves to mimic the environment they are in.

# Octopus escape responses: 1) be a chunk of sea weed or sponge,
2) Be big!, 3) Use camouflage to hide on a rock, 4) surprise the
predator by blanching, 5) Inking, and 6) being really weird looking
with big, dangerous eyes

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/An...lopods/o10.gif

# Squid camouflage- Note how the spots on the back change to match
he background. The end of the sequence shows how well-hidden he
would be to an animal with monochromatic vision.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/An...lopods/o08.gif


But But but...Buck Buck. They don't have self awarness. They don't build
rockets to Mars etc. etc.



They don't build rockets to Mars, but the do camouflage to their
surroundings. That's an unfounded claim, "They don't have self awar[e]ness".

starburst wrote:


Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a
science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a
possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with
absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of
success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable.


Even a null result has scientific merit.


Well, then you might as well fund prayer as an experiment and claim that
the inconclusive results have scientific merit.

Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. Loaded with
hope, little to no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. And the premise
("there just has to be somebody else out there") is logically identical
to the premise of western religion. I have no problem with either of
these activities - people can pursue whatever innocuous activity that
pleases them. But it is annoying when I read otherwise sane and rational
scientists who refuse to acknowledge the similarities between them.

Chris
So you suggest to plug our ears and cover our eyes,
because it would be unscientific to listen and look
for something we know happened at least once??
Wow, now that is an interesting way to conduct science......

starburst wrote:


Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a
science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a
possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with
absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of
success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable.


Even a null result has scientific merit.

Well, then you might as well fund prayer as an experiment and claim that
the inconclusive results have scientific merit.

Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science. Loaded with
hope, little to no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. And the premise
("there just has to be somebody else out there") is logically identical
to the premise of western religion. I have no problem with either of
these activities - people can pursue whatever innocuous activity that
pleases them. But it is annoying when I read otherwise sane and rational
scientists who refuse to acknowledge the similarities between them.

Chris

Of Faith and Facts: Is SETI Religion?
http://www.seti.org/site/apps/nl/con...993&ct=2518387

Worth reading!

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:41:51 -0600, Tim Killian
wrote:

A line drawn through a single data point can go in any direction. I have
nothing against random observation (most on s.a.a. are guilty), but I do
have a problem when it's portrayed as a serious scientific pursuit. SETI
doesn't even rise to the level of a theory because it cannot be
falsified.

"Rise to the level of a theory"? Do you even think about what you are
saying? SETI isn't a theory, and it doesn't try to be. It is extremely
simple: we have an example of one, and wonder whether that implies more.
We only have one way of determining that- by observation. If we see one
star with an unexpected spectrum, we look for others. Is that foolish?
Is that "unscientific"?


I disagree about there being no element of faith in SETI...

You would. You've amply demonstrated in past posts where you put your
faith, and it has nothing to do with reason. That explains why you don't
really understand the behavior of those who _are_ rational.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

starburst wrote in news:ecb5tc$k1s$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:



Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a
science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a
possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with
absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of
success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable.


Even a null result has scientific merit.

Well, then you might as well fund prayer as an experiment and claim that
the inconclusive results have scientific merit.

It's already been done.


Sorry, but SETI seems to me more akin to faith than science.

Looking for evidence is the exact opposite of faith. You superstitionists
realise deep down that faith is a perjorative term and therefore attempt to
use it to tar the science you hate. It's kind of bizzare, since religions
consider faith to be a desirable thing. The problem is that with faith all
sorts of kookiness is of equal merit. Science distinguishes between the
kooky and the real with evidence. There's that word evidence again that you
superstitionists fear more than any other.

Klazmon.

SNIP