SETI: Science or Pseudoscience?

[scribble]

SETI has made no claim. There's nothing to falsify yet. They're Searching. Attempting to gather evidence.
When SETI says they've found evidence of ET's the evidence could be refuted.

SETI is based on the claim that there is ETI as much as any (good) PSI experiment is based on the premise that there is PSI.

I think there are a lot of good objections to SETI and it's lack of falsifibility is only one.

Edit to add: read the link that T'ai chi posted, and really think about the issues involved. You don't have to side against him just because he's wrong about other things; that's not very skeptical of you. Of course the issues may not be black and white and a reasoned debate on this subject would be a lot of fun.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Brian, how do you decide to stop searching?

 

[scribble]

From that page you linked to - I felt this needed a (brief) rebuttal.

SETI, however, only requires that it is possible for intelligent life to exist outside the Earth.

Exactly as a Psi experiemnt only requires that it is possible for Psi to exist.

SETI is a field experiment which proposes to definitively answer the question of extraterrestrial intelligent life by looking for the only manifestation of such intelligence that we currently are able to look for - radio signals.

How does looking for radio signals definitively answer *anything*? Even if the entire search area were exhausted, an impossible task, all it would prove is there's no one out there communicating by radio in a manner we can recognize.

As has been pointed out, the better your data encoding, the more closely it approximates compleely random noise.

 

[Brian]

SETI is based on the claim that there is ETI as much as any (good) PSI experiment is based on the premise that there is PSI.

I think there are a lot of good objections to SETI and it's lack of falsifibility is only one.

Edit to add: read the link that T'ai chi posted, and really think about the issues involved. You don't have to side against him just because he's wrong about other things; that's not very skeptical of you. Of course the issues may not be black and white and a reasoned debate on this subject would be a lot of fun.

That's no good then. I agree. We should not assume that there are ET's. If that's the premise, it's flawed.
But, we know life can happen on Earth. If it can or can't happen on another planet is a 50-50 proposition. I like those odds.

Did SETI ever make that claim? If so, I'm disappointed.

 

[Brian]

Brian, how do you decide to stop searching?

You can't falsify the fact that humans are here now. So never.
It happened once, for certain.
How many times has telekineses happened for sure?

 

[toddjh]

Exactly as a Psi experiemnt only requires that it is possible for Psi to exist.

Except that we already know that intelligent life is possible, and Occam's Razor is actually on SETI's side on this. Given a universe of our scale and a nonzero probability of the existence of intelligent life (ourselves), I don't think there's much doubt that other civilizations are out there somewhere; it's just a matter of how far away they are.

Now, I'm with you that they're too far away (in time, space, or both) for us to communicate with in the foreseeable future, assuming they're communicating in a form we could recognize at all. But that's a far cry from comparing the entire concept to psi.

As an analogy, it's akin to a practical impossibility rather than a theoretical one.

Jeremy

 

[scribble]

That's no good then. I agree. We should not assume that there are ET's. If that's the premise, it's flawed.

Brain, if the premise isn't there there are ETs, then what do you think they're looking for?

 

[MESchlum]

I'm not. I asked SETIs proponents to say how it is any different. If you believe it insulting, you just need to explain why you feel SETI is science.


Hmmm...
Pluses:
* Produce actual, testable and reproducible results? Check (data, improved knowledge of astronomy, new signal processing techniques, the next generation of radio telescopes... among other things).
* Willingness to consider alternatives? Check (signals identified as local radio interference, optical searches, work on broadband emissions...)
* Search for corroborating evidence? Check (exobiology, study life in extreme environments, look at star and planetary formation / frequency data...)
* Awareness and acknowledgement of the limits? Check (communication lags, fraction of sky covered, other frequencies,...)

