Taylor wrote:

lehelvandor wrote:
We can't "mystify" other civilisations' otherwise possible huge differences by throwing out what so far is empirically demonstrated and applicable in all observed range of the Universe (and we are looking for something that may live inside that range).

Thanks for this, despite virtually anything being possible, mystification obfuscates a common sense, institutional approach for ET.

That's nonsense, of course, as no one is trying to mystify anything.
Rather, it's a deep sense of insecurity on Lehe's part and a refusal to admit the very real likelihood that our ignorance when it comes to ETI may very well be profound.

A surefire sign of the disease of homocentricity.


Thanks

Frequently the opponents of science try to limit what counts as science in order to deny legitimate science (it is a major tactic of denialism). To be clear, the e-mailer is not doing that here, and he states later in his e-mail that he supports SETI as an endeavor.

It is, however, a common ploy of creationists. They try to deny the legitimacy of all historical sciences because what has happened in the past was either not directly observed or cannot be run as an experiment in the lab. Historical sciences, however, can still make observations and generate hypotheses that can be tested with further observations. There is even a field of experimental archaeology that conducts experiments to test hypotheses about how things were done in the p

ast.

The above is fucking stupid. Simply FUCKING STUPID.
There's no other way to express it.

It simply is not the case that to question the viability of a hypothesis, or our ability to maintain it as a workable one means that it is the attempts of creationists to disprove, discredit, or falsify the scientific method, or science itself

It's too bad relatively smart people continue to witch hunt and condemn anyone that directs skepticism at either atheism or science itself.

Direct skepticism anywhere but science and atheism!!

I am neither "religious" nor a creationist.
And yet here is the same old evangelical, bigoted atheism engaged in witch hunting again.

Give me a break.


I've said here before that I am of the opinion that SETI and its search for ETI is a scientific research program.

Yes, I've question the viability of the hypothesis it's based on - ET exists and is possibly communicating in a manner we can detect. (although Interbane insanely tried to argue that SETI is just a dumb business entity)

Yes, I've also posed the question "At what point does a hypothesis become dead in the water? When would a hypothesis be either abandoned, suspended, or re-worked if no progress has been made"?
That is a legitimate question. It's not a covert attempt to promote creationism or anything else.
Only an idiot would turn this into a stone the creationist or science denier event.

Really, really dumb, guys.

lehelvandor wrote:... and apologies for duplication, it froze on me and by the time it thawed, it somehow managed to post it twice, despite not having reacted to any clicks for a long time

reading it once was painful enough.

thanks for the apology.

ant wrote:The above is fucking stupid. Simply FUCKING STUPID.
There's no other way to express it.

Well okay then.

But as to the question about whether SETI can be considered science, I think Novella here lays out a very good argument. That's the topic at hand, is it not? I saw the article and posted it because I thought it was relevant. Novella addresses the falsifiability issue as well as a point I've made a couple of times. That the best way to test the basic hypothesis (or premise) of intelligent life is to simply look. That's what distinguishes SETI from pseudoscience by the way. Observation is the basis of the scientific method. There is a basic hypothesis and it is being tested the best way we know how. Even if we never find intelligent life (actually the expected outcome) and we don't really know what we're looking for, we can still look. And why wouldn't we? Unless of course we decide that the cost outweighs the benefit, but that's another question.

Personally, I think that SETI is as much of an exploratory venture as it is scientific. Which renders questions about methodology a bit absurd in my opinion. I think there's a tendency to overthink things. SETI is basically a rough sketch and may always remain so simply because we don't have enough data to do anything more than observe.

from the article:

"The broader issue here is the importance of understanding that science is not one method but a collection of various methods. It is important to a proper understanding of science not to have an artificially narrow view of what counts as science. As long as there are hypotheses that are testable with empirical evidence, you are doing science (whether or not you are doing rigorous high quality science is a separate issue)."

But I've said all I want to say on the subject. The article speaks for itself.

ant wrote:Rather, it's a deep sense of insecurity on Lehe's part

Well, I was the one stating several times our own limitations and what fits and what doesn't fit the proposed method.
So either again haven't read or haven't grasped any of it as what you state as a personal remark is in direct opposition of what was written before several times.

