SETI: Science or Pseudoscience?

[Nyarlathotep]

Good point, Nyarlathotep (man, my fingers want to keep typing after the end of that for some reason).

However, if design was just a hypothesis, I would see nothing unscientific in looking for it, as long as it was done scientifically. That's my big issue. Data has to be examined critically. Another poster here, several years back, made a quote that I loved, one that seemed to get across the idea of science very well:

"It is the duty of every scientist to stand calmly by while his pet theory is tossed into a pit, and pounded by rocks."

We don't see this in ID. ID seems to place their theory in a padded room, looked away from view or any danger. They simply refuse to look for non-designer answers to any issue they come up with. It's not the hypothesis itself that makes in unscientific, but the way its investigated. And that is the point we need to drive home.

I am agreeing with you, but just trying to clarify the issue. I think many IDers and people unfamiliar with the arguments and reasoning get the impression that we think ID is unscientific just because they are looking for evidence of (g|G)od(s). It's not what they are looking for, but the way they look.

Yep. I'll agree that its sometimes a fine between testing a hypothesis and looking for evidence to support a pre-formed conclusion. However it is an important line to be aware of. If ID pared back its claims to "If there is a creator, then we should see effect X" (I have no idea what X could be, personally, but I'll give in that there might be SOMETHING they could use as evidence) and went looking for X, or if SETI were so bold as to claim "Alien civilizations DO exist" and then went trumpeting every difficult to explain radio signal as proof of their claim, regardless of whether the signal could have other explanations, then it might be fair to lump thema s being equivalent.

When I think about it, the word "If" is probably the most important thing that seperates a hypothesis from a claim....

 

[Hellbound]

CF:

I understand what you're syaing, really I do. But you're missing my point (I think).

I agree 100% with what you've said, and that goes along with the point I've been trying to make. The problem with the ID movement today is because of its methods...it examines data uncritically, with a preformed conclusion.

However, I don't think it's unscientific simply because it looks for evidence of design. Searching for evidence of design is not, in and of itself, unscientific. It is how this search is currently practiced that makes it unscientific.

If one hypothesized a possible designer, even a possibility of evidence of God, I wouldn't call it unscientific just because of that. I would call it unscientific because of the methods used by today's ID proponenets in reasearching it.

I'm trying to argue that, even if you take the claimed goals of ID as fact (we just want to look for evidence of design, this has nothign to do with religion), then it is still unscientific. BEcause it isn't the subject matter of the research that's the problem, but the methods and the way the research is conducted.

Hopefully that clarifies what I'm getting at a bit better. I'm not giving any credibility to the IDers. IN fact, I would think just the opposite. They are taking what could (although I highly, highly doubt it) be an interesting area of research, and turning it into a pile of absolute bollocks. Because they are, in general, dishonest, misinformed, uninformed, incompetent, and/or biased. Frankly, I wouldn't trust an ID "researcher" who told me the sky was blue (I'd have to open the window and take a look myself). However, they take an area of what could be valid (if most likely unproductive) research and polute it and corrupt it beyond salvage.

What you are talking about is the same thing I am talking about. It's noit the idea that "maybe the universe was designed" that is the problem, it's the methods, tactics, and actions of those who label themselves as today's ID movement.

 

[CFLarsen]

Huntsman,

By hypothesizing a possible designer, even a possibility of evidence of God, they are deciding what the goal must be, before the evidence is in. They are effectively post hoc'ing their way to the answer. They say: "Hey, the answer is God. How do we fit the data to prove that the answer is God?"

We cannot separate the idea of Intelligent Design from the idea of God. That is buying into their deceit: That it is possible to argue a "designer" without arguing God. It isn't. We would assume the answer before we even ask the question.

We cannot even begin to consider the ID claims of the Creationists, because that would mean that we gave them a credibility they simply do not deserve.

Their claims are inherently fundamentalistically religious. They start from a square we should not even acknowledge exist: That God exists. Until they can show the evidence, of course.

I'm sure that we argue the same point. We are both in total agreement. We just use different arguments.

