SETI: Science or Pseudoscience?

[T'ai Chi]

tai'chi and scribble - it seems that your entire argument has degenerated into " SETI is not worth time and/or money" whereas the original question is, "Is it science?" Although I personally believe that it IS worth it, it really doesn't matter. It is not using any of my money or your money (unless you are a private donor, which I highly doubt...)

It does not seem currently worth time and money because it is ill conceived.

Now, if you actually believe that it is not science, then please tell us why...

It is up to those claiming it is science to tell us why it meets the criteria of science, not the other way around.

Looking for pink unicorns, if conducted properly, could be considered science. Is it a futile excercise? Yes, I think so... Is looking for ET a futile excercise? Well, everyone is entitled to his own opinion on that.

That depends, are the ETs the same as unicorns?

 

[scribble]

tai'chi and scribble - it seems that your entire argument has degenerated into " SETI is not worth time and/or money" whereas the original question is, "Is it science?"

Uh... no. My stance is SETI is ridiculous bad science. That's *why* I feel it's a waste of money. It can be both bad science and a waste of money, which is what i'm saying.

If it was spending taxpayer money then maybe you could complain, but it is privately funded, so why do you care?

I don't particularly care. I said this once already. Someone asked if I think SETI is good science. I think it's crap. I said so. I'm not out to attack SETI or ruin your dreams of finding space aliens.

My answer to the question of "Is SETI complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, or science?" is: it's complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ carried out in an ostensibly scientific MANNER.

I said this in my very first post, yet you and epepke seem unable to understand it.

Now, if you actually believe that it is not science, then please tell us why...

I did. Several times - that what this whole thread has been about. Here's only one example:

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.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Monster of Loch Ness Teleportation, perhaps ? Some experiments have already succeeded.

Do I understand you here? We have successfully done this?

Beam me up, Scotty

 

[toddjh]

Do I understand you here? We have successfully done this?
Beam me up, Scotty

Sort of. We've used a bag of tricks to duplicate the quantum state of a series of photons (I think...) from one location to another. Real teleportation of macroscopic objects is probably a practical impossibility, though.

http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/teleport.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2049048.stm

Jeremy

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

SETI doesn't claim to be able to demonstrate whether there is intelligent life somewhere within the universe. It only addresses the question of whether radio signals are being sent out in the neighborhood of Earth.

I would be more impressed with scribble's argument if he showed some sign of understanding just what SETI is and does.

 

[scribble]

I would be more impressed with scribble's argument if he showed some sign of understanding just what SETI is and does.

And I'd be more impressed with your reply if you took the time to try to teach, rather than just cutting things apart. At least when I complain about SETI I explain what I feel is a problem and why, I don't just go, "That's stupid, and so is your argument."

Explain to me, if you will, how much of SETI's effort is involved in finding ETI and how much of it goes to finding other things. Explain to me how the part that is looking for intelligent signalling isn't everything I said it was.

If SETI does more than I am attacking it for, it only changes the scope of my objection, not it's nature.

I'm left wondering why, if you did read my arguments and attempt analysis of them, you didn't see this as an invitation to teach me the things you think I need to know:

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.)

It was meant as one.

 

[RichardR]

This answer is completely ignored by T'ai Chi.

Fascinating.

Yes it is. Also surprising he can't conjure up one of his usual irrelevant rejoinders. Gratifying but surprising.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

If you don't even understand that negative findings are part and parcel of successful science... well, what is there to teach you? We'd have to start at the beginning, and frankly I don't think the investment would be worth it.

Your first mistake was in making the argument. Your second was in not detecting and correcting the first mistake. Your third was in denying the second mistake.

 

[scribble]

If you don't even understand that negative findings are part and parcel of successful science... well, what is there to teach you? We'd have to start at the beginning, and frankly I don't think the investment would be worth it.

Well, that's helpful. I asked you two very specific question in my last post. You couldn't just answer them? If you don't feel like teaching, maybe I can coax some of your knowledge out. (Or maybe you should go try to do something helpful.) Here's a question related to your new claims that I'd also enjoy hearing you answer (in addition to my previous two "please explain" questions, which I realize may have been badly phrased):

What negative findings can SETI produce, exactly? Remember that we are also working with the factor of time in SETI.

Your first mistake was in making the argument.

Yeah, forgive me for wanting to learn. Excuse me for making the mistake of putting forth my viewpoints so that I could hear some criticisms of them from intelligent people who I respect.

