Lanroid;

What you are failing to understand is falsification, what I meant by my comment about astrology, and my comment about YEC.

Interbane knew why I said YEC was science (or should be considered science) as it relates to falsification.
Not saying he agreed with anything else immediately after.

The ideas about SETI and psuedoscience are deeper than a simple dismissal of demarcation because a hypothesis can be claimed.

SETI is a program. It isn't an acronym for a hypothesis or theory, although there may be theories and hypotheses in the program. With that said, falsification doesn't necessarily distinguish pseudoscience from regular science. There are many theories or hypotheses that scientists admit are not falsifiable, yet are definitely science. Falsification isn't the go-to criteria it used to be.

Interbane wrote:SETI is a program. It isn't an acronym for a hypothesis or theory, although there may be theories and hypotheses in the program. With that said, falsification doesn't necessarily distinguish pseudoscience from regular science. There are many theories or hypotheses that scientists admit are not falsifiable, yet are definitely science. Falsification isn't the go-to criteria it used to be.

Its just one aspect of the question. Never said it was entirely the reason.

Let's think of a hypothetical:

Say, at the end of the year, SETI makes an announcement that it has detected a message that appeared random at first, but after careful analysis SETI concluded was non-random and intelligent.

The question would follow - why was source of the message determined to be from an alien intelligence.
Answer - it was decoded as "can you understand this communication"
(note: isn't that the ultimate goal of SETI - to detect AND decode a non random message?)

Nothing else followed the message. other than the normal cosmic noise, no additional communication has followed.

Questions:
Please tell me how the claim that the message was an alien language can be tested for accuracy.
What would the syntax and semantical structure be tested against and how would the conclusion be open to falsification.


Here's something else to think about, perhaps:

Consider the possibility that our current technology is simply not up to the task of detecting a highly advanced alien message from outer space.
Isn't that a reasonable idea at this point after 50 years, despite our advancements?
I say it is.

Now suppose the response to a proposition "our technology is not advanced enough yet to detect or communicate with alien intelligence" is
"But it will be. Look how far we've come technologically speaking since our search for ET began"


Is a prediction about future capabilities enough to justify SETI as science?

It doesn't seem very fair to base a hypothesis on speculative predictions.
Is that how science works?


Yes - I'd say SETI is a research program.
Is it based entirely on scientific methodologies? I'd say no.

I don't see why this is a hard thing to swallow for some people. It seems very naive to think because scientists are working on something it must be unquestionably Science.

Paul Davies is likely to convince me that SETI is pure science. I just don't think Sagan even tried to explain why it is, in this book.
It's as if his being a scientist (AKA "authority figure") is enough to imply that it unquestionably is.

Is that being skeptical?

Yes - I'd say SETI is a research program.
Is it based entirely on scientific methodologies? I'd say no.

It's a program that uses science, but it uses other things as well. I agree. You're returning to this quite a bit, and I don't understand why. Is someone claiming something they shouldn't be? I know we both agreed that SETI is a shot in the dark, but that we might fund it if we were billionaires as a form of existential gambling.

Regarding a message they might find, I appreciate the wisdom of searching for prime numbers. The reason is that prime numbers are the intersection of the two best criteria - the message must be meaningful yet patternless. Nature produces patterns, so even if we find an exceptionally rare pattern, it could simply be some natural phenomenon we haven't uncovered yet. Yet what sort of message is one that has no pattern, yet also has meaning? A sequence of prime numbers fits the bill exactly. There could be a thousand intelligent alien civilizations sending out messages that we'd never find. But if just one of them comes to the same conclusion as us, we're in luck.

Fair enough. And I went overboard by saying that the methodology of SETI is not scientifically based.
That's not entirely correct.

Formulating a sound hypothesis is part the methodology.

If the Drake equation has poorly defined terms, or terms that can only be based on sheer guess work, how is that a starting point for a scientific hypothesis?

And how about taking a shot at what I asked in my post prior to this one.

Were "in luck" if one alien civilization is thinking the same thing we are??
I think a bit of faith is called for here.

ant wrote:Were "in luck" if one alien civilization is thinking the same thing we are??
I think a bit of faith is called for here.

I don't have faith in SETI. I highly doubt they'll detect anything. If they do, I'd say we got lucky.

Lucky? As in science hopes to get lucky with its search for alien intelligence attempting to communicate with us?
Okay.

What this seems to be entirely based on is the following reasoning:
when asked to justify why it is we think life must exist somewhere in the cosmos its often said that the universe is so vast there simply MUST be life and intelligence somewhere out there.

Unfortunately, the aforementioned reasoning contains a logical fallacy of confusing a necessary with a sufficient condition.

Saying there are countless habitable planets is not the same as saying they are inhabited.

ant wrote:when asked to justify why it is we think life must exist somewhere in the cosmos its often said that the universe is so vast there simply MUST be life and intelligence somewhere out there.

No, not must.

I'm happy, of course, so long as you gentlemen aren't squabbling and hurling insults, but I feel I'd like to change the subject since this chapter isn't about SETI or contacting alien civilisations.

There is a paragraph which struck me in this chapter:

In a life short and uncertain, it seems heartless to do anything that might deprive people of the consolation of faith when science cannot remedy their anguish. Those who cannot bear the burden of science are free to ignore its precepts. But we cannot have science in bits and pieces, applying it where we feel safe and ignoring it where we feel threatened - again because we are not wise enough to do so.

This is such a patronising paragraph, Carl. I am interested in science, and because I am not as educated as you were, or I daresay as intelligent, I have to take the formulas and mathematics on trust, but really I don't just ignore it when I feel threatened. There are different kinds of proofs than mathematical formulii. Experience can lead us to belief in the reality of our souls and spirits - I cannot deny the validity of a spiritual life, because I have had too many proofs to the contrary. The trouble is, you cannot write experience down on paper, it tends to be personal. But it is still proof.

Today, we went for a visit to Rode Hall, a mansion house near here, really to see the snowdrops in the landscaped gardens. Whilst wandering around the grounds, we came upon an old stone Saxon cross - all covered in lichen - it dated from the 9th century.
I just had to stroke it because it was so beautiful and I thought about the people throughout the ages, when life was often short and brutal, who would have found comfort in its very presence - long before we had scientific advancement.