Is SETI Science

The Pixie

Well-known member
This is prompted by comments by another poster; a creationist. To be honest, I am not sure quite what his position is, so I will not bother to link to it.

I take the position that SETI uses science, but is not itself science.

However, while looking at other views, I came across this blog post, itself prompted by a debate with a creationist, who claims that it is science, which seems a good jumping off point for discussion.

The blog post talks about falsifiability:

A hypothesis does not need to be falsifiable in the sense that it is possible to be proven 100% wrong. All that is necessary is that the hypothesis is testable – there is some observation or experiment that you can perform that will make the hypothesis more or less likely to be true.

Is that true? I started a thread a few days ago on this, where I said:

There are, I think, two things to consider here. The first is science as a corpus of knowledge, the second is science as a process. The former is what mankind broadly believes as the facts of science. Relativity, for example, is broadly accepted and part of mainstream science. It is taught in schools as a part of the body of knowledge. For a hypothesis to become a part of that in my view, it has to be falsifiable

From the blog post:

With regard to SETI the hypothesis is this – life arose spontaneously on Earth, there is nothing special about the Earth and therefore it is possible for life to arise elsewhere in the universe. It is possible that some of that life evolved intelligence, and some of that intelligence developed technology. One method for a technological civilization to communicate across stellar distances is through radio signals. Therefore, perhaps the Earth is being bathed at this moment with intelligent radio signals from other worlds.
Every link in that logical change is perfectly reasonable. The best way to test that hypothesis is to simply look. Looking is part of science. It is a valid way to test many hypotheses. It is not necessary to be able to prove that there are no intelligent radio sources anywhere in the universe in order for this endeavor to be properly scientific.

I think this is wrong. I agree that looking is part of science, but looking for something does not make it science. If I have lost my keys, looking for them is clearly not science! There is more to it being science than that. Perhaps a better analogy would be looking for a tumour in a cancer patient. A lot of science is used in the search, say a CT scan or MRI, but that alone does not make it science.

What is the eventual outcome of SETI? Either they discover a signal or they give up looking. The former will be world shattering news, but will it be science? I do not think so, because neither outcome is falsifiable; they are just statements of fact. We detected a signal/We did not detect a signal.
 

Torin

Well-known member
Do we need a sharp line between science and non-science to say that it is unscientific to "explain" the diversity of life by positing a magical space wizard? That sounds like a line drawing fallacy.
 

inertia

Super Member
Do we need a sharp line between science and non-science to say that it is unscientific to "explain" the diversity of life by positing a magical space wizard? That sounds like a line drawing fallacy.

You will like reading this from Wired.

Sociologists* identify the "line drawing fallacy" in your response above as "boundary work". Boundary work is about "designing and building fences around legitimate science and enforcing ideas about who counts as a scientist, who doesn’t, and why". For SETI and Ufologists, the reasons for this categorization exist because neither have a theoretical framework for explaining how aliens could construct space ships, or providing a model to properly search for scant clues of intelligent beings’ technosignatures, or detecting of a "technology whose nature we don’t yet, and may never, know".

NASA eventually got it right in my opinion.

- “SETI became a 4-letter S-word at NASA Headquarters,” notes a recent paper by prominent alien-hunting researchers. The National Science Foundation then banned SETI projects from its funding portfolio. Astrobiologists, wary of being put in the same doomed basket as SETI, sometimes inched themselves away, emphasizing the differences between their work and SETI: Little green men were silly. “Biosignatures,” chemical evidence of microbes, were serious. Looking for habitable planets was just what you’d do with a normal telescope. Studying how life arose on Earth has direct relevance to Earth!"

...then the Air Force with the University of Colorado got it right in my opinion.

"Those programs ended, and the ufology ostracism truly began, soon after the conclusion of Air Force–sponsored study from the University of Colorado-Boulder in 1968. “Nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge,” the final report stated. It wasn’t wrong. Coupled with other factors, the report helped ensure that UFO research was consigned to the fringes."