 

[drkitten]

By hypothesizing a possible designer, even a possibility of evidence of God, they are deciding what the goal must be, before the evidence is in.

Unfortunately, this describes a lot of "real" science as well. For example, my former roomate at one point was involved in a lab that was looking for "the mass of the top quark." As I recall, they didn't find it -- another competing group found it first (and won the Nobel prize for it).

There's nothing wrong with deciding beforehand what you're going to look for, as long as you treat the evidence fairly when you find it.

Their claims are inherently fundamentalistically religious. They start from a square we should not even acknowledge exist: That God exists. Until they can show the evidence, of course.

But that's kind of the point. I have no objection to someone believing God exists and looking for evidence to support his belief (except for the fact that it's probably a Waste of Money, Brains, And Time). If the evidence does exist, it's almost certainly not going to hop out of the grass and into his lap -- he's going to need to go looking for it, and the only reason he will look in the first place is because he believes it's there to be found. It's when he starts misrepresenting the evidence that he found to make it say something ti doesn't that I have problems.

If you want to tell me that you think there are elephants living wild in northern Wales, I won't believe you. If you want to spend your time and money trampling over the hills and valleys looking for them, I'll regard you as a fool. But you still might prove me wrong by coming back with a few live-trapped Taffy-phants. You don't, however, get to catch a frog, paint it grey, and tell me that it's a miniature semiaquatic elephant.

 

[CFLarsen]

Unfortunately, this describes a lot of "real" science as well. For example, my former roomate at one point was involved in a lab that was looking for "the mass of the top quark." As I recall, they didn't find it -- another competing group found it first (and won the Nobel prize for it).

There's nothing wrong with deciding beforehand what you're going to look for, as long as you treat the evidence fairly when you find it.

There's a difference between posing a hypothesis based on previous findings, and posing a hypothesis based on religious dogma.

But that's kind of the point. I have no objection to someone believing God exists and looking for evidence to support his belief (except for the fact that it's probably a Waste of Money, Brains, And Time). If the evidence does exist, it's almost certainly not going to hop out of the grass and into his lap -- he's going to need to go looking for it, and the only reason he will look in the first place is because he believes it's there to be found.

Why wouldn't it "hop out of the grass and into his lap"?

It's when he starts misrepresenting the evidence that he found to make it say something ti doesn't that I have problems.

No. The problem starts with the premise: That God exists.

If you want to tell me that you think there are elephants living wild in northern Wales, I won't believe you. If you want to spend your time and money trampling over the hills and valleys looking for them, I'll regard you as a fool. But you still might prove me wrong by coming back with a few live-trapped Taffy-phants. You don't, however, get to catch a frog, paint it grey, and tell me that it's a miniature semiaquatic elephant.

Again, the difference is that we know a great deal about elephants and their whereabouts. We know that they haven't been spotted in Northern Wales (at least not indigenous!), we know that they live in Africa and Asia (and not in the Americas). Not because they choose to, but because the Welsh habitat is unsuitable for elephants.

With ID-Creationism, the starting point is that God exists. Not based on evidence, but on pure faith.

 

[drkitten]

Why wouldn't it "hop out of the grass and into his lap"?

Because science doesn't work that way -- the mass of the top quark didn't hop out of the grass and into someone's lap, either. After five hundred or so years of science, most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked, which is why scientific experiments are becoming so expensive to run.

No. The problem starts with the premise: That God exists.

That's not a problem. Lots of scientific experiments start with a premise with which others disagree. The problem is not with the starting point, but with the handling of evidence in light of the starting point.

 

[woodguard]

So SETI is looking for the data. When they find something and try to show it is too complex to be natural.

Then they will be as good as ID. How they don’t even have any data.

 

[woodguard]

I was thinking about this and the only reason that SETI and ID are different, are People researching ID are lairs and cheats(all of them)?

But no one has given a reason that is not slander against the people.

 

[gnome]

Suits. Definitely suits. They're aliens for heck's sake, it's unprecedented. We should look our best.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I was thinking about this and the only reason that SETI and ID are different, are People researching ID are lairs and cheats(all of them)?

