Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-19-2005, 08:58 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Random SETI Comments & Questions

Err I dont quite get where you're coming from. As I understood the original question it was regarding why is SETI deemed scientific whereas religion is deemed faith-based. My response to that was that SETI is not science (and still does receive support from public funding bodies who would otherwise spend the money on science). I didnt claim it was unimportant nor that science is all that should be funded.

By the way, the homeopathy comparison doesnt die so easily (being another example of pseudo-science). Of course scientific studies have been undertaken disproving homeopathy - being pseudo science the homeopath can follow the same path as the SETI enthusiast. "Oh we just havent found anything yet - we need more time to keep looking"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-19-2005, 09:02 PM
maurile maurile is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 95
Default Re: Random SETI Comments & Questions

[ QUOTE ]
As I understood the original question it was regarding why is SETI deemed scientific whereas religion is deemed faith-based.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get that from the original post.

In any event, here's a good article on SETI and Intelligent Design by someone from the SETI Institute. Maybe it will help answer whatever question the original poster was asking.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-19-2005, 09:03 PM
Jeff V Jeff V is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 149
Default Re: Random SETI Comments & Questions

[ QUOTE ]
The universe is big, and the conditions necessary to produce replicators don't seem all that restrictive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This equals very likely? I don't even think this equals probably. But maybe maybe.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-19-2005, 09:08 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: Random SETI Comments & Questions

[ QUOTE ]
Err I dont quite get where you're coming from. As I understood the original question it was regarding why is SETI deemed scientific whereas religion is deemed faith-based. My response to that was that SETI is not science (and still does receive support from public funding bodies who would otherwise spend the money on science). I didnt claim it was unimportant nor that science is all that should be funded.

By the way, the homeopathy comparison doesnt die so easily (being another example of pseudo-science). Of course scientific studies have been undertaken disproving homeopathy - being pseudo science the homeopath can follow the same path as the SETI enthusiast. "Oh we just havent found anything yet - we need more time to keep looking"

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing wrong with scientific investigation into homeopathy if someone wants to fund it. However they should have scientific results that support it before they start claiming it works. The same with SETI.

It seems the only real question is should it be funded by public money. I'm not sure, it seems more like a hobbyiest thing to me but I don't know how much it costs or whether there are other tangible benefits such as improvements in technology, better data anlysis techniques, or other uses for the collected data.

chez
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-22-2005, 12:05 PM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: Random SETI Comments & Questions

[ QUOTE ]
I caught a program on The History Channel about SETI.

They said that litening, and looking power is 100 trillion times greater than when they began in the 60's. They also said computers measure and read patterns in sound, and light down to one billionth of a second in duration looking for signs of intelligence. And new technology that will see much larger areas in great detail-can't remember the stats here.

To date-nothing.

Regardless of religious beliefs-doesn't it take a tremendous amount of faith to keep looking? What basis is there to keep believing? Is the vastness of space reason enough to keep looking? Would I be out of line in saying that it's ok for these "scientists" to be taken seriously, but one that believes in God can't/shouldn't?

Jeff likes using -'s and to a lesser extent /'s and an even lesser extent third person vagueries. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


You're being too results oriented. If you look at the setiathome web site, there is an interesting interview with some of the PIs running the project. There are a number of points you miss with the implication of your post being that if we haven't found something, we probably are not going to do so.

1. Only some 35 percent of the sky gets searched.
2. Even at significantly higher resolutions, there is still plenty of data that we can miss.
3. You've installed some implicit faith regarding looking that doesn't need to be there. The whole point of SETI isn't to discover incontrivertable evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence that we know are there. It's an exploration to see if we can find something which, even given the analogies to earch, may or may not be there. As you pointed out, the terms in the Drake's equation have a great deal of uncertainty.

If you want to deal with the science of SETI, it's more about the search procedures, whether they work, and the ability to process the data. They can produce articles of a scientific and computer engineering nature that make original and useful contibutions to intellectual endeavor. It's much like how many DARPA projects have resulted, accidentally, in very useful contributions to society, one of the key example being ARPAnet that resulted in how we are now communicated, the internet. It is true that such work is not necessarily science.

It does back to the whole thing with going on a search or trying to discover or create new knowledge, part of the beauty and randomness is that you'll never know what you'll find.

I don't believe SETI is that expensive of a project, especially compared to the entire scientific budget of the US, NASA, or the research institutions that are deeply involved in the project (most notably UC Berkeley). It's a lot like drawing to a 2-outer in a gigantic 500 bet pot. You're odds of winning may be small, but making a small contribution could pay significant dividends.

If you don't consider SETI worthwhile once you've put it all in a fair perspective, it's understandable and I wouldn't hold it against you. Until you do (and I don't think you have), I'll probably consider you biased and misguided.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.