A subject on the Fringe.JPG


* a soft science ( my line-drawing boundary here )
 
Last edited:

Whateverman

Well-known member
What is the eventual outcome of SETI? Either they discover a signal or they give up looking. The former will be world shattering news, but will it be science? I do not think so, because neither outcome is falsifiable; they are just statements of fact. We detected a signal/We did not detect a signal.
I think you're being too restrictive here.

If SETI is successful, what it will have produced is a signal which appears to be extraterrestrial in origin; it will not have proven that aliens exist. This is roughly equivalent to almost every scientific experiment mankind has ever conducted, in which a hypothesis exits, is tested by the gathering of relevant data, which is then published for peer review.

SETI either will or will-not detect a suspected signal. To be clear, it has already detected strange signals prior to this date, and while I wont claim to have followed the news that closely, those signals have largely been discarded as either terrestrial or not-conclusive. That it uses the scientific method to do these things is all we need to know when deciding whether its search is scientific or not.
 

inertia

Super Member
I think you're being too restrictive here.

If SETI is successful, what it will have produced is a signal which appears to be extraterrestrial in origin; it will not have proven that aliens exist. This is roughly equivalent to almost every scientific experiment mankind has ever conducted, in which a hypothesis exits, is tested by the gathering of relevant data, which is then published for peer review.

SETI either will or will-not detect a suspected signal. To be clear, it has already detected strange signals prior to this date, and while I wont claim to have followed the news that closely, those signals have largely been discarded as either terrestrial or not-conclusive. That it uses the scientific method to do these things is all we need to know when deciding whether its search is scientific or not.

Unlike academically accredited scientists worldwide, SETI observers do not have a scientific model for the basis of their beliefs. They search throughout the spectrum of electromagnetic energy without a clue where they should "theoretically" apply their efforts, and don't understand the nature of the said alien environment required to produce a sentient, intelligent, technologically advanced species. Simply because a signal is unusual, that alone does not provide evidence of an advanced civilization.

There is a reason why nothing of scientific value has come SETI enthusiasts for many, many decades and why it is not a scientific discipline. The famous Drake Equation contains variables that cannot be assessed with any real precision because they are unknown, and it is a speculative guideline better suited for the field of Astrobiology where hypotheses based on existing theoretical constructs are formed for further investigation.

That said, it would be exciting to find a fossil on Mars.


 
Last edited:

Slyzr

Well-known member
You will like reading this from Wired.

Sociologists* identify the "line drawing fallacy" in your response above as "boundary work". Boundary work is about "designing and building fences around legitimate science and enforcing ideas about who counts as a scientist, who doesn’t, and why". For SETI and Ufologists, the reasons for this categorization exist because neither have a theoretical framework for explaining how aliens could construct space ships, or providing a model to properly search for scant clues of intelligent beings’ technosignatures, or detecting of a "technology whose nature we don’t yet, and may never, know".

NASA eventually got it right in my opinion.

- “SETI became a 4-letter S-word at NASA Headquarters,” notes a recent paper by prominent alien-hunting researchers. The National Science Foundation then banned SETI projects from its funding portfolio. Astrobiologists, wary of being put in the same doomed basket as SETI, sometimes inched themselves away, emphasizing the differences between their work and SETI: Little green men were silly. “Biosignatures,” chemical evidence of microbes, were serious. Looking for habitable planets was just what you’d do with a normal telescope. Studying how life arose on Earth has direct relevance to Earth!"

...then the Air Force with the University of Colorado got it right in my opinion.

"Those programs ended, and the ufology ostracism truly began, soon after the conclusion of Air Force–sponsored study from the University of Colorado-Boulder in 1968. “Nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge,” the final report stated. It wasn’t wrong. Coupled with other factors, the report helped ensure that UFO research was consigned to the fringes."

View attachment 1714


* a soft science ( my line-drawing boundary here )

What about the dissipation of possible singles.
 

