Life on Earth is another indicator. The study of extremophiles is relatively new and indicates life is much hardier than we knew 50 years ago. Life is found virtually everywhere we look on Earth, including around super-hot hydrothermal ocean vents and bacteria thousands of feet below the Earth's surface. Just a few weeks ago researchers found fish and other aquatic animals in a lake below several thousand feet of ice in Antarctica.

So again although you agree with the project, I hope that helps explain why we're doing it.

Another question that seems to nag you (even though the project is worthwhile) is how long should we search for ET? Interbaned allowed 1K years. Who knows at this point? Evidently you do not think we should stop now. The search has been extremely low key, something like sampling a cup of water out of the ocean. We spend a tiny amount money on SETI compared to military spending or the CERN LHC, so I'd say keep going until we complete a serious search of our neighborhood in the galaxy. If nothing is found at that point, human interest will probably dry up...

That's fine. But we're looking for "intelligent" life when alien intelligence has not been clearly defined.
If you want to keep referencing yourself as evidence of alien intelligence, I guess you could.
The "lookie-me, selfie" hypothesis is a start, if you start with no clear definition of alien intelligence, or alien LIFE for that matter.
You seem to be on the same train of people who believe they'll know alien intelligence when they see it.



What's an "Interbaned"?

Until we complete a serious search of our neighborhood in the galaxy??
What does the word "serious" mean in this context?

There are several hundred BILLION stars in our galaxy.
Exo planets could in Goldilocks zones could be in the millions.
A broad search does not necessarily mean a thorough search.

Okay, fine. I get it.
A touch of faith is not always a bad thing. Even for science.

Efficacious; This is a word I would use in describing this chapter. Carl Sagan, presented through various examples the advantage science has, when dealing with a variety of disciplines, science as a community, has the built-in structure of effective checks and balances that many sanctioned and unsanctioned organizations lack, including most if not all governments. It would be foolish and naïve to think of science as being in some lofty realm of course, but I imagine the doctoral community as being humbled on a regular basis, failure for them, is a foundation from which they build, its why its called experimentation. Science is not typically in the business of obfuscation, science as CS presents it in this chapter, is unlike so many other entities we encounter in our daily lives. How refreshing is it to get honest straight forward answers, rather than sales pitches, double speak, or flat out lies.

In the 80's the advice on dairy fats was flawed. A new study has been published in the medical journal, Open Heart. It looked at the scientific basis for the health advice we were given 30 years ago, the claim that we could reduce our risk of heart disease by cutting our consumption of saturated fats.

After looking at the evidence, the researchers behind the recent study say that there was surprisingly little scientific evidence to support those 1983 guidelines and as an editorial in the journal points out, the same is true of current guidelines.

But, we take on board what the scientists tell us because their findings can be proved. We can't carry out research ourselves, we must trust and have faith in the scientists.

In spiritual matters, we can choose whether or not to have faith in what the founding fathers of religion tell us, because it can't be proved and analysed. But we can carry out research ourselves if we are interested enough. If we are not interested, it doesn't matter because the end result will be the same whatever.

After looking at the evidence, the researchers behind the recent study say that there was surprisingly little scientific evidence to support those 1983 guidelines and as an editorial in the journal points out, the same is true of current guidelines.

But, we take on board what the scientists tell us because their findings can be proved. We can't carry out research ourselves, we must trust and have faith in the scientists

.

Excellent points again, Penelope.

What will the people of the year 2300 think of the science of 2015?
That is one reason why I refrain from making comments like "there is no intelligence but ours" "nature is a process of blind forces"
etc, etc.

ant wrote:Excellent points again, Penelope.

What will the people of the year 2300 think of the science of 2015?
That is one reason why I refrain from making comments like "there is no intelligence but ours" "nature is a process of blind forces"
etc, etc.

What it boils down to isn't trusting the people, but trusting the process. All the components of the process have been refined over and over to be the best method we have at gathering truthful knowledge. This isn't to say it's perfect, just that it's the best so far. It will get better. The process is given a measure of transparency(reducing the need for trust) by the requirement to reproduce experiments to verify results, and peer review.

