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

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.

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.

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.

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.