|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely a religion
"J" == JoeSP writes:
J Author Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at CalTech, stated that J "The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not J science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." J True to form for a religion, the less you know about it, the more J interesting it is. The list of problems with SETI is now so long, J I couldn't bring myself to waste the watts of electricity needed to J run the SETI software. It's not clear to me why a fiction author is considered an authority on either science, religion, or philosophy (other than the fact that he is a celebrity). Nonetheless, take his statement at face value. First, what predictions does the Drake equation make? Second, why isn't the search for ET intelligence---as done in Project Ozma, META, SERENDIP, Project Phoenix, etc.---considered a test? -- Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/ sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely a religion
J Author Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at CalTech, stated that J "The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not J science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." It's not clear to me why a fiction author is considered an authority on either science, religion, or philosophy (other than the fact that he is a celebrity). Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, taught at Cambridge, and earned an M. D. from Harvard. It's possible that he was exposed to science, religion, and philosophy during his school years. His training was largely in the life sciences. You are correct that he is a celebrity which does not validate or invalidate his opinions on SETI. I think he's correct that the Drake equations do not predict anything and are not really testable. Whether this makes them a religion I don't know. Crichton is not the only person to express the belief that SETI is a cult or religion. Dave M. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely a religion
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:47:05 GMT, "David Martel"
wrote: J Author Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at CalTech, stated that J "The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not J science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." One does not necessarily follow the other. It's not clear to me why a fiction author is considered an authority on either science, religion, or philosophy (other than the fact that he is a celebrity). Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, taught at Cambridge, and earned an M. D. from Harvard. It's possible that he was exposed to science, religion, and philosophy during his school years. His training was largely in the life sciences. You are correct that he is a celebrity which does not validate or invalidate his opinions on SETI. I think he's correct that the Drake equations do not predict anything and are not really testable. Whether this makes them a religion I don't know. Crichton is not the only person to express the belief that SETI is a cult or religion. First it's necessary to define some terms and in their original, broader sense as they can be taken in narrower senses with multiple meanings. 1. Cult. *any* group that gets together with a common goal or belief. 2. Occult, *any* group that gets together with a common goal or believe that is hidden. 3. Religion, The feverent worship of *something* be it an idea, goal, person, or belief. From 3 virtually anything can be worshiped from money, to ideas, to people. Therefore whether a idea can be tested or not, or whether it is based on faith or science it can become a religion. From 1, it follows that any religious group would fall under the definition of cult, But as the worship is based on faith and is hidden typical religions are occult. If only the faithful can see the so called truth that reinforces you must be one of the cult which reinforces the occult definition. Many theories are tested and found valid or invalid only to later find the methods of testing themselves were invalid. Our ideas of the world and universe are constantly changing which requires new proofs. So for some seti would be both a cult and religion. For some it'd be just a cult and for some just an old fashiond pursuit of knowledge. Seti would not be occult as the goal is openly stated, it's only the answer has not been found. The drake equation is a *theory* which is based on many assumptions and those are so stated. That basically makes it a SWAG. (Scientific, Wild Assed Guess), but it's the best that has been come up with so far albeit the assumptions do tend to change a bit.. IE the theory is based on a number of widely variable scientific assumptions. That those assumptions can not be proven as of yet does not make the theory a religion. OTOH like almost anything else it most likely could be called a religion for some people. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Dave M. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely a religion
What is qeustionable a religion is a systeomology or the study of systems in
which the *principles* of a logical assertation may be tested to any extent of the observable universe. What stems from the bi-pedal form is a system of laws that pertains to war in other forms of life. What exists *as* the principles of such assertation is law and cannot be tested in any extent of the observable universe, to the extend of an invertable warning to fault to violation to error to exception in anything that can be thrown--is ammendment. Patrick Ashley Meuser"-Bianca" Cyberneticist "Roger" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:47:05 GMT, "David Martel" wrote: J Author Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at CalTech, stated that J "The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not J science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." One does not necessarily follow the other. It's not clear to me why a fiction author is considered an authority on either science, religion, or philosophy (other than the fact that he is a celebrity). Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, taught at Cambridge, and earned an M. D. from Harvard. It's possible that he was exposed to science, religion, and philosophy during his school years. His training was largely in the life sciences. You are correct that he is a celebrity which does not validate or invalidate his opinions on SETI. I think he's correct that the Drake equations do not predict anything and are not really testable. Whether this makes them a religion I don't know. Crichton is not the only person to express the belief that SETI is a cult or religion. First it's necessary to define some terms and in their original, broader sense as they can be taken in narrower senses with multiple meanings. 