Nice response, Johnson:
yes. that's correct. Did you see Geo's link that gives a brief explanation of what SETI is searching for?
Look at if you haven't already. It's a great little article.
First of all, Sagan himself is not an expert on alien intelligence, advanced alien civilizations, alien language, or alien communication transmissions/ and or methods. A progression of prime number beats would possibly
be a "dead-ringer" for an attempt at communication by a HUMAN, not an alien. That is a projection fallacy: - we are intelligent. we would attempt communication this way. we would signal this way, therefore, this is what we should be looking for and if we find it, it's "intelligence"
I think you're right with the above comment. And that's how I as a layman imagine how things would unfold.
However, what I understood from the link Geo provided, SETI isn't actually looking for patterns.
Here is a quote from Geo's link: (emphasis mine)
My question is how would the detection of a lack of patterns that's interpreted as an intelligent communication be falsified if we don't have anything to compare it to that's alien? How would the scientific method be applied here?
We know its natural phenomena that's up there in the sky.
What we don't know is a) how much is out there and, b) how much of it is noise we've never heard, is capable of masking an intelligent signal, or c) if something that doesn't appear to be a binary intelligent signal IS in fact an intelligent signal.
What's the criteria that's distinguishing all this?
And how many patterns of primes are we talking about?
It's abandoned when nobody wants to privately fund it any more. It's already been abandoned by public funding.
So anyone willing to donate is free to do so. I don't see anything wrong with that and hope it continues.
But the question is, if this was public funded science, how long would we fund it just because we are told it's a valid scientific experiment - despite zero progress and zero evidence for over 20 years?
Science isn't practiced in a vacuum.
Right. Then it ceases to become a working hypothesis.
Is a hypothesis that produces nothing after 20 years still a scientific hypothesis?
Maybe in your heart it still is. In the scientific community, it dies.
be shown to carry coded content??
therefore what? It's got to be intelligent??
we aren't saying that about DNA, are we?