But no one has given a reason that is not slander against the people.

BZZZZZT!!!! Wrong answer, thank you for playing.

The difference between ID and SETI has nothing to do with anyone being or not being a liar or a cheat, it has everything to do with the claims and methodologies involved. Nice straw man though.

 

[AWPrime]

SETI = A lot of wishfull thinking

 

[drkitten]

So SETI is looking for the data. When they find something and try to show it is too complex to be natural.

No. "When" they find something, they will examine it to see if it is too complex to be natural.

The key difference? They haven't picked something to show before they've looked at the data.

It's the difference between looking for the tallest person in the department and trying to show that he's more than 205cm tall, and looking for the tallest person in the department and measuring him to see how tall he is. What if he's only 203 cm tall? Are you going to try to show something that isn't true?

If so, you're not doing science -- and probably an ID proponent.

If you will simply take the measurements and report what you find -- you're doing science.

 

[chance]

I was under the impression that the gathering of the data piggy backs on other research, e.g. the “SETI filtering” can use all and any data from a radio telescope. It’s not like they are using up valuable telescope time.

 

[Strider1974]

In the Science of Discworld books scientists Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen make an interesting point (this is where I remember the quote). That is that perfectly compressed information contains no patterns, because a pattern can be defined and so used to further compress the information. How then do you tell the difference between black body radiation and a perfectly compressed signal? Without a key they both appear to be random.
So even if SETI or anyone else was to find a signal from a more advanced race the odds are we wouldn't even recognise it for what it is.

I personally believe they have as much chance of success as someone winning the JREF $1 Million Challenge but they are conducting the experiment scientifically and they have made no claims so I vote for science.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because science doesn't work that way -- the mass of the top quark didn't hop out of the grass and into someone's lap, either. After five hundred or so years of science, most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked, which is why scientific experiments are becoming so expensive to run.

And after five hundred or so years of science, we have found absolutely no evidence of God, but plenty of evidence that there is no God.

That's not a problem. Lots of scientific experiments start with a premise with which others disagree. The problem is not with the starting point, but with the handling of evidence in light of the starting point.

It is a problem, because the premise is that God - something supernatural - exists. If they assumed that the answer isn't supernatural, then it would not be a problem.

 

[Euromutt]

We cannot separate the idea of Intelligent Design from the idea of God. That is buying into their deceit: That it is possible to argue a "designer" without arguing God. It isn't. We would assume the answer before we even ask the question.

Here I have to disagree. I would concur that it's impossible to separate the concept of Intelligent Design from a god, in that a being capable of creating the Universe could hardly be termed otherwise, but that still leaves room for the possibility that we're dealing with a more woolly deistic/pantheistic "God of/in Nature" rather than the theistic "bearded bloke on a cloud" God of Abraham. One of the points where the ID movement parts ways with science is in tacitly assuming that any "evidence" (I use the term loosely) of a Designer does not point to just any god, but specifically to God.

I agree with Huntsman that, in theory, research into Intelligent Design could be conducted in a scientific manner. However, this would require that the ID crowd be receptive to evidence that the Designer be something other than God (e.g. the FSM), that the Designer might not be intelligent, or might not exist all together. In practice, of course, ID is nothing other than "Creationism in a lab coat," but the point is that that lab coat could still be perfectly serviceable if it were stripped off the Creationist (and thoroughly laundered) and put on an actual practitioner of the scientific method, even if it was a Creationist who had "ID" embroidered on the breast pocket in the first place.

So SETI is looking for the data. When they find something and try to show it is too complex to be natural.

Woodguard, here's a line I suspect you're going to encountering a lot on this site:

Evidence?

What evidence do you have upon which to base your assertion that when SETI uncovers what it considers to be an anomalous signal, it will deliberately misinterpret that data to support its predetermined conclusion? I can answer that: none. It hasn't happened yet, so you have zero reason to assume that it will ever happen.