Your second was in not detecting and correcting the first mistake.

Yes, it's a huge failing for me to think that learning is good.

Your third was in denying the second mistake.

Well, at least now I can claim to have rectified that.

Unless your next response is REALLY GOOD, Wrath, I'm going to have to lump you in with the people who are here only to detract from the conversation. So far I've given you every opportunity to show that you are here to provide some benefit.

Finally, I added this to my last post, perhaps after you were replying:

'm left wondering why, if you did read my arguments and attempt analysis of them, you didn't see this as an invitation to teach me the things you think I need to know:

quote:
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.)



It was meant as one.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The points have already been brought up... you've chosen to ignore them.

One last time:

1) SETI is not claiming the ability to definitively confirm or rule out the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
2) The choice of radio signals as the medium to examine isn't arbitrary.
3) No entities are being "unnecessarily multipled".
4) SETI has very clear ideas about what it's looking for.

None of your objections and complaints thus far have been even slightly valid. You're clearly not thinking about what's being said to you, and the only thing you've accomplished is lowering our estimation of your intelligence.

Welcome to my ignore list. I hope you enjoy the company of such luminaries as Ian and Winston; your latest posts have certainly been worthy of them.

 

[MESchlum]

Then radio is a poor medium to work with. Signal strength varies as the inverse square of the distance, meaning that it gets much, much harder to detect signals beyond a few hundred light years, unless they were aimed specifically at us -- and why would they be? No one that far away could possibly know we're here yet.


Ah. So you have anything better than radio to suggest? Something that performs better than the inverse square law? I'm sure the varied psi seekers would like to hear about it.

The point in using a directed beacon (i.e. a telescope) is that you direct the power you're sending out towards an interesting spot. With enough beacons (or an equivalent of the ATA) a civilization can broadcast only towards other stars, rather than empty space. A lot fewer targets then.

Pick a likely star - we are sticking to sun-like ones so far, and there you go.

A problem I have with your objection is that you seem to be saying, in effect: "others will only look if they are sure to find us, and we won't look unless we are sure to find them". So no one ever looks. By the same principle, you should never do reasearch unless you are sure to find what you're after - which defeats the purpose in my view.


SETI also assumes that other civilizations communicate the same way we do. If they never used broadcast radio, we'd never find them. Or if, like us, they only broadcast a recognizable signal for a handful of decades before moving on to higher-tech alternatives, then the window for finding them becomes vanishingly small.


We are doing optical searches too, if that is what you're worried about. Our broadcast signals are onyl really detectable about 50 light years away, which reinforces a basic statement: for SETI to work, both sides need to try for contact. Emission and reception. And if the emitters *are* trying to be found, why wouldn't they use detectable beacons?


Not when our ability to detect signals from that far away is nonexistent. SETI only makes sense when we have the capability to search an area in which the probability of finding intelligent life that is trying to communicate is significant. We just don't have the technology to do that yet. Practically speaking, a thousand light years is about it for now; that's our own backyard in our own corner of our own neighborhood of this one galaxy. Hardly reason for optimism.

Jeremy

One thousand light years - one million sunlike stars. A good start.

The ATA is a modular antenna system, allowing us to increase our range and detection abilities over time, rather than have to build a whole new larger telescope each time - so the technology is improving, as long as we keep on working on it.

The technology argument seems a bit weak: you're saying we may have the technology later, so we shouldn't do anything now? By the same principle, we shouldn't think about higher energy physics because we don't have powerfull enough accelerators yet, and so forth.

Yes, we can only observe a small part of the galaxy reliably. Does this mean that we should do nothing instead?

The quote is, I believe:

"If we look, we don't know how low the chance of contact will be. The only thing we know is that if we don't look, the chance is zero."

So what is wrong with looking?

 

[scribble]

Welcome to my ignore list. I hope you enjoy the company of such luminaries as Ian and Winston; your latest posts have certainly been worthy of them.

Heh. I believe I've made my feelings about "you're on my ignore list now" posts clear in the past, so I won't sidetrack this thread further by repeating them.

Anyhow, it's a shame you feel this way, as I'd have enjoyed some futher discussion of the four points you listed.

Considering your obvious "wrath," I'll count myself lucky to be ignored and continue to communicate with the folks in this thread who put forth some real effort and insight rather than bile.