Martin23233

Active member

Hmmm why is it that evolution has just vanished (besides in the minds of the evo-devos)? Could it be that their false faith is just that ... a false faith in things that they can't prove? Ok..... ok.... having faith can be a good thing..even for darwinists... it just shows that one wants/needs to believe in something they can't prove ( and no showing a goatsbeard that is not spawning off previous goatsbeards is not and example of evolution... sorry Pix)
Evolution in the Darwin sense has been stuck... a stasis of no changes... ( besides some micro evo changes like the birdie beaks that Darwin documented as changing... WOW... just wow... that is amazing. But seriously any example of Macro Evo has been shot down ..so so easily.


However, it hasn’t turned out that way. Nature seems not to like such orderly schedules much. Evolutionary biologist Donald Prothero admits:

In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
The OP says:
"If I have lost my keys, looking for them is clearly not science! There is more to it being science than that. Perhaps a better analogy would be looking for a tumour in a cancer patient. A lot of science is used in the search, say a CT scan or MRI, but that alone does not make it science."

I don't understand why scanning for tumors would not count as "science".

The OP makes sense when it says:
"There are, I think, two things to consider here. The first is science as a corpus of knowledge, the second is science as a process."

If we are going to say that a process of studying things scientifically is science, then chemical tests, scanning for tumors, and SETI's work would all be considered scientifically performed, and in this sense, performing scientific processes and "science."

Further, SETI's data results about radio waves coming from the universe could in some sense match the definition of a corpus of knowledge, and in this sense "science."

More exactly I would call SETI a "scientific institute", as it uses science to get data on the universe. I would not call SETI itself science, just as I wouldn't call NASA, the Los Alamos labs, Copernicus' Observatory, or other institutions "science."
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
The OP says:
"If I have lost my keys, looking for them is clearly not science! There is more to it being science than that. Perhaps a better analogy would be looking for a tumour in a cancer patient. A lot of science is used in the search, say a CT scan or MRI, but that alone does not make it science."

I don't understand why scanning for tumors would not count as "science".
Why do you think it does count as science?

Is looking for something necessarily science? Does it become science if we use high technology to do so? I do not think so.

The OP makes sense when it says:
"There are, I think, two things to consider here. The first is science as a corpus of knowledge, the second is science as a process."

If we are going to say that a process of studying things scientifically is science, then chemical tests, scanning for tumors, and SETI's work would all be considered scientifically performed, and in this sense, performing scientific processes and "science."
I would say that science as a process is investigating things that potentially will be part of science as a corpus of knowledge - that is what studying things scientifically really means.

The test, then, is to consider the situation where the hypothesis is true. Would the hypothesis be part of science as a corpus of knowledge? That is not the case for finding a tumour. This has turned out to be true in many instances, and yet the fact that a specific patient has a tumour is not science. Science is about generalities.

Further, SETI's data results about radio waves coming from the universe could in some sense match the definition of a corpus of knowledge, and in this sense "science."
Suppose it happens, and the hypothesis is supported... Will it be science? Is it falsifiable?

More exactly I would call SETI a "scientific institute", as it uses science to get data on the universe. I would not call SETI itself science, just as I wouldn't call NASA, the Los Alamos labs, Copernicus' Observatory, or other institutions "science."
Okay, I could go with that.
 

Martin23233

Active member
The OP says:
"If I have lost my keys, looking for them is clearly not science! There is more to it being science than that. Perhaps a better analogy would be looking for a tumour in a cancer patient. A lot of science is used in the search, say a CT scan or MRI, but that alone does not make it science."

I don't understand why scanning for tumors would not count as "science".

The OP makes sense when it says:
"There are, I think, two things to consider here. The first is science as a corpus of knowledge, the second is science as a process."

If we are going to say that a process of studying things scientifically is science, then chemical tests, scanning for tumors, and SETI's work would all be considered scientifically performed, and in this sense, performing scientific processes and "science."

Further, SETI's data results about radio waves coming from the universe could in some sense match the definition of a corpus of knowledge, and in this sense "science."