But of course, "painful" as it is, we are back to just personal attacks instead of picking up on any points.

The "mystification" comment was specific to one thing, and in that context - and again you dropped entire context, everything that led to it in discussion and the references made.

Again, we either actually discuss thoughts or just read your overcompensated attacks that are again totally disconnected from what was actually meant even at level of English grammar.

ant wrote:disease of homocentricity

By saying, again disregarding even the easier references to Lem and the summarised meaning of what he postulates, that e.g. laws of enthropy or that anything (again in case it may be grasped) overlapping with our class of civilisation in what the chain of terms in Drake-Sagan equation mean, are just homocentric conventions is just silly. And I won't use the f word as some do in their superior lexical arsenal to make a point
(In class of civilisation, I was referring to the Kardashev, crude but later much refined, classification).

You either don't understand what certain laws in this Universe actually mean and apply, or you're just resorting again to sophism mixed with occasional swearwords and insults. Q.E.D again.

Taylor wrote:





Quote:

lehelvandor wrote:
We can't "mystify" other civilisations' otherwise possible huge differences by throwing out what so far is empirically demonstrated and applicable in all observed range of the Universe (and we are looking for something that may live inside that range).





Thanks for this, despite virtually anything being possible, mystification obfuscates a common sense, institutional approach for ET.

Ant:
That's nonsense, of course, as no one is trying to mystify anything.

Proposing the idea of mystifying an ETI was to me just a caution not to get to far away from known physical laws. We've no overwhelming reason to fear or think that ETI lives in some warped universe or would possess technologies out of scope of ours is there? It just seems to me that an ETI must be subject to the same or similar limitations as humans. Least ways that's how I took Lehel's comment.

I think the key thing to remember is that the scientists involved acknowledge there is nothing certain to their work. There are many assumptions involved, and that's understood.

One recognized assumption is that if aliens are far more advanced than us, then they would have a better understanding of what signal to send that we might potentially identify.

It would be similar to how we see ourselves in a million years. We look back at our own history, and see that our first attempts in searching for signals were focused on prime number patterns on the EM spectrum. With that in mind, we send out signals similar to that, but also including other signals that newly technological ETI's might potentially be searching for.

It's like a baby opening its eyes for the first time. It has no way to know what it will receive, but parents know what to send. Sort of a sloppy analogy, but if you're clever you can see the carry-over.

Interbane wrote:
I think the key thing to remember is that the scientists involved acknowledge there is nothing certain to their work. There are many assumptions involved, and that's understood.

One recognized assumption is that if aliens are far more advanced than us, then they would have a better understanding of what signal to send that we might potentially identify.

I can appreciate the need for assumption, I would liken it more to a need of imagining possibilities, a creative need on their part as well as ours.
It would help if they understood what we may lack in understanding, but can assumption be carried to far?

I suppose all it requires is SETI receiving a recognized alien signal, and there would be a good idea of ETI technology, I'd be a sham if ET had to dumb things down just to talk with us.

Taylor wrote:ETI must be subject to the same or similar limitations as humans

.

Yes something that was impossible in the entire thread to grasp by eminently superior intellect, clearly.

They, even if they are several classes above us (referring to that class system again), exist in the observable Universe, the one where we are searching.
Therefore there are a number of laws (irrespective of their names, how they were ascertained by us and what science WE built around them) that are at work in that entire observable Universe. But this was called homocentric by some, which is undescribably silly.

If I turn it around with the same basic logic that was consistently violated by the superior objective intellect that told all of us this is just dumb:

For a moment, let's assume there are such e.t.i. that somehow managed to operate outside those laws. Let's, without even doing reduction ad absurdum.

Now this is ever so slightly different from what was asserted by some, i.e. all e.t.i. operate outside those laws therefore there is essentially zero chance for us to (possibly, maybe, eventually) observe any of them.

Again just "painful"(ly obvious) but even this consistently fails to be grasped by some while they insult everybody (or at best, it is considered subjective personal logic - but that's already in the comedy category).