SETI and the Drake Equation are Religion!

Originally posted by Schaden
Elaborate ? Telling me I'm misinformed because I don't agree with him or you without any explanation is bad form.

I am telling you that you are misinformed not because you do not agree with him but because you are misinformed and choose to disagree with someone who is not. I have explained these things in the past and you being so very wrong is what i would consider 'bad form'.

It is a flawed analogy. Sagan wrote a paper attempting to calculate the effects of a full blown nuclear exchange with extremely variable data.
It turns out he wildly overestimated the impact. But there is still some impact.

All life on the planet will NOT end and and there never was reason to suppose that such a thing could be brought about by atmospheric nuclear detonations. Anyone who thought as much involved little science and since Sagan was no fool he was clearly actively spreading disinformation.

Crighton says because the results from Sagan's study were so far off the mark, that Drake's equation is void and thus believing in aliens is a falsehood ?

Actually his saying that both theories involves so little science that they were never worthy of media attention or general interest. The fact that people believe they tell us something about reality is thus i general indictment of the scientific establishment as well as our major media outlets.

No. Whatever the values of the variables in the Drake equation, so long as none are zero, there are other intelligent lifeforms in the universe.

But we do not have much in the line of evidence to suggest any specific values for any of the variables so what use is it? What purpose is there to formula's when we have nothing remotely scientific to enter into it?

That's the usefulness of the equation. I wouldn't count on it to accurately predict how many other lifeforms are out there, but it asks an important question.

If you want to ask important questions ask them but do not make up pointless 'formula's with unknown variables.

I said the Drake equation is not scientific because you cannot test it. Not everything needs empirical validiation for a truth to be recognized. Philosophy has enlightened, giving understanding, long before the scientific method.

Then lets leave the quasi 'science' out of it and lets speculate till the cows become sentient. Don't try to make unscientific questions scientific by bogus appeals to consensus and such unscientific nonsense.

No we didn't ? If you're referring to that meteorite found in Antarctica, there is a plethora of studies and peer reviewed papers submitted explaining natural non-organic causes for all of the phenemenon that the original scientists theorized were caused from microbial lifeforms.

I am actually talking about the Viking lander's that both found life based on the original standards decided on Earth. Those supposed peer reviewed papers have never come up with credible alternative explanations for the results of the Viking lander's. At least one of the meteorite's found in Antarctica can be proven to have come from Mars and contains fossils.

The original scientists still believe it is evidence of fossilized bacterial traces, but the majority of scientists who've looked at the matter do not. At best, it's a debatable question. Stating we've detected life on Mars as a fact is incorrect.

As if disagreeing with reality ever made it fantasy. Life on Mars has been established by quite independent routes and any scientist who says that it is not possible or unlikely is simply lying as there is no way he can have come to that conclusion based on the evidence before us.

You're misreading my statement. I have no idea whether or not life is rare or what the specific density of life is within the universe. But the size of the universe does suggest that no matter how rare it is, there are other lifeforms out there. We are here after all. And yes, that is logical.

The universe might in fact be filled with only one sentient species (us) in various stages of evolution and or technological prowess. I obviously don't believe that it's that simple but i can't say i have seen the type of evidence that would convince me that the universe is in fact 'teaming' with hundreds of varieties of sentient life.

I didn't say teaming with life. I said take a poll and 90% of scientists believe there is some other intelligent life out there beyond Earth.

I i would LOVE to think that that is really what scientist will say in a public poll...

Incidentally when asked this question, much like acceptance in the theory of evolution, a positive answer coorelates directly with the education level of the individual asked.

And it would as if they never had a chance to fill your mind with dogmatic beliefs trough schooling there is no way for them to have convinced you so completely as to remove doubt in any useful form....

"All of those structures on the Moon and Mars"
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're referring to the threads I've seen on this forum, Richard Hoagland's and John Lear's arguments, they don't sufficiently convince me.
Let's leave it at that ?

Well i can tell you that there is a few thousand percent more science involved in those claims and method of investigation than SETI will ever manage.

Stellar


[edit on 9-10-2006 by StellarX]

[edit on 9-10-2006 by StellarX]

"All of those structures on the Moon and Mars"
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're referring to the threads I've seen on this forum, Richard Hoagland's and John Lear's arguments, they don't sufficiently convince me.
Let's leave it at that ?

Amen Schrader.

You get one science hack who likes to explore Mars rover feeds from his home computer and declares he sees evidence of fossles -- well, it would be like me exploring the White Cliffs of Dover in England with GoogleEarth and declaring that I found the remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah.

And as for a strip mine on the moon -- I hate to feel like I need to have kid gloves when referring to Lear, given his special relationship with ATS, but I mean, really? That kind of blanket statement and conclusion just shows a real flawed and short-sighted understanding of geological science.

Paradoxically, I agree with some on here who question the expenditures of SETI, and whether that money could be used for Mars exploration instead. While not in my opinion to prove life once existed there, but instead for the eventual colonization of the next best candidate planet in our solar system to support human life and perhaps even terraformation.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by behindthescenes]

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Amen Schrader.

You get one science hack who likes to explore Mars rover feeds from his home computer and declares he sees evidence of fossles -- well, it would be like me exploring the White Cliffs of Dover in England with GoogleEarth and declaring that I found the remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Well actually there solid evidence ( or do only the pictures they like get to count?)of those fossils but the people at NASA decided to drill in the exact spot thus preventing further pictures or investigation. Look up all the work that has been written on those fossil looking stuff...

And as for a strip mine on the moon -- I hate to feel like I need to have kid gloves when referring to Lear, given his special relationship with ATS, but I mean, really? That kind of blanket statement and conclusion just shows a real flawed and short-sighted understanding of geological science.

Are you a geologist?

Paradoxically, I agree with some on here who question the expenditures of SETI, and whether that money could be used for Mars exploration instead.

We don't need to explore any more money on Mars research as we have more than enough evidence ( even thought their doing their best to hide or destroy the evidence) to make up our minds. What we really need to do is prevent NASA/ESA from hiding the solid information we are getting from all their scientific equipment.

While not in my opinion to prove life once existed there, but instead for the eventual colonization of the next best candidate planet in our solar system to support human life and perhaps even terraformation.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by behindthescenes]

Life currently exists there so talking about past life is kinda boring and silly imo.

Stellar

[edit on 9-10-2006 by StellarX]

While no huge fan of the Drake equation...it is interesting.

Thing is though....just in the past decade we've learned our own solar system may not be nearly as lifeless as we once thought. We've got NASA basically stating there was once liquid water on Mars. Given that, one can surmise temperature, etc. and conclude that some life likely was there at one time.

Then there's Jupiters moons, suspected oceans under the ice, and even possible frozen water on the moon according to Clementine scans/pics.

Suddenly, those variables are starting to point more to a Universe that is teeming with life, not devoid of it. And if this is so, the odds of other sentient beings also increases, as does the chance that some of them may have been around longer than us, and may have learned to traverse the stars as easily as we do the planet.