Moreover, in your increasingly tedious campaign to draw parallels between SETI and the Discovery Instititute, you commit the fallacy of equivocation. You argue that both SETI and ID are looking for "something too complex to be natural." What you fail to acknowledge is that, in the case of ID, "too complex to be natural" implies something supernatural, i.e. something inexpicable within a naturalistic worldview, and not conforming to the known laws of physics. In the case of SETI, however, "too complex to be natural" implies something artificial; this is explicable within a naturalistic worldview, as humans create artifical things every day.

A word of advice: much of the path to becoming a skeptic lies in understanding that other people are not as smart as they would like you to think they are. The last steps, however, consist of understanding that you, too, may not be as smart as you would like to think you are.

Let us meditate upon this truth now... ommmmm...
[segue into obligatory "Tai Kwon Leep" skit]

 

[Dcdrac]

I strongly suspect we are withnessing an new strand of attack from IDiocy supporters, SETI is, I suspect, something most anti IDiocy people support as a valid exercise, so we might be withnessing an attempt to say if ID is a fraud, then SETI is too.

WRONG:

Seti does not say it has the solution before the experiment has been carried out.

Seti does not say they must be out there because we say they are

Seti is using scientific methodology to conduct a search for data


IDiocy and its proponents state they have the answer without having any data, god did it or a designer did it

IDiocy Has not created any experiments that have been peer reviewed to test its veracity

IDiocy presupposes the creator/designer from the word go

IDiocy is a blind belief system that flies in the face of the available evidence and even attempts to distort that evidence

 

[CFLarsen]

Here I have to disagree. I would concur that it's impossible to separate the concept of Intelligent Design from a god, in that a being capable of creating the Universe could hardly be termed otherwise, but that still leaves room for the possibility that we're dealing with a more woolly deistic/pantheistic "God of/in Nature" rather than the theistic "bearded bloke on a cloud" God of Abraham. One of the points where the ID movement parts ways with science is in tacitly assuming that any "evidence" (I use the term loosely) of a Designer does not point to just any god, but specifically to God.

I agree with Huntsman that, in theory, research into Intelligent Design could be conducted in a scientific manner. However, this would require that the ID crowd be receptive to evidence that the Designer be something other than God (e.g. the FSM), that the Designer might not be intelligent, or might not exist all together. In practice, of course, ID is nothing other than "Creationism in a lab coat," but the point is that that lab coat could still be perfectly serviceable if it were stripped off the Creationist (and thoroughly laundered) and put on an actual practitioner of the scientific method, even if it was a Creationist who had "ID" embroidered on the breast pocket in the first place.

The point is that, regardless of g, G or FSM, this designer is supernatural. And, since ID is promoted by Christian fundamentalists, this designer is the Christian God.

I strongly suspect we are withnessing an new strand of attack from IDiocy supporters, SETI is, I suspect, something most anti IDiocy people support as a valid exercise, so we might be withnessing an attempt to say if ID is a raud, then SETI is too.

You are correct: T'ai Chi has vigorously defended ID as scientific before.

 

[scotth]

In the Science of Discworld books scientists Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen make an interesting point (this is where I remember the quote). That is that perfectly compressed information contains no patterns, because a pattern can be defined and so used to further compress the information. How then do you tell the difference between black body radiation and a perfectly compressed signal? Without a key they both appear to be random.
So even if SETI or anyone else was to find a signal from a more advanced race the odds are we wouldn't even recognise it for what it is.

I personally believe they have as much chance of success as someone winning the JREF $1 Million Challenge but they are conducting the experiment scientifically and they have made no claims so I vote for science.

Realistically, the only signal that SETI expects to be able to find with the current recieving technology is a signal that is broadcast deliberately with the intent of attracting attention. An deliberate signal will look very artificial. If you were broadcasting a signal just hoping someone else might receive it, you would make it as obvious and easy as possible.

 

[Strider1974]

Realistically, the only signal that SETI expects to be able to find with the current recieving technology is a signal that is broadcast deliberately with the intent of attracting attention. An deliberate signal will look very artificial. If you were broadcasting a signal just hoping someone else might receive it, you would make it as obvious and easy as possible.

Very true, I hadn't thought of that.