It seems we are loosening the criteria for what it is that constitutes science.geo wrote:I've posted my thoughts about SETI before. There are some serious what-ifs that seem to make the SETI experiment a highly unlikely venture at best.
http://www.booktalk.org/post94231.html? ... eti#p94231
And yet, I don't think chances for success are among the criteria used to determine if something is scientific or not. SETI is a scientific experiment or rather a series of experiments. Bottom line, you got to play to win. Or, as William Shatner says, at least I'm trying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPBt4IuQEbw
By strict definition, a scientific theory needs to be able to be falsified.
Both bold and open to falsification, Einstein's famous theory was able to be tested and confirmed countless times. That is what made it purely scientific.
But what about a scientific hypothesis? How important is progress to a hypothesis (or as youve called SETI an "experiment")?
It's progress that distinguishes a scientific hypothesis from junk science that makes no progress.
Here is the UK Science Council's definition of "science"
"
SETI may be following a systematic methodology in their search for alien life, but they certainly are not basing their search on evidence of alien intelligent life."Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."
I can personally appreciate the search for alien life of any kind. It would be our greatest discovery, imo.
But our search may be based on metaphysical speculation and nothing more.
Does something unscientific mean it is useless?
I say probably not.
It can be unscientific and yet still be scientifically interesting.