 

[scribble]

One thousand light years - one million sunlike stars. A good start.

Asuuming your estimation of a miilion is correct, my objection to your argument is simply this: your claim that it is "a good start" is completely unfounded. It may be "a good start" like a man who has just examined a single quark in the middle of the Sahara Desert has just made "a good start" on cataloguing every single grain of sand. It mat "a good start" like that only many, many, many, many, many, many times slimmer. Or it may not be. It's raw, blantant, foundationless speculation.

Assume we finally can pin down the Drake Equation, and it says that our chances of finding life are so slim that it's not worth looking. Now imagine that that's a result an huge number of orders of magnitude *more probable* than results the Drake equation is equally likely to turn out.

That made sense, really... I'm not sure I can phrase it better. Curse my metal body!

 

[toddjh]

One thousand light years - one million sunlike stars. A good start.

Only if you think the chance of finding something there is significant. Judging from our own example, it appears that civilizations may only be broadcasting a recognizable signal for a hundred years or so before they move on to something better. Suppose every one of those million stars will develop an intelligent civilization at some point. Even then, with a good 3-4 billion years for that to happen, the odds are still exceedingly small (around 3%) that we'll find anything. And that's if every sun-like star has life-bearing planets.

The technology argument seems a bit weak: you're saying we may have the technology later, so we shouldn't do anything now? By the same principle, we shouldn't think about higher energy physics because we don't have powerfull enough accelerators yet, and so forth.

No, because we can continue to work out the theory in the meantime -- maybe it will have testable consequences later on. What work can we do in the SETI field besides just look at stuff? And looking at stuff is useless until we get better equipment.

Yes, we can only observe a small part of the galaxy reliably. Does this mean that we should do nothing instead? ... So what is wrong with looking?

What's wrong with looking is that it's a waste of resources. There are so many problems here on Earth that need to be solved, and could use some motivated and intelligent people. Solving some of those problems would save lives...do you really think a (probably useless) search is worth giving up that?

Jeremy

 

[scribble]

I don't know why I bother. Jeremy seems to be saying the same things I would, and he's better spoken.

 

[MESchlum]

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.)

Because there are already a number of radio sky surveys that do not focus on the same things we do, because they are looking for something else?

If you're after supernovas, you will dismiss data that could relate to planetary formation, and you won't try to develop technologies that would make finding planets easier.

A "radio search" is an incredibly broad concept, and you need to refine it a lot before you know what you're looking for, or at. What we are interested in could be called "non-gaussian behaviour in the low radio noise domains". Would that make you feel better about the topic?

We might find new and interesting things that way (pulsars, quasars) and though they are not what we hope for, we'll be happy to tell the world about them - but the domain we are studying is one where something truly different could turn up. Is it wrong to say that ETI is what we are interested in, and to look for ways to better evaluate the odds of finding it?

And yes, I'd be interested to know why you think that physical means are a better communication technique. As things stand, they take too long and cost too much, and seem set to remain that way so long as physics work.

 

[scribble]

Because there are already a number of radio sky surveys that do not focus on the same things we do, because they are looking for something else?

That's the response I expected when I asked the question - and it only helps to make my point: SETI isn't searching the are comprehensively; they're focusing on ETs. Any argument that comes down to "SETI is there to find many things besides ETI" is therefore false.

Even if it were true that they were looking for other things as well as ETI, it again only changes the degree or scope of my complaint, not it's basis or pertinence.

Is it wrong to say that ETI is what we are interested in, and to look for ways to better evaluate the odds of finding it?

No, and no. Both of these statements I agree with; you are seraching for ETI and it would sure help to look for better (more sensible) ways to do it.

And yes, I'd be interested to know why you think that physical means are a better communication technique. As things stand, they take too long and cost too much, and seem set to remain that way so long as physics work.

Well, for the record, I meant that we're more likely to have our first encounter this way, not that I think it's the ideal scheme. And I said up front I can give you exactly as much foundation for my belief as SETI can for theirs: none at all. But I would be thrilled to see a thread about "how would you best go about looking for ETI?" OR whatever question exactly you want to examine. It's all fun stuff.

 

[MESchlum]

That's the response I expected when I asked the question - and it only helps to make my point: SETI isn't searching the are comprehensively; they're focusing on ETs. Any argument that comes down to "SETI is there to find many things besides ETI" is therefore false.

Even if it were true that they were looking for other things as well as ETI, it again only changes the degree or scope of my complaint, not it's basis or pertinence.