More exactly I would call SETI a "scientific institute", as it uses science to get data on the universe. I would not call SETI itself science, just as I wouldn't call NASA, the Los Alamos labs, Copernicus' Observatory, or other institutions "science."
Great points - not sure why one would not know that much about SETI and the science it uses. I would hope that (for education purposes) the person would reach out to any one of the 100s of scientists that are working on SETI and ask them is SETI is a scientific endeavor. They would all say 'of course it is'
Maybe the OP is confused. or must mislead.... at a remedial level it is easy to get confused with 'a' science..... and "a scientific endeavor".
SETI scientists...uses science and the scientific method..... to detect the possible signal of intelligence outside of our Earth. Several times they reported that they believed that they found something... but the science behind their findings (after deeper review and scrutiny) revealed a false positive.(using science). ( it is falsifiable)

So SETI is obviously a scientific endeavor ... using science ..by scientists. It is not "A Science" as in the frame that geology... mathematics....chemistry...ect is considered 'A Science'. When one tries to conflate things like searching for a matching pair of socks...or a lost golf ball...or lost keys.... as 'A' science then it seems clear that there is a misunderstanding on terms.
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member
Why do you think it does count as science?

Is looking for something necessarily science? Does it become science if we use high technology to do so? I do not think so.


I would say that science as a process is investigating things that potentially will be part of science as a corpus of knowledge - that is what studying things scientifically really means.

The test, then, is to consider the situation where the hypothesis is true. Would the hypothesis be part of science as a corpus of knowledge? That is not the case for finding a tumour. This has turned out to be true in many instances, and yet the fact that a specific patient has a tumour is not science. Science is about generalities.


Suppose it happens, and the hypothesis is supported... Will it be science? Is it falsifiable?


Okay, I could go with that.
The Pixie...why is that you don't think SETI is NOT a Scientific Endeavor? Your PhD should come in handy here...
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Great points - not sure why one would not know that much about SETI and the science it uses.
I am using science now top post on CARM. But I am not doing science!

there is more to doing science than merely the use of technology.

I would hope that (for education purposes) the person would reach out to any one of the 100s of scientists that are working on SETI and ask them is SETI is a scientific endeavor. They would all say 'of course it is'
Have you done that?

Of course not!

Maybe the OP is confused. or must mislead.... at a remedial level it is easy to get confused with 'a' science..... and "a scientific endeavor".
SETI scientists...uses science and the scientific method..... to detect the possible signal of intelligence outside of our Earth. Several times they reported that they believed that they found something... but the science behind their findings (after deeper review and scrutiny) revealed a false positive.(using science). ( it is falsifiable)
I do not think you know what "falsifiable" actually means".

So SETI is obviously a scientific endeavor ... using science ..by scientists. It is not "A Science" as in the frame that geology... mathematics....chemistry...ect is considered 'A Science'. When one tries to conflate things like searching for a matching pair of socks...or a lost golf ball...or lost keys.... as 'A' science then it seems clear that there is a misunderstanding on terms.
Says the guy who thinks using technology makes an activity science...
 

Martin23233

Active member
I am using science now top post on CARM. But I am not doing science!

there is more to doing science than merely the use of technology.
you still seem to be confused with a scientific endeavor and 'A Science' why would you say you are posting on CARM but you are not doing science... pure non-sequitur there.
We are discussing SETI....and the real science it uses by real PhDs and scientists.
Would you consider AI as a scientific endeavor? (most would by the way)... if you do, and you were just a chat bot..then yeah... you actually would be using science "to post on CARM" would you agree? But since you clearly are not a chat bot...you do what 99.8% of those that access CARM do...and you do it naturally through technology ( again...terms matter when one does not truly understand things.....technology is not necessarily 'science'...luckily which you elude to.
Have you done that?

Of course not!
You clearly don't know so you guess and try to answer in a way that you think might save your blunder....
I do not think you know what "falsifiable" actually means".
From whatis.com

A statement, hypothesis or theory is falsifiable if it can be contradicted by a observation. If such an observation is impossible to make with current technology, falsifiability is not achieved. Falsifiability is often used to separate theories that are scientific from those that are unscientific