Minuses:
* Refusal to consider the project is worthless? Check (though we may reconsider once we have a significant portion of the galaxy covered - and will definitely change our search scheme)
* Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence? Check (but see corroborating data searches)
* Ignore conflicting data? No Check (we focus on Sol type stars, rather than complete oddballs, for instance)
* Absolute certainty of knowing the Truth? No Check (if you have evidence, we will look at it - though time *is* money, so it had better be good)

Verdict: there is an underlying premise that we stick to (we have not studied much of the universe, there are an outrageous number of stars, some of them may be inhabited), but we're happy to collect more data, and change our search method if evidence (and theory) suggests that something else would work.

So... Science? I'd say yes. We don't peddle miracles, we don't rewrite reality when we fail to get anything (in fact, a fair number of might have beens have been rejected by us before they went any further), we produce testable and repeatable data. Sure, the premise of the research is odd, but we don't hide from what we've found if it disagrees with what we'd like to find. And we keep looking.


So you'd feel justified in comparing psi stuff to invisible pink unicorns, but you wouldn't compare hypothetical aliens who can communicate with us to invisible pink unicorns? [/B]

What can invisible pink unicorns do?
Hypothesis: Whatever they want. Say be sensed by the chosen elite while being invisible to anyone else.
Test protocol: Say they must exist, since your friend saw them. Or have the elite place invisible pink unicorn fodder in a box, move the box into one of ten stalls, have the elite (and the masses) guess which stall the unicorn went to.
Results: the tests have been completed a large number of times, and there has been no evidence so far, despite the sporadic piece of noise.
Report: the unicorns don't like to be tested, so the tests failed. Or they migrate, and were only present during the noise period.

What can psi stuff do?
Hypothesis: changes every time a new psi player / tester turns up. So let's pick one. Say Zener cards?
Test protocol: Say it must exist, since your neighbor's friend heard about it. Or have people sit down, concentrate on cards, find out if they were right (protocol has been horribly mutilated, sorry).
Results: the tests have been completed a large number of times, and there has been no evidence so far, despite the sporadic piece of noise.
Report: repeat tests until one works, point to noise as being evidence. Psi does not test well, so the tests failed. Or it is hard to control, so it's only present during the noise.



What do alien civilizations that choose to construct massive beacons and transmit messages do?
Hypothesis: transmit data for others to receive, in an anticryptographic manner.
Test protocol: observe stars for evidence of unnatural emissions, at frequencies where physics and astronomy suggests transmision is easy (anticryptography)
Results: only a small fraction of the tests desired in protocol have been made, and there has been no evidence so far, despite the sporadic piece of noise.
Report: the SETI Institute is some 800 stars down on its list, none of which seems to be emitting using a narrowband beacon in the 1-3GHz range. Noise has been discarded, and we are using multiple telescopes to be *sure* anything we get is real.

 

[scribble]

Except that we already know that intelligent life is possible, and Occam's Razor is actually on SETI's side on this. Given a universe of our scale and a nonzero probability of the existence of intelligent life (ourselves), I don't think there's much doubt that other civilizations are out there somewhere; it's just a matter of how far away they are.

Wait - you're confusing the issue. Yes, we know that life exists. But that's not what SETI is setting out to demonstrate or find. If it were, we'd be done already. It's setting out to prove that life exists ELSEWHERE - and that is something we've got absolutly no basis to believe.

You might imagine we do, but you cannot support it with any sort of claim. Your absolute best tack will amount to, "Well, there's a lot of planets out there," to which I'll respond: A) We don't know that there's "a lot." All indications are that there are very few compared to other types of matter out there. but more importanlty B) You've got no way to estimate the probability of any planet producing life. Even if we knew how manyplanets there were and it was "a lot," we still don't knwo that the probability of getting life isn't so slim that Earth itself isn't a giant cosmic fluke.


All we know is it happened once. That in *no way* indicates it will or has happened again.

Just as an exercise, I'd like anyone to try to give me a number - any number - for how likely it is that we will find life elsewhere.

 

[scribble]

What do alien civilizations that choose to construct massive beacons and transmit messages do?
Hypothesis: transmit data for others to receive, in an anticryptographic manner.