But you don't seem to object to my rephrased versio of the question: "Non gaussian behaviour in the low noise radio bands". It's what we're looking for, we are also arguing that finding such would be a good sign of ETI (though it may also be something like a pulsar, which is interesting too, if less so). So is the search for "Non gaussian behaviour in the low noise radio bands" science? If not, why not? If yes, what is wrong about establishing hypotheses about possible sources of said behaviour?

And people looking for supernovas are focussing on supernovas. So is your complaint valid against them too? Or black holes? Or dark matter? Or micro pulsars? Or whatever new thing is predicted by astrophysics?

You'd have us study the sky without focussing on anything, hoping that something new will pop up spontaneously? I definitely hope not.

 

[MESchlum]

Only if you think the chance of finding something there is significant. Judging from our own example, it appears that civilizations may only be broadcasting a recognizable signal for a hundred years or so before they move on to something better. Suppose every one of those million stars will develop an intelligent civilization at some point. Even then, with a good 3-4 billion years for that to happen, the odds are still exceedingly small (around 3%) that we'll find anything. And that's if every sun-like star has life-bearing planets.


Once again, beacons. The noise we produce is not detectable all that far, and you are misrepresenting SETI if you assume that we are looking for other civilization's radio noise - we're pretty sure we won't find it!

By your example, the odds of our finding an alien version of Star Trek and pirating the emission for free are fairly low. That says nothing about directed beacons, pointed at likely stars and emitting with significantly more effective power.

And if bigger antennas are used, the number of stars goes up pretty fast too!

Good numbers to estimate by:

# of stars in range if range is less than 1000 ly: (Range/10)^3
# of stars in range if range is more than 1000 ly: (Range)^2
This works up to 50000 ly or so, then the rate goes down. It goes back up once you reach 10^6 ly, when you start looking at other galaxies too.

Set up a beacon with the power you'd need to send a ship to Alpha Centauri in 5 years (using matter-antimatter), and you're powering a 1000 MW beacon for 30 million years. Do the odds look better now?


No, because we can continue to work out the theory in the meantime -- maybe it will have testable consequences later on. What work can we do in the SETI field besides just look at stuff? And looking at stuff is useless until we get better equipment.


And we are improving the equipment - significantly. Through ideas, and practice.


What's wrong with looking is that it's a waste of resources. There are so many problems here on Earth that need to be solved, and could use some motivated and intelligent people. Solving some of those problems would save lives...do you really think a (probably useless) search is worth giving up that?
Jeremy

So is all of astronomy, then, since it does not relate to anything we can get. And a good portion of theoretical physics, because the energies are just too high. And ancient history, because there is so little evidence. And a lot of other things.

I think they are worthwhile, but it's just my n=1 choice.

And the nice idea about ETI versus other "wastes" of money is that when (yes, I'm being dogmatic again) we find something, the odds, as you have computed them for me, are very high the others will be a few million years ahead of us (if not more). Do you think they'll have found anything valuable over that time? Things we may want to learn? Feel free to ignore this last paragraph if it seems to optimistic or unlikely. I like the idea, but I'm not completely sold on it myself.

 

[toddjh]

So is all of astronomy, then, since it does not relate to anything we can get. And a good portion of theoretical physics, because the energies are just too high. And ancient history, because there is so little evidence. And a lot of other things.

Those statements are demonstrably false. The computer you're using right now is a direct result of the theoretical physics of 50 years ago, and new advancements are coming all the time as people turn theory into practice.

In other words, those types of research have a proven track record when it comes to helping people out. SETI does not.

And the nice idea about ETI versus other "wastes" of money is that when (yes, I'm being dogmatic again) we find something

You admit that you are not objective, and expect other people to take what you say seriously? Why is that?

Do you think they'll have found anything valuable over that time? Things we may want to learn? Feel free to ignore this last paragraph if it seems to optimistic or unlikely. I like the idea, but I'm not completely sold on it myself.

I think there are two possibilities: first, that communications are limited to the speed of light, in which case response times are going to be too slow for it to be particularly worthwhile. If FTL communications are possible, I doubt that advanced civilizations are going to bother fiddling around with radio-obsessed primitives like ourselves.

All assuming that these advanced civilizations will want to "educate" us. Since when did any human civilization give technology and assistance to a less-advanced one with no strings attached?

Jeremy