Since a previous conclusion made by SETI about observing what they thought was intelligent life / signal of intelligence...which was later falsified...this does NOT mean that SETI therefore is falsified...by no means. - this might help you understand where most people stand on this ( I say most by meaning most that have a clear terminology on what constitutes 'science' whether it is a light version or deeply involved one:)
Says the guy who thinks using technology makes an activity science...
Can you quote where 'the guy thinks using technology makes an activity science.."? would love to see where you are coming up with your stuff.... it is how the technology is being used...not just you trying to post on CARM using technology.
Please try to respond honestly - it was probably just a misunderstanding you had with what somebody posted but, if we can be honest about what we 'claim' others posted things go swell - (simple search of this thread proves this out by the way) TIA
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
I am using science now top post on CARM. But I am not doing science!

there is more to doing science than merely the use of technology.
This is kind of a strange thread, like someone claiming that the earth is not a sphere because it is technically slightly ovular and not 100% spherical.

If you hear stories of a Komodo dragon in Malaysia 200 years ago, you can do a scientific study to see if it exists. You can go to Malaysia, and search the islands for it, look for nests, scat, eggs, etc. You are using the scientific method, trial and error, keeping a log, process of deduction etc.

You can do the same thing with other "cryptoids" like the Loch Ness monster or the Yeti, whether you know whether they exist or not. You can make a scientific radar scan of the bottom of Loch Ness. Researchers have done that to investigate the story of Loch Ness's "Monster."

If there are legends of a bat, giant dragonfly, or mysterious floating white orb ball that emits radio waves. you can set up radio receivers to test whether such a thing happens in a certain area.

SETI sets up radio receivers to test an analogous hypothesis, about ETs. Colloquially speaking, SETI "does science", ie. uses scientific methods to generate data relating to a scientific hypothesis.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Would you consider AI as a scientific endeavor? (most would by the way)... if you do, and you were just a chat bot..then yeah... you actually would be using science "to post on CARM" would you agree? But since you clearly are not a chat bot...you do what 99.8% of those that access CARM do...and you do it naturally through technology ( again...terms matter when one does not truly understand things.....technology is not necessarily 'science'...luckily which you elude to.
I am not sufficiently familiar with AI research to say. Perhaps you could say why you think it is science?

You clearly don't know so you guess and try to answer in a way that you think might save your blunder....

From whatis.com

A statement, hypothesis or theory is falsifiable if it can be contradicted by a observation. If such an observation is impossible to make with current technology, falsifiability is not achieved. Falsifiability is often used to separate theories that are scientific from those that are unscientific
Wow, you can quote experts.

Can you should how this applies to SETI?

Since a previous conclusion made by SETI about observing what they thought was intelligent life / signal of intelligence...which was later falsified...this does NOT mean that SETI therefore is falsified...by no means. - this might help you understand where most people stand on this ( I say most by meaning most that have a clear terminology on what constitutes 'science' whether it is a light version or deeply involved one:)
So you are saying it is NOT falsifiable? I mean, I agree, but surely you are trying to show that is is science, and therefore is falsifiable?

Can you quote where 'the guy thinks using technology makes an activity science.."?
Sure. See post #13.

"So SETI is obviously a scientific endeavor ... using science ..by scientists."

Had you forgotten? This appears to be your only argument.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
If you hear stories of a Komodo dragon in Malaysia 200 years ago, you can do a scientific study to see if it exists. You can go to Malaysia, and search the islands for it, look for nests, scat, eggs, etc. You are using the scientific method, trial and error, keeping a log, process of deduction etc.
Is that really what you think the scientific method is?

You might want to read up on it before posting again. Drawing predictions and then testing them is a vital part of the process.

You can do the same thing with other "cryptoids" like the Loch Ness monster or the Yeti, whether you know whether they exist or not. You can make a scientific radar scan of the bottom of Loch Ness. Researchers have done that to investigate the story of Loch Ness's "Monster."
And that does not make it science.

You seem to think that looking for the Loch Ness monster by just watching the lake is not science, but if you use fancy technology to do it, that makes it science.

SETI sets up radio receivers to test an analogous hypothesis, about ETs. Colloquially speaking, SETI "does science", ie. uses scientific methods to generate data relating to a scientific hypothesis.
Again, there is more to doing science that using fancy technology.
 
Top