I think you're making an unfair comparison here (nevermind that T'ai Chi asked for it)... Which is simply this: you compared the entire range of Psi (saying that there is no one hypothesis to test) with the single test of SETI. If instead you made the fair comparison of all Psi with all looking for little green men, you would probably find the comparison more apt. There is no single hypothesis to be made of "ET exists," - if we exhaust the possibilities that SETI is looking at, there's still other ones out there.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's setting out to prove that life exists ELSEWHERE - and that is something we've got absolutly no basis to believe.

Why not? Why assume that it can only happen here? That would be a close-minded approach.

All we know is it happened once. That in *no way* indicates it will or has happened again.

Not entirely true, either. We have plenty of indications that conditions similar to where we find life here on Earth - volcanos and oceanic sulphur springs - exist in other places.

We've seen that life is incredibly good at spreading out into very different environments, from extremely cold climates, to extremely hot climates, even when oxygen is absent.

Add to that: It seems that life began very, very early on Earth, and the conditions were not that different from what we see elsewhere in the Universe.

The more we learn, the more likely it seems that life can exist outside Earth. The recent Mars findings look very interesting, to say the least. Probably not green tentacled bug-eyed Martians, but perhaps microscopic life forms? Not impossible at all.

SETI is a hell of a lot cheaper than a mission to Mars, too....

 

[rockoon]

We are also switching to digital, which, when optimally encoded, resembles random noise even if it is a powerful enough signal to reach another star.

hmm.. It seems to me that you could in theory distinguish between random noise and optimally encoded signals.

Optimally encoded signals are irreducible by design while random noise will sometimes be reducible.

 

[scribble]

Why not? Why assume that it can only happen here? That would be a close-minded approach.

I don't assume that. I'm saying we have *no way of knowing* if it can only happen here. Why assume that you can find it by looking at the things SETI looks at? Or anything else? What makes you think, even making the incredible assumption that it's out there, that we can find it at all?

Not entirely true, either. We have plenty of indications that conditions similar to where we find life here on Earth - volcanos and oceanic sulphur springs - exist in other places.

We've seen that life is incredibly good at spreading out into very different environments, from extremely cold climates, to extremely hot climates, even when oxygen is absent.

Add to that: It seems that life began very, very early on Earth, and the conditions were not that different from what we see elsewhere in the Universe.

Okay... you're suggesting those facts increase the probability of finding life elsewhere? How much? Can we quantify this at all? Or does it boil down to some -- definately reasonable sounding -- pure speculation?

The recent Mars findings look very interesting, to say the least. Probably not green tentacled bug-eyed Martians, but perhaps microscopic life forms? Not impossible at all.

If the Mars missions turn up life or evidence of past life, that'll probably indicate some amazing things about the probabliities of life on other planets. What it won't do is make SETI any less ridiculous - SETI fails on many levels, the lack of any shred of evidence for extraterrestial life being only one of the bunch.

At any rate, it's at least as big an "if" as SETI itself, and I'd be glad to return to this discussion if things turn out that way.

SETI is a hell of a lot cheaper than a mission to Mars, too...

Sure. And so are Psi experiments. So is free ice cream to all Chicagoans. Budget doesn't make a thing good.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't assume that. I'm saying we have *no way of knowing* if it can only happen here. Why assume that you can find it by looking at the things SETI looks at?

Well, what's wrong with it? It's a very simple solution, and those are usually the best.

How do you suggest we look for life elsewhere?

Okay... you're suggesting those facts increase the probability of finding life elsewhere? How much? Can we quantify this at all? Or does it boil down to some -- definately reasonable sounding -- pure speculation?

The more we learn, the better we can determine the probability of life elsewhere. Yes, it takes time, and yes, it is frustrating not to know. But we got to try.

If the Mars missions turn up life or evidence of past life, that'll probably indicate some amazing things about the probabliities of life on other planets. What it won't do is make SETI any less ridiculous - SETI fails on many levels, the lack of any shred of evidence for extraterrestial life being only one of the bunch.

It will still mean that life has been found elsewhere - which greatly supports a project like SETI.