Regarding guidelines, it's tough to go from an "is" to an "ought", which is what the guidelines are. They are just guidelines, and at best can only be based on a small fraction of total possible knowledge. Don't trust the scientists when they give you guidelines, because people are dumb. The process can lead to truthful results most of the time, but having a person interpret this knowledge into how you should eat or live is a dangerous thing.

Penelope wrote:In spiritual matters, we can choose whether or not to have faith in what the founding fathers of religion tell us, because it can't be proved and analysed.

It can be analyzed, and I don't trust them. I certainly don't have faith in them, and they have no process to support their position. It's really just blind acceptance of what other men wrote. I'm sorry, but no thank you.

What it boils down to isn't trusting the people, but trusting the process. All the components of the process have been refined over and over to be the best method we have at gathering truthful knowledge. This isn't to say it's perfect, just that it's the best so far. It will get better. The process is given a measure of transparency(reducing the need for trust) by the requirement to reproduce experiments to verify results, and peer review.

Yes., I know all this. No one is asking not to trust the process, leave our laboratories, and sacrifice a lamb to Zeus.

I also know what history continually reminds us of, Interbane.

It's admirable that layman like yourself is championing the science of the 21st century.
Someone somewhere hopefully will champion the science of the 23rd century.
I'm betting our technology, instruments, and conceptual framework will be much different than it is today.

You're welcome to prognosticate like a 21st century scientific warlock.

Interbane wrote:

It can be analyzed, and I don't trust them. I certainly don't have faith in them, and they have no process to support their position. It's really just blind acceptance of what other men wrote. I'm sorry, but no thank you.

But, Interbane, it isn't all about dogma. I love the writings of Rabbi Lionel Blue - although of course, I am not jewish. But he never writes or talks about 'the rules'.....he just writes and talks about the best way to live and think about our religious life. He is very funny, but profound too. He says, 'Look at me, I'm a small and not very attractive Jew, I'm gay and I am an epileptic - so I know about prejudice'. But then he goes on to explain how to deal with it and suggests what would be the right attitude to take. And I just love him to bits.

ant wrote:It's admirable that layman like yourself is championing the science of the 21st century.
Someone somewhere hopefully will champion the science of the 23rd century.

Somewhere underneath this sarcasm is the assumption that the processes of science in the 23rd century will be remarkably different than they are now. I'm not saying they won't be, but you're assuming they will be. Are you relying on anything more than an assumption here?

I'm a champion of the best process we currently have. Since I happen to live in the 21st century, I guess I'll have to be satisfied with 21st century science.

Penelope wrote:But, Interbane, it isn't all about dogma. I love the writings of Rabbi Lionel Blue - although of course, I am not jewish. But he never writes or talks about 'the rules'.....he just writes and talks about the best way to live and think about our religious life. He is very funny, but profound too. He says, 'Look at me, I'm a small and not very attractive Jew, I'm gay and I am an epileptic - so I know about prejudice'. But then he goes on to explain how to deal with it and suggests what would be the right attitude to take. And I just love him to bits.

It's been the bane of mankind that we can't collectively separate the good philosophy from dogma. We say we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, but the two are proving themselves inseparable, to the point where we should make another baby. Which isn't so bad, seeing as how much fun it is to make babies.

Interbane wrote:

It's been the bane of mankind that we can't collectively separate the good philosophy from dogma. We say we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, but the two are proving themselves inseparable, to the point where we should make another baby. Which isn't so bad, seeing as how much fun it is to make babies.

Of course we can separate philosophy from dogma!! Don't be silly. We just don't label ourselves - because when we do that, we mistake the label for the genuine article. You know, we can't eat the menu, we can only enjoy the real food. The real food being what feeds our souls. That comes from all directions.....

It is fun making babies....I agree......but I've done my share of that now. Now I must complete myself.......and very joyous it is. I have grandchildren.....and I must teach them by example because they can't be bothered to listen.

Penelope wrote:Of course we can separate philosophy from dogma!!

Of course it can be done. What I meant is that on average, our fellow humans have a difficult time doing it. Half of Americans think the world is young because they blindly accept what other men wrote. Can't we feed our souls with food that doesn't contain delusional ingredients?