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:
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:
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.
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.