Sure. And so are Psi experiments. So is free ice cream to all Chicagoans. Budget doesn't make a thing good.

No, but it does put it into perspective.

 

[scribble]

Well, what's wrong with it?

Er - that's what I've been talking about. It's based on raw speculation and fantasy disguised as reasoned science. It's impossible to know when it's done, it's impossible to estimate any chances of succeeding (except for the discouraging fact that if they exist at all, they must be infnitesimally low), and by any logic tht makes SETI a good plan, I can name for you an infinite number of other, equally good (and probably much better!) plans. Read the linked thread, it's got a number of good reasons presented better than I could hope to present them.

So again I ask - why SETI?

It will still mean that life has been found elsewhere - which greatly supports a project like SETI.

A project like SETI? Which one, exactly? And isn't that a little off-topic? The only thing we could find on Mars that would support SETI is a radio transmitter. If one of those turns up that we didn't put there, I'll eat my hat.

No, but it does put it into perspective.

Yeah. It costs less than one of the single most expensive ventures I can imagine. Forgive me if I don't find that compelling.


Edit to add:

Compare something like SETI to a good science experiement, like solar neutrino detection. There we have a definite idea of what we are looking for, we have a model that says it *must* exist, we have a specific test that will tell us for sure if it does, and if the test fails, we've learned that it doesn't exist.

SETI, on the other hand, takes raw speculation, not a scientific prediction. We don't have any idea what we're looking for, but SETI completely arbitrarily decides Radio waves will do the trick. We have a test that can never be completed, and even if it were, it tells us nothing about the subject it proposes to discover. Unless something does turn up, which even if ETI is far more common than we have any reason to imagine, still isn't likely due to SETI's monumentally limited scope.

 

[CFLarsen]

Er - that's what I've been talking about. It's based on raw speculation and fantasy disguised as reasoned science. It's impossible to know when it's done, it's impossible to estimate any chances of succeeding (except for the discouraging fact that if they exist at all, they must be infnitesimally low), and by any logic tht makes SETI a good plan, I can name for you an infinite number of other, equally good (and probably much better!) plans. Read the linked thread, it's got a number of good reasons presented better than I could hope to present them.

I'd like to hear what you think.

So again I ask - why SETI?

...since you ask us.

A project like SETI? Which one, exactly? And isn't that a little off-topic?

I meant "one such as SETI".

The only thing we could find on Mars that would support SETI is a radio transmitter. If one of those turns up that we didn't put there, I'll eat my hat.

You don't think that finding life on Mars would make the case for SETI stronger?

Yeah. It costs less than one of the single most expensive ventures I can imagine. Whoopee!

You have to take into account that we live in a world with limited budgets. Unfortunately, we can't just pour money into all kinds of projects.

 

[epepke]

Er - that's what I've been talking about. It's based on raw speculation and fantasy disguised as reasoned science. It's impossible to know when it's done, it's impossible to estimate any chances of succeeding (except for the discouraging fact that if they exist at all, they must be infnitesimally low), and by any logic tht makes SETI a good plan, I can name for you an infinite number of other, equally good (and probably much better!) plans. Read the linked thread, it's got a number of good reasons presented better than I could hope to present them.

I've read this thread several times, and I still can't figure out what your beef is.

I wouldn't call SETI science. It is observation, which is one of the components of science. And since we can observe radio signals, why not?

So again I ask - why SETI?

SETI is privately funded. It exists because somebody went out and got some funding and did it. Then they bought some mailing lists and got some donations. It's popular because they used some of the funding to make it popular.

Nothing about this prevents you or anybody else from going through the same process to fund your better plans.

 

[scribble]

I'd like to hear what you think.

You have!! Over and over! I think SETI is poop. I've outlined some reasons. I've pointed you to a page with many more. What do you want from me, blood?

...since you ask us.

And get no reply...

I meant "one such as SETI".

Yes, I think I understood you the first time. You mean a project similar to, but not SETI. This is a critique of SETI we're having here, so it's off-topic, you see?