1. Cult. *any* group that gets together with a common goal or belief. 2. Occult, *any* group that gets together with a common goal or believe that is hidden. 3. Religion, The feverent worship of *something* be it an idea, goal, person, or belief. From 3 virtually anything can be worshiped from money, to ideas, to people. Therefore whether a idea can be tested or not, or whether it is based on faith or science it can become a religion. From 1, it follows that any religious group would fall under the definition of cult, But as the worship is based on faith and is hidden typical religions are occult. If only the faithful can see the so called truth that reinforces you must be one of the cult which reinforces the occult definition. Many theories are tested and found valid or invalid only to later find the methods of testing themselves were invalid. Our ideas of the world and universe are constantly changing which requires new proofs. So for some seti would be both a cult and religion. For some it'd be just a cult and for some just an old fashiond pursuit of knowledge. Seti would not be occult as the goal is openly stated, it's only the answer has not been found. The drake equation is a *theory* which is based on many assumptions and those are so stated. That basically makes it a SWAG. (Scientific, Wild Assed Guess), but it's the best that has been come up with so far albeit the assumptions do tend to change a bit.. IE the theory is based on a number of widely variable scientific assumptions. That those assumptions can not be proven as of yet does not make the theory a religion. OTOH like almost anything else it most likely could be called a religion for some people. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Dave M. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely a religion
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:37:06 -0400, "Patrick Ashley Meuser\"-Bianca\""
wrote: What is qeustionable a religion is a systeomology or the study of systems in which the *principles* of a logical assertation may be tested to any extent of the observable universe. What stems from the bi-pedal form is a system of laws that pertains to war in other forms of life. What exists *as* the principles of such assertation is law and cannot be tested in any extent of the observable universe, to the extend of an invertable warning to fault to violation to error to exception in anything that can be thrown--is ammendment. *Anything*, any belief system, or even any physically measurable endeavor can be turned into a religion. Whether it can be measured or not, whether it can be proven or not has no bearing on whether it may, or may not become a religion. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Patrick Ashley Meuser"-Bianca" Cyberneticist "Roger" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:47:05 GMT, "David Martel" wrote: J Author Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at CalTech, stated that J "The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not J science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." One does not necessarily follow the other. It's not clear to me why a fiction author is considered an authority on either science, religion, or philosophy (other than the fact that he is a celebrity). Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, taught at Cambridge, and earned an M. D. from Harvard. It's possible that he was exposed to science, religion, and philosophy during his school years. His training was largely in the life sciences. You are correct that he is a celebrity which does not validate or invalidate his opinions on SETI. I think he's correct that the Drake equations do not predict anything and are not really testable. Whether this makes them a religion I don't know. Crichton is not the only person to express the belief that SETI is a cult or religion. First it's necessary to define some terms and in their original, broader sense as they can be taken in narrower senses with multiple meanings. 1. Cult. *any* group that gets together with a common goal or belief. 2. Occult, *any* group that gets together with a common goal or believe that is hidden. 3. Religion, The feverent worship of *something* be it an idea, goal, person, or belief. From 3 virtually anything can be worshiped from money, to ideas, to people. Therefore whether a idea can be tested or not, or whether it is based on faith or science it can become a religion. From 1, it follows that any religious group would fall under the definition of cult, But as the worship is based on faith and is hidden typical religions are occult. If only the faithful can see the so called truth that reinforces you must be one of the cult which reinforces the occult definition. Many theories are tested and found valid or invalid only to later find the methods of testing themselves were invalid. Our ideas of the world and universe are constantly changing which requires new proofs. So for some seti would be both a cult and religion. For some it'd be just a cult and for some just an old fashiond pursuit of knowledge. Seti would not be occult as the goal is openly stated, it's only the answer has not been found. The drake equation is a *theory* which is based on many assumptions and those are so stated. That basically makes it a SWAG. (Scientific, Wild Assed Guess), but it's the best that has been come up with so far albeit the assumptions do tend to change a bit.. IE the theory is based on a number of widely variable scientific assumptions. That those assumptions can not be proven as of yet does not make the theory a religion. OTOH like almost anything else it most likely could be called a religion for some people. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Dave M. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TOBS: Origin of the Universe | Twittering One | Misc | 141 | April 28th 05 07:31 AM |
Science and Religion | Art D'Adamo | SETI | 0 | September 6th 04 01:49 AM |
Religion is an atrocity | Vierlingj | Astronomy Misc | 8 | May 19th 04 08:37 PM |
A brief list of things that show pseudoscience | Vierlingj | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 14th 04 08:38 PM |
Science and Religion | Art D'Adamo | Policy | 0 | April 20th 04 11:40 AM |