You don't think that finding life on Mars would make the case for SETI stronger?

Finding microbial life on Mars would suggest a lot of things to me about the possibility of life existing on other planets. It wouldn't do anything measurable to help SETI.

You have to take into account that we live in a world with limited budgets. Unfortunately, we can't just pour money into all kinds of projects.

Now you're seeing my point. SETI is one of those projects people shouldn't be just pouring money into.


I added this to my previous post, probably after you were replying.

Compare something like SETI to a good science experiement, like solar neutrino detection. There we have a definite idea of what we are looking for, we have a model that says it *must* exist, we have a specific test that will tell us for sure if it does, and if the test fails, we've learned that it doesn't exist.

SETI, on the other hand, takes raw speculation, not a scientific prediction. We don't have any idea what we're looking for, but SETI completely arbitrarily decides Radio waves will do the trick. We have a test that can never be completed, and even if it were, it tells us nothing about the subject it proposes to discover. Unless something does turn up, which even if ETI is far more common than we have any reason to imagine, still isn't likely due to SETI's monumentally limited scope.

What would I have us do to find ETI? Not go looking. There's lots of good science that needs funding, that should get money before raw speculation does. Then there's also the fact that I imagine our first contact - if it ever occurs - will be "in person". For reasons that are too complex to go into here, but no less supportable than the wild speculation on the part of SETI. And infinitely more cost-effective.

 

[scribble]

I wouldn't call SETI science. It is observation, which is one of the components of science. And since we can observe radio signals, why not?

The task of "observing radio signals" is good - I can only imagine the things we could find that way. But if that is, in fact, the goal of SETI, they're hiding it behind a ridiculous facade of "looking for ETI." Why multiply entities beyond necessity? If looking for radio signals is what they're good at and they're doing a comprehensive job of it, and ETI can be found that way, they'll find it along with all the other things they could equally be claiming to be searching for. (Quasars, whatever else... I'm no astrophysicist.)

Nothing about this prevents you or anybody else from going through the same process to fund your better plans.

Amen! I'm not going to go shut down SETI and I'm not going to shout, "WHY ARE MY TAX DOLLARS BEING WASTED ON IT!" Those aren't my arguments against it. Soemone started a thread asking if we thought it was good science, and I say hell no, it's not. That doesn't mean I have some beef with it or I want to see it abolished. I don't have any beef with Psi experiements or seraching for God, either, as long as I'm not paying for them - and if someone asks me if I think they're good science, I'll say no to them as well.

I don't have a beef here - don't change the topic. SETI could be as misguided as funding a multibillion dollar search for a unicorn in my pants, but it wouldn't prevent me from doing anything I care to do. That's totally irrelevant.

 

[epepke]

The task of "observing radio signals" is good - I can only imagine the things we could find that way. But if that is, in fact, the goal of SETI, they're hiding it behind a ridiculous facade of "looking for ETI." Why multiply entities beyond necessity?

They're observing radio signals to look for evidence of ETI. This is what they are doing, because that is the thing that they want to do.

Amen! I'm not going to go shut down SETI and I'm not going to shout, "WHY ARE MY TAX DOLLARS BEING WASTED ON IT!" Those aren't my arguments against it. Soemone started a thread asking if we thought it was good science, and I say hell no, it's not. That doesn't mean I have some beef with it or I want to see it abolished. I don't have any beef with Psi experiements or seraching for God, either, as long as I'm not paying for them - and if someone asks me if I think they're good science, I'll say no to them as well.

I don't have a beef here - don't change the topic. SETI could be as misguided as funding a multibillion dollar search for a unicorn in my pants, but it wouldn't prevent me from doing anything I care to do. That's totally irrelevant.

Actually, someone started a thread asking us to choose between "science" and "pseudoscience." I pick neither. It's observation and analysis, pure and simple.

Asking whether it's "good science" if it isn't even science would be rather a stupid question, don't you think?

Your responses seem to be a bit like arguments showing that a '57 Chevy isn't much good as a teacup. The assertion may strictly